40-F

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 40-F

☐ Registration statement pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

or

☒ Annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For Fiscal year ended: December 31, 2017 Commission File number: No. 1-9059

BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Ontario	1041	Not Applicable
(Province or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(Primary standard industrial classification code number, if applicable)	(I.R.S. employer identification number, if applicable)

Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower

Suite 3700

161 Bay Street, P.O. Box 212

Toronto, Canada M5J 2S1

(800) 720-7415

(Address and telephone number of registrant’s principal executive office)

Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc.

P.O. Box 29, Elko, Nevada 89803

(702) 738-8043

(Name, address and telephone number of agent for service in the United States)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class:	Name of each exchange on which registered:
Common Shares	New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: None

For annual reports, indicate by check mark the information filed with this form:

☒    Annual Information Form                    ☒    Audited Annual Financial Statements

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report:

Common Shares 1,166,577,478

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports); and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  ☒                     No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes  ☒                     No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Emerging growth company  ☐

If an emerging growth company that prepares its financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

The disclosure provided under “Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures” on pages 150 and 151 of Exhibit 99.1, Barrick’s Annual Information Form, is incorporated by reference herein.

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Barrick’s “Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” contained in Exhibit 99.2 is incorporated by reference herein.

ATTESTATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The disclosure provided under “Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” on pages 95 through 96 of Exhibit 99.3, Barrick’s Audited Consolidated Financial Statements, is incorporated by reference herein.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The disclosure provided under “Composition of the Audit Committee” on page 148 of Exhibit 99.1, Barrick’s Annual Information Form, is incorporated by reference herein. Barrick has a separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

CODE OF ETHICS

Barrick has adopted a code of ethics entitled, “Barrick Gold Corporation Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.” The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applies to all directors, officers and employees of Barrick, including Barrick’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available at Barrick’s Internet website, www.barrick.com, in the Company — Governance section and is available in print to any shareholder upon written request to the Corporate Secretary of Barrick.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The disclosure provided under “External Auditor Service Fees” on pages 149 and 150 of Exhibit 99.1, Barrick’s Annual Information Form, is incorporated by reference herein.

AUDIT COMMITTEE PRE-APPROVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The disclosure provided under “Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures” on page 149 of Exhibit 99.1, Barrick’s Annual Information Form, is incorporated by reference herein. No audit-related fees, tax fees or other non-audit fees were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Barrick has no off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material effect on Barrick’s financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

The disclosure provided under “Contractual Obligations and Commitments” on page 66 of Exhibit 99.4, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial and Operating Results, is incorporated by reference herein.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

Barrick is required to report certain mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and that required information is included in Exhibit 99.14.

UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS

A.    Undertaking

Registrant undertakes to make available, in person or by telephone, representatives to respond to inquiries made by the Commission staff, and to furnish promptly, when requested to do so by the Commission staff, information relating to: the securities registered pursuant to Form 40-F; the securities in relation to which the obligation to file an annual report on Form 40-F arises; or transactions in said securities.

B.    Consent to Service of Process

Registrant has previously filed with the Commission a Form F-X in connection with the Common Shares.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

Barrick’s annual report on Form 40-F (other than the section entitled “Ratings” in Exhibit 99.1) is incorporated by reference into Barrick’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099).

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant certifies that it meets all of the requirements for filing on Form 40-F and has duly caused this annual report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereto duly authorized.

	BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION
Dated: March 23, 2018	By:	/s/ Richie Haddock
		Name:	Richie Haddock
		Title:	Senior Vice President and General Counsel

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibits	Description
99.1	Annual Information Form dated as of March 23, 2018
99.2	Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
99.3	Barrick Gold Corporation’s Audited Consolidated Financial Statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, including the Notes thereto, as at and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, together with the Independent Auditor’s report thereon.
99.4	Barrick Gold Corporation’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2017
99.5	Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
99.6	Consent of Rick Sims
99.7	Consent of Steven Haggarty
99.8	Consent of Patrick Garretson
99.9	Consent of Robert Krcmarov
99.10	Certification of Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a), pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.11	Certification of Catherine P. Raw required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a), pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.12	Certification of Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.13	Certification of Catherine P. Raw pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.14	Dodd-Frank Act Disclosure of Mine Safety and Health Administration Safety Data
101.INS	XBRL Instance Document(1)
101.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document(1)
101.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document(1)
101.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document(1)
101.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document(1)
101.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document(1)

(1) Filed herewith.

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

Barrick Gold Corporation Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower Suite 3700, 161 Bay Street, P.O. Box 212 Toronto, ON M5J 2S1 Annual Information Form For the year ended December 31, 2017 Dated as of March 23, 2018

BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION

ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS	4
REPORTING CURRENCY, FINANCIAL AND RESERVE INFORMATION	10
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION	10
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION	13
GENERAL INFORMATION	13
Organizational Structure	13
Subsidiaries	14
Areas of Interest	16
General Development of the Business	16
History	16
Strategy	16
Results of Operations in 2017	18
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS	22
Production	22
Reportable Operating Segments	22
Barrick Nevada	23
Pueblo Viejo (60% basis)	24
Lagunas Norte	24
Veladero	25
Turquoise Ridge (75% basis)	26
Acacia Mining plc (63.9% basis)	27
Pascua-Lama Project	28
Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources	29
Marketing and Distribution	39
Employees and Labor Relations	41
Competition	41
Corporate Social Responsibility	41
Operations in Emerging Markets: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls	42
Board and Management Experience and Oversight	43
Communications	44
Internal Controls and Cash Management Practices	44
Managing Cultural Differences	45
Books and Records	45
MATERIAL PROPERTIES	45
Cortez Property	45
Goldstrike Property	52
Pueblo Viejo Mine	58

- i -

Lagunas Norte Mine	65
Veladero Mine	71
Turquoise Ridge Mine	80
EXPLORATION AND EVALUATIONS	86
ENVIRONMENT	91
LEGAL MATTERS	94
Government Controls and Regulations	94
Legal Proceedings	97
RISK FACTORS	110
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS	129
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	129
CAPITAL STRUCTURE	129
RATINGS	132
MARKET FOR SECURITIES	133
MATERIAL CONTRACTS	135
TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS	137
DIVIDEND POLICY	137
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY	137
AUDIT COMMITTEE	147
Audit Committee Mandate	147
Composition of the Audit Committee	147
Relevant Education and Experience	147
Participation on Other Audit Committees	148
Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures	148
External Auditor Service Fees	148
INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	149
NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES	150
INTERESTS OF EXPERTS	167
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION	168

- ii -

SCHEDULE “A” AUDIT COMMITTEE MANDATE A-1

- iii -

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

Assay

A chemical analysis to determine the amount or proportion of the element of interest contained within a sample, typically base metals or precious metals.

Autoclave

Oxidation process in which high temperatures and pressures are applied within a pressurized closed vessel to convert refractory sulfide mineralization into amenable oxide ore.

Block Caving

A non-selective bulk mining method where material is caused to cave towards underground extraction points following the engineered drilling and removal of material from an undercut that creates a pattern of breakage and collapse within the rock mass.

By-product

A payable secondary metal or mineral product that is recovered along with the primary metal or mineral product during the concentration process.

Carbonaceous

Naturally occurring carbon present in the ore from the decay of organic material which can result in an inadvertent loss of precious metals during the cyanidation process.

Carbon-in-leach (CIL)

A recovery process in which precious metals are dissolved from finely ground ore during cyanidation and simultaneously adsorbed on relatively coarse activated carbon (burnt coconut shell) granules. The loaded carbon particles are separated from the slurry and recycled in the process following precious metal removal and reactivation through chemical and thermal means.

Carbon-in-column (CIC)

A method of recovering gold and silver from solution following cyanidation in the process by adsorption of the precious metals onto prepared carbon (burnt coconut shell).

Concentrate

A product from a mineral processing facility such as gravity separation or flotation in which the valuable constituents have been upgraded and unwanted gangue materials rejected as waste.

Contained ounces

A measure of in-situ or contained metal based on an estimate of tonnage and grade.

Crushing

A unit operation that reduces the size of material delivered as Run of Mine Ore for further processing.

Cut-and-fill

A method of stoping in which ore is removed in slices, or lifts, and then the excavation is filled with rock or other waste material (backfill), before the subsequent slice is extracted.

Cut-off grade

A calculated minimum metal grade at which material can be mined and processed at break-even cost.

- 4 -

Development

Work carried out for the purpose of preparing a mineral deposit for production. In an underground mine, development includes shaft sinking, crosscutting, drifting and raising. In an open pit mine, development includes the removal of overburden and/or waste rock.

Dilution

The effect of waste or low-grade ore which is unavoidably included in the mined ore, lowering the recovered grade.

Doré

Composite gold and silver bullion usually consisting of approximately 90% precious metals that will be further refined to separate pure metals.

Drift

A horizontal tunnel generally driven within or alongside an orebody and aligned parallel to the long dimension of the ore.

Drift-and-fill

A method of underground mining used for flat-lying mineralization or where ground conditions are less competent.

Drilling

Core: a drilling method that uses a rotating barrel and an annular-shaped, diamond-impregnated rock-cutting bit to produce cylindrical rock cores and lift such cores to the surface, where they may be collected, examined and assayed.

Reverse circulation: a drilling method that uses a rotating cutting bit within a double-walled drill pipe and produces rock chips rather than core. Air or water is circulated down to the bit between the inner and outer wall of the drill pipe. The chips are forced to the surface through the center of the drill pipe and are collected, examined and assayed.

Conventional rotary: a drilling method that produces rock chips similar to reverse circulation except that the sample is collected using a single-walled drill pipe. Air or water circulates down through the center of the drill pipe and returns chips to the surface around the outside of the pipe.

In-fill: the collection of additional samples between existing samples, used to provide greater geological detail and to provide more closely-spaced assay data.

Exploration

Prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond-drilling and other work involved in locating the presence of economic deposits and establishing their nature, shape and grade.

Flotation

A process which concentrates minerals by taking advantage of specific surface properties and applying chemicals such as collectors, depressants, modifiers and frothers in the presence of water and finely dispersed air bubbles.

Grade

The concentration of an element of interest expressed as relative mass units (percentage, parts per million, ounces per ton, grams per tonne, etc.).

- 5 -

Grinding (Milling)

Involves the size reduction of material fed to a process plant though abrasion or attrition to liberate valuable minerals for further metallurgical processing.

Heap leaching

A process whereby precious or base metals are extracted from stacked material placed on top of an impermeable plastic liner and after applying leach solutions which dissolve and transport values for recovery in the process plant.

Lode

A mineral deposit, consisting of a zone of veins, veinlets or disseminations, in consolidated rock as opposed to a placer deposit.

Long-hole open stoping

A method of underground mining involving the drilling of holes up to 30 meters or longer into an ore bearing zone and then blasting a slice of rock which falls into an open space. The broken rock is extracted and the resulting open chamber may or may not be back filled with supporting material.

Metric conversion

Troy ounces	×	31.10348	=	Grams
Troy ounces per short ton	×	34.28600	=	Grams per tonne
Pounds	×	0.00045	=	Tonnes
Tons	×	0.90718	=	Tonnes
Feet	×	0.30480	=	Meters
Miles	×	1.60930	=	Kilometers
Acres	×	0.40468	=	Hectares
Fahrenheit	(°F-32) × 5 ÷ 9		=	Celsius

Mill

A facility where ore is finely ground and thereafter undergoes physical or chemical treatment to extract the valuable metals.

Mineral reserve

The economically mineable portion of a measured or indicated mineral resource demonstrated by at least a preliminary feasibility study. This study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified. A mineral reserve includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined. Mineral reserves are sub-divided in order of increasing confidence into probable mineral reserves and proven mineral reserves.

Probable mineral reserve: the economically mineable portion of an indicated and, in some circumstances, a measured mineral resource demonstrated by at least a preliminary feasibility study. This study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified.

Proven mineral reserve: the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource demonstrated by at least a preliminary feasibility study. This study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is justified.

- 6 -

Mineral resource

A concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals, coal, and industrial minerals in or on the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and continuity of a mineral resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge. Mineral resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into inferred, indicated and measured categories.

Inferred mineral resource: that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity. The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes.

Indicated mineral resource: that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably assumed.

Measured mineral resource: that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics are so well established that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough to confirm both geological and grade continuity.

Mining claim

A footprint of land that a party has staked or marked out in accordance with applicable mining laws to acquire the right to explore for and, in most instances, exploit the minerals under the surface.

Net profits interest royalty

A royalty based on the profit remaining after recapture of certain operating, capital and other costs.

Net smelter return royalty

A royalty based on a percentage of valuable minerals produced with settlement made either in kind or in currency based on the sale proceeds received less all of the offsite smelting, refining and transportation costs associated with the purification of the economic metals.

Open pit mine

A mine where materials are removed in an excavation from surface.

Ore

Material containing metallic or non-metallic minerals which can be mined and processed at a profit.

Orebody

A sufficiently large amount of ore that is contiguous and can be mined economically.

- 7 -

Oxide ore

Mineralized rock in which some of the host rock or original mineralization has been oxidized.

Qualified Person

See “Scientific and Technical Information”.

Reclamation

The process by which lands disturbed as a result of mining activity are modified to support beneficial land use. Reclamation activity may include the removal of buildings, equipment, machinery and other physical remnants of mining, closure of tailings storage facilities, leach pads and other mine features, and contouring, covering and re-vegetation of waste rock and other disturbed areas.

Reclamation and closure costs

The cost of reclamation plus other costs, including without limitation certain personnel costs, insurance, property holding costs such as taxes, rental and claim fees, and community programs associated with closing an operating mine.

Recovery rate

A term used in process metallurgy to indicate the proportion of valuable material physically recovered in the processing of ore. It is generally stated as a percentage of the material recovered compared to the total material originally present.

Refining

The final stage of metal production in which impurities are removed from a molten metal.

Refractory material

Mineralized material from which metal is not amenable to recovery by conventional cyanide methods without any pre-treatment. The refractory nature can be due to either silica or sulfide encapsulation of the metal or the presence of naturally occurring carbon or other constituents that reduce gold recovery.

Roasting

The treatment of sulfide ore by heat and air, or oxygen enriched air, in order to oxidize sulfides and remove other elements (carbon, antimony or arsenic).

Shaft

A vertical passageway to an underground mine for ventilation, moving personnel, equipment, supplies and material including ore and waste rock.

Tailings

The material that remains after processing.

Tailings storage facility

An area constructed for long term storage of material that remains after processing.

Tons

Short tons (2,000 pounds or approximately 907 kilograms).

Tonnes

Metric tonnes (1,000 kilograms or approximately 2,205 pounds).

- 8 -

Underhand cut-and-fill

A cut-and-fill method of underground mining that works downward, with cemented fill placed above the working area; best suited where ground conditions are less competent.

- 9 -

REPORTING CURRENCY, FINANCIAL AND RESERVE INFORMATION

All currency amounts in this Annual Information Form are expressed in United States dollars, unless otherwise indicated. References to “C$” are to Canadian dollars. References to “A$” are to Australian dollars. References to “CLP” are to Chilean pesos. References to “ARS” are to Argentinean pesos. For Canadian dollars to U.S. dollars, the average exchange rate for 2017 and the exchange rate as at December 31, 2017 were one Canadian dollar per 0.77 and 0.80 U.S. dollars, respectively. For Australian dollars to U.S. dollars, the average exchange rate for 2017 and the exchange rate as at December 31, 2017 were one Australian dollar per 0.77 and 0.78 U.S. dollars, respectively. For Chilean pesos to U.S. dollars, the average exchange rate for 2017 and the exchange rate as at December 31, 2017 were one U.S. dollar per 649 and 615 Chilean pesos, respectively. For Argentinean pesos to U.S. dollars, the average exchange rate for 2017 and the exchange rate as at December 31, 2017 were one U.S. dollar per 16.56 and 18.61 Argentinean pesos, respectively.

For the year ended December 31, 2017 and for the comparative prior periods identified in this Annual Information Form, Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick” or the “Company”) prepared its financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”). The audited consolidated financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Consolidated Financial Statements”) are available electronically from the Canadian System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (“SEDAR”) at www.sedar.com and from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) Electronic Document Gathering and Retrieval System (“EDGAR”) at www.sec.gov.

Mineral reserves (“reserves”) and mineral resources (“resources”) have been estimated as at December 31, 2017 in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“National Instrument 43-101”), as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, Industry Guide 7 (under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934), as interpreted by the Staff of the SEC, applies different standards in order to classify mineralization as a reserve (see Note 8 of “– Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables” in “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”). In addition, while the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources are required pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize such terms. Canadian standards differ significantly from the requirements of the SEC, and mineral resource information contained herein is not comparable to similar information regarding mineral reserves disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the SEC. Readers should understand that “inferred” mineral resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. In addition, readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Barrick’s mineral resources constitute or will be converted into reserves.

Barrick uses certain non-GAAP financial performance measures in its financial reports, including cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce, all-in costs per ounce, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound. For a description and reconciliation of each of these measures, please see pages 69 to 84 of Barrick’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial and Operating Results for the year ended December 31, 2017 contained in Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report (the “MD&A”). See also “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” at pages 150 to 167 for a detailed discussion of each of the non-GAAP measures used in this Annual Information Form.

FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain information contained in this Annual Information Form, including any information as to Barrick’s strategy, projects, plans or future financial or operating performance, constitutes “forward-looking statements”. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking

- 10 -

statements. The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “contemplate”, “target”, “plan”, “goal”, “aim”, “intends”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “could”, “should”, “schedule” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions related to the factors set forth below that, while considered reasonable by Barrick as at the date of this Annual Information Form in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements and information. Such factors include, but are not limited to:

• fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, copper or certain other commodities (such as silver, diesel fuel, natural gas and electricity);

• changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls or regulations and/or changes in the administration of laws, policies, and practices, expropriation or nationalization of property and political or economic developments in Canada, the United States, Dominican Republic, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Tanzania, Zambia, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom or Barbados or other countries in which Barrick does or may carry on business in the future;

• failure to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and regulations;

• timing of receipt of, or failure to comply with, necessary permits and approvals;

• increased costs and physical risks, including extreme weather events and resource shortage, related to climate change;

• diminishing quantities or grades of reserves;

• increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects;

• risks associated with the implementation of Barrick’s digital transformation initiative, and the ability of the projects under this initiative to meet Barrick’s capital allocation objectives;

• risks associated with the fact that certain Best-in-Class initiatives are still in the early stages of evaluation, and additional engineering and other analysis is required to fully assess their impact;

• the ultimate resolution of a dispute relating to (i) the imposition by the Tanzanian government of a ban on mineral concentrate exports currently impacting the operations of Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”), (ii) allegations by the Government of Tanzania that Acacia under-declared the metal content of concentrate exports from Tanzania, and (iii) certain tax re-assessments of Acacia by the Tanzanian government;

• the benefits expected from recent transactions being realized;

• uncertainty whether some or all of the Best-in-Class initiatives and targeted investments will meet the Company’s capital allocation objectives;

• lack of certainty with respect to foreign legal systems, corruption and other factors that are inconsistent with the rule of law;

• the impact of global liquidity and credit availability on the timing of cash flows and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows;

• adverse changes in the Company’s credit ratings;

• the impact of inflation;

• risks associated with working with partners in jointly controlled assets;

- 11 -

• operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities, including geotechnical challenges, and disruptions in the maintenance or provision of required infrastructure and information technology systems;

• damage to Barrick’s reputation due to the actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, including negative publicity with respect to Barrick’s handling of environmental matters or dealings with community groups, whether true or not;

• the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development;

• changes in mineral production performance, exploitation and exploration successes;

• risk of loss due to acts of war, terrorism, sabotage and civil disturbances;

• fluctuations in the currency markets (such as Canadian and Australian dollars, Chilean, Argentinean and Dominican pesos, British pound, Peruvian sol, Zambian kwacha, South African rand, Tanzanian shilling and Papua New Guinean kina versus the U.S. dollar);

• changes in U.S. dollar interest rates that could impact the mark-to-market value of outstanding derivative instruments and ongoing payments/receipts under interest rate swaps and variable rate debt obligations;

• risks arising from holding derivative instruments (such as credit risk, market liquidity risk and mark-to-market risk);

• litigation and legal and administrative proceedings;

• contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties, or over access to water, power and other required infrastructure;

• business opportunities that may be presented to, or pursued by, the Company;

• the Company’s ability to successfully integrate acquisitions or complete divestitures;

• employee relations, including loss of key employees;

• availability and increased costs associated with mining inputs and labor; and

• the organization of Barrick’s previously held African gold operations and properties under a separate listed company.

In addition, there are risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins, flooding and gold bullion, copper cathode or gold or copper concentrate losses (and the risk of inadequate insurance, or inability to obtain insurance, to cover these risks). Many of these uncertainties and contingencies can affect the Company’s actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, the Company. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this Annual Information Form are qualified by these cautionary statements. Specific reference is made to “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources” and “Risk Factors” and to the MD&A (which is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov as an exhibit to Barrick’s Form 40-F) for a discussion of some of the factors underlying forward-looking statements and the risks that may affect Barrick’s ability to achieve the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Information Form.

The Company may, from time to time, make oral forward-looking statements. The Company advises that the above paragraph and the risk factors described in this Annual Information Form and in the Company’s other documents filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities and the SEC should be read for a description of certain factors that could cause the actual results of the Company to materially differ from those in the oral forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or

- 12 -

obligation to update or revise any oral or written forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Unless otherwise indicated, scientific or technical information in this Annual Information Form relating to mineral reserves or mineral resources is based on information prepared by employees of Barrick, its joint venture partners or its joint venture operating companies, as applicable, in each case under the supervision of, or following review by, Rick Sims, Vice President, Reserves and Resources, Steven Haggarty, Senior Director, Metallurgy or Patrick Garretson, Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning.

Scientific or technical information in this Annual Information Form relating to the geology of particular properties and exploration programs is based on information prepared by employees of Barrick, its joint venture partners or its joint venture operating companies, as applicable, in each case under the supervision of Robert Krcmarov, Executive Vice President, Exploration and Growth.

Each of Messrs. Sims, Haggarty, Garretson and Krcmarov is a “Qualified Person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101. A “Qualified Person” means an individual who is an engineer or geoscientist with at least five years of experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral project assessment, or any combination of these, has experience relevant to the subject matter of the mineral project, and is a member in good standing of a professional association.

Each of Messrs. Sims, Haggarty, Garretson and Krcmarov is an officer or employee of Barrick and/or an officer, director or employee of one or more of its associates or affiliates. No such person received or will receive a direct or indirect interest in any property of Barrick or any of its associates or affiliates. As of the date hereof, each such person owns beneficially, directly or indirectly, less than 1% of any outstanding class of securities of Barrick and less than 1% of any outstanding class of securities of Barrick’s associates or affiliates.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Organizational Structure

Barrick is a corporation governed by the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) resulting from the amalgamation, effective July 14, 1984, of Camflo Mines Limited, Bob-Clare Investments Limited and the former Barrick Resources Corporation. By articles of amendment effective December 9, 1985, the Company changed its name to American Barrick Resources Corporation. Effective January 1, 1995, as a result of an amalgamation with a wholly-owned subsidiary, the Company changed its name from American Barrick Resources Corporation to Barrick Gold Corporation. On December 7, 2001, in connection with its acquisition of Homestake Mining Company (“Homestake”), the Company amended its articles to create a special voting share, which has special voting rights designed to permit holders of Barrick Gold Inc. (formerly Homestake Canada Inc.) (“BGI”) exchangeable shares to vote as a single class with the holders of Barrick common shares. In March 2009, in connection with Barrick’s redemption of all of the outstanding BGI exchangeable shares, the single outstanding special voting share was redeemed and cancelled. In connection with its acquisition of Placer Dome Inc. (“Placer Dome”), Barrick amalgamated with Placer Dome pursuant to articles of amalgamation dated May 9, 2006. In connection with the acquisition of Arizona Star Resource Corp. (“Arizona Star”), Barrick amalgamated with Arizona Star pursuant to articles of amalgamation dated January 1, 2009. Barrick’s head and registered office is located at Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower, 161 Bay Street, Suite 3700, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S1.

- 13 -

Barrick’s business is organized into operating segments for financial reporting purposes, comprising eleven individual minesites, Barrick Nevada (composed of the Cortez and Goldstrike properties as described in further detail below), one publicly traded company (Acacia) and one project (Pascua-Lama). Barrick’s reportable operating segments are Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero, Turquoise Ridge, Acacia and Pascua-Lama. In the first quarter of 2017, Barrick unified the management and operation of its Cortez and Goldstrike properties, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. For financial reporting purposes, the Company’s remaining operating segments that are not reportable operating segments are grouped into an “other” category and are not reported on individually. The material properties presented in this Annual Information Form are: Cortez, Goldstrike, Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge. See “Narrative Description of the Business – Reportable Operating Segments”.

Subsidiaries

A significant portion of Barrick’s business is carried on through its subsidiaries. A chart showing Barrick’s mines, projects, related operating subsidiaries, other significant subsidiaries and certain associated subsidiaries as at March 19, 2018 and their respective locations or jurisdictions of incorporation, as applicable, is set out below. All subsidiaries, mines and projects referred to in the chart are 100% owned, unless otherwise noted.

- 14 -

- 15 -

Areas of Interest

A map showing Barrick’s mining operations and projects as at March 19, 2018, including those mines held through Barrick’s equity interest in Acacia, is set out at the end of this “General Information” section.

General Development of the Business

History

Barrick entered the gold mining business in 1983 and is a leading international gold company. The Company has interests in operating mines or projects in Canada, the United States, the Dominican Republic, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Tanzania, Zambia, Australia, Papua New Guinea and Saudi Arabia. The Company’s principal products and sources of earnings are gold and copper.

During its first ten years, Barrick focused on acquiring and developing properties in North America, notably the Company’s Goldstrike property on the Carlin Trend in Nevada. Since 1994, Barrick has strategically expanded beyond its North American base and now operates on five continents.

Strategy

Barrick’s strategy is focused on growing free cash flow per share over the long term. The Company aims to achieve this by: (i) maintaining industry leading margins, driven by operational excellence, technological innovation and superior execution; (ii) maintaining a superior portfolio of assets and allocating capital with discipline and rigor; (iii) maintaining a robust balance sheet that can withstand gold price volatility and support investment through metal price cycles; and (iv) leveraging the Company’s talent and distinctive partnership culture as competitive advantages.

Barrick is focused on continuously improving the productivity and efficiency of the Company’s existing operations, while pursuing step changes in performance over the long-term through investments in digital systems and innovation. Starting in late 2016 and throughout 2017, Barrick laid the foundation for its digital transformation through a series of pilot projects primarily focused at the Cortez property in Nevada. This allowed Barrick to evaluate digital solutions and their potential economic returns in a controlled environment with rigorous oversight. In 2018, Barrick’s digital strategy will focus on completing the first iteration of an enterprise-grade, data analytics platform, referred to as the “Barrick Data Fabric”. Barrick will also accelerate the implementation of digital projects across its other operations, with an initial focus in Nevada.

The Company is also advancing four feasibility-level projects that have the potential to contribute more than one million ounces of annual production to Barrick, with initial contributions beginning in 2021. Projects in Nevada at Cortez Deep South, Goldrush, and Turquoise Ridge have been approved and are in execution (final Board approval for the start of major construction at Goldrush remains pending). Optimization work on a sequenced project to potentially extend the life of the Lagunas Norte mine in Peru remains underway. Barrick’s portfolio also contains a number of undeveloped greenfield gold deposits, providing further optionality and leverage to gold prices. These include Alturas, Donlin Gold, Norte Abierto and Pascua-Lama. For additional information, see “Material Properties – Cortez Property”, “Material Properties – Lagunas Norte Mine”, “Material Properties – Turquoise Ridge Mine”, and “Exploration and Evaluations”.

All projects undergo rigorous scrutiny by the Company’s Investment Committee at every stage of evaluation and development, prioritizing free cash flow generation, risk-adjusted returns, and capital

- 16 -

efficiency. Each project is benchmarked against a 15% hurdle rate using a long-term gold price assumption of $1,200 per ounce and ranked accordingly.

Barrick’s exploration programs strike a balance between high-quality brownfield projects, greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that have the potential to become profitable mines. In line with Barrick’s focus on growing its exploration portfolio, the Company has also cultivated active partnerships with a number of junior exploration and development companies as the Company seeks to identify potential new core mineral districts for the Company. These partnerships include ATAC at the Orion project in the Yukon, Osisko at the Kan property in northern Québec, and Premier Gold at Cove McCoy in Nevada.

For additional information regarding Barrick’s exploration programs and new discoveries, see “Exploration and Evaluations”.

In support of maintaining a robust balance sheet, Barrick is targeting a reduction of the Company’s total debt from $6.4 billion as of year-end 2017 to around $5 billion by the end of 2018. The Company expects to achieve this primarily by using cash flow from operations and cash on hand, and potentially through further portfolio optimization. Barrick intends to continue to pursue debt reduction with discipline, taking only those actions that are sensible for the Company, on terms favourable to shareholders.

Driving an ownership culture across the Company is another key element of Barrick’s strategy. In 2016, the Company created the Global Employee Share Plan, which awards Barrick common shares to employees based on overall Company performance. These shares are purchased by Barrick on the open market and must be held for as long as an employee remains with the Company. As of March 19, 2018, Barrick employees now own more than 1.5 million shares of the Company as a result of the Global Employee Share Plan, fostering a culture of ownership across the organization.

Barrick also carried out the following initiatives in 2015, 2016, and 2017 to optimize its portfolio and strengthen its balance sheet:

• In 2015, Barrick reduced its total debt by $3.1 billion, exceeding an original debt reduction target of $3 billion for the year, through a combination of normal course repayments and early debt retirements. Barrick completed the following transactions in 2015 as part of this debt reduction strategy. On July 23, 2015, Barrick completed the sale of the Cowal mine in Australia for cash consideration of $550 million. On August 31, 2015, Barrick completed the sale of 50% of its interest in the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea to Zijin Mining Group Company for cash consideration of $298 million. On September 29, 2015, Barrick closed a gold and silver streaming transaction with Royal Gold, Inc. (“Royal Gold”) for production linked to Barrick’s 60% interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic. Royal Gold made an upfront cash payment of $610 million and will continue to make cash payments for gold and silver delivered under the agreement (for more information about the Pueblo Viejo streaming transaction, see “Material Properties – Pueblo Viejo Mine”). On December 1, 2015, Barrick completed the sale of 50% of its Zaldívar copper mine in Chile to Antofagasta plc. In August 2016, Barrick finalized the working capital adjustments resulting in final consideration of $950 million. On December 17, 2015, Barrick completed the sale of the Ruby Hill mine and Barrick’s 70% interest in the Spring Valley project, both in Nevada, to Waterton Precious Metals Fund II Cayman, LP for cash consideration of $110 million.

• In 2016, Barrick reduced its total debt by $2.04 billion, or 20%, from $9.97 billion to $7.93 billion, exceeding its original target of $2 billion, through a combination of normal course repayments and early debt retirements, including completion of two cash tender offers. On

- 17 -

January 11, 2016, Barrick completed the sale of the Bald Mountain mine and its 50% interest in the Round Mountain mine, both in Nevada, to Kinross Gold Corporation (“Kinross”) for cash consideration of $610 million, subject to certain closing adjustments.

• On June 9, 2017, Barrick completed a transaction with Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”) to form a new joint venture at the Cerro Casale project in Chile. Pursuant to the transaction, Goldcorp acquired a 25% interest in Cerro Casale from Barrick. The transaction, coupled with the concurrent purchase by Goldcorp of Kinross’s 25% interest in Cerro Casale, resulted in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50% interest in the joint operations. Goldcorp entered into a separate agreement for the acquisition of Exeter Resource Corporation, whose sole asset was the Caspiche project, located approximately 10 kilometers north of Cerro Casale. The Caspiche project was contributed to the joint venture by Goldcorp. The joint venture is now referred to as Norte Abierto and includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits.

• On June 30, 2017, Barrick completed the sale of 50% of its interest in the Veladero mine in Argentina to Shandong Gold Mining Co., Ltd. (“Shandong”) for cash consideration of $960 million, plus post-closing working capital adjustments of approximately $30 million received in the fourth quarter of 2017 (for total proceeds of approximately $990 million). The two companies also formed a working group to explore the joint development of the Pascua-Lama deposit, and will evaluate additional investment opportunities on the highly prospective El Indio gold belt on the border of Argentina and Chile.

• In 2017, the Company reduced its total debt by $1.51 billion, or 19%, exceeding the original 2017 debt reduction target of $1.45 billion.

Results of Operations in 2017

Total revenues in 2017 were $8.4 billion, a decrease of $0.2 billion, or 2%, compared to 2016, primarily due to lower gold sales volume, partially offset by higher realized gold and copper prices. In 2017, gold and copper revenues totaled $7.6 billion and $0.6 billion, respectively, with gold down 4%, compared to the prior year due to a decrease in gold sales volume, partially offset by higher realized prices, and copper up 30% compared to the prior year due to higher realized prices. Realized gold prices of $1,258 per ounce in 2017 were up 1% compared to the prior year, principally due to higher market prices. Realized copper prices for 2017 were $2.95 per pound, up 29% compared to the prior year due to higher market prices. For an explanation of realized price, see “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – Realized Prices”. In 2017, Barrick reported net earnings of $1.438 billion, including after-tax net $1.425 billion in impairment reversals and gains on sale in 2017 related to its successful formation of new joint operations at the Veladero mine and Cerro Casale project. This was partially offset by net impairment charges of $511 million net of tax and non-controlling interest mainly relating to impairment charges at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project, coupled with an impairment reversal at Lumwana, compared to net earnings of $655 million in 2016. Adjusted net earnings were $876 million, compared to adjusted net earnings of $818 million in 2016 (for an explanation of adjusted net earnings, see “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share”). The significant adjusting items (pre-tax and non-controlling interest effects) in 2017 include: $718 million gain relating to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine; $193 million gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project; $212 million net impairment charges, primarily on Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine of $740 million and on the Pascua-Lama project of $407 million, partially offset by impairment reversals as a result of the indicative fair value of the Cerro Casale project related to Barrick’s divestment of 25% of $1.12 billion and on Lumwana of $259 million; partially offset by $244 million significant tax adjustments primarily relating to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform; $178 million other expense adjustments, mainly relating to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu

- 18 -

mine; and $72 million foreign currency translation losses, primarily related to the devaluation of the Argentinean peso on VAT receivables.

In 2017, Barrick’s gold production was 5.3 million ounces, 4% lower than 2016 gold production, with costs of sales applicable to gold of $794 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $750 per ounce and cash costs of $526 per ounce. Barrick’s copper production in 2017 was 413 million pounds of copper, in line with 2016 copper production, with cost of sales applicable to copper of $1.77 per pound, all-in sustaining costs of $2.34 per pound and C1 cash costs of $1.66 per pound. In 2016, Barrick produced 5.52 million ounces of gold, with costs of sales applicable to gold of $798 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $730 per ounce and cash costs of $546 per ounce, and 415 million pounds of copper, with cost of sales applicable to copper of $1.41 per pound, all-in sustaining costs of $2.05 per pound and C1 cash costs of $1.49 per pound. “All-in sustaining costs” and “Cash costs” per ounce and “All-in sustaining costs” and “C1 cash costs” per pound are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

The following table summarizes Barrick’s interest in its producing mines and reportable operating segments and its share of gold production from these mines and reportable operating segments for the periods indicated:

Gold Mines	Ownership1			20172 (thousands of ounces)		20162 (thousands of ounces)
North America
Barrick Nevada, Nevada3		100	%		2,312		2,155
Pueblo Viejo Mine, Dominican Republic4		60	%		650		700
Hemlo Property, Ontario		100	%		196		235
Golden Sunlight Mine, Montana		100	%		41		34
Turquoise Ridge Mine, Nevada4		75	%		211		266
Bald Mountain Mine, Nevada5		100	%		0		3
Round Mountain Mine, Nevada5		50	%		0		5
					3,410		3,398
South America
Lagunas Norte Mine, Peru		100	%		387		435
Veladero Mine, Argentina4,6		50	%		432		544
					819		979
Australia Pacific
Porgera Mine, Papua New Guinea4		47.5	%		235		234
Kalgoorlie Mine, Western Australia4		50	%		368		376
					603		610

- 19 -

Gold Mines	Ownership1			20172 (thousands of ounces)		20162 (thousands of ounces)
Africa
Acacia Mining plc, Tanzania4,8		63.9	%		491		530
					491		530
Company Total7					5,323		5,517

1 Barrick’s interest is subject to royalty obligations at certain mines.

2 Sum of gold mine production amounts may not equal total production amounts due to rounding.

3 In the first quarter of 2017, Barrick unified the management and operation of its Cortez and Goldstrike properties, now reported as Barrick Nevada (along with Goldrush and Barrick’s 60% interest in South Arturo).

4 Barrick’s proportional share.

5 Barrick completed the sale of the Bald Mountain mine and its interest in the Round Mountain mine on January 11, 2016.

6 Barrick sold 50% of its Veladero mine on June 30, 2017; accordingly, the 2017 production represents Barrick’s share of gold production on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

7 Excludes 122 thousand ounces and 92 thousand ounces of gold produced by the Pierina mine in 2017 and 2016, respectively, incidental to closure activities.

8 On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates. Acacia immediately ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate. For additional information, see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes”.

The following table summarizes Barrick’s interest in its principal producing copper mines and its share of copper production from these mines for the periods indicated:

Copper Mines	Ownership1			20172 (millions of pounds)		20162 (millions of pounds)
Jabal Sayid Mine, Saudi Arabia3,4		50	%		43		30
Lumwana Mine, Zambia		100	%		256		271
Zaldívar Mine, Chile3		50	%		114		114
Company Total					413		415

1 Barrick’s interest is subject to royalty obligations at certain mines.

2 Sum of copper mine production amounts may not equal total production amounts due to rounding.

3 Barrick’s proportional share.

4 Commenced commercial production on July 1, 2016.

See “Narrative Description of the Business” in this Annual Information Form, Note 5 “Segment Information” to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the MD&A for further information on the Company’s operating segments. See “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources” for information on the Company’s mineral reserves and resources.

- 20 -

- 21 -

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS

Barrick is engaged in the production and sale of gold, as well as related activities such as exploration and mine development. Barrick also produces significant amounts of copper, principally from its Zaldívar joint venture, Jabal Sayid joint venture and its Lumwana mine and holds other interests. Unless otherwise specified, the description of Barrick’s business, including products, principal markets, distribution methods, employees and labor relations contained in this Annual Information Form, applies to each of its operating segments and Barrick as a whole.

Production

For the year ended December 31, 2017, Barrick produced 5.3 million ounces of gold at cost of sales applicable to gold of $794 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $750 per ounce and cash costs of $526 per ounce. Barrick’s 2018 gold production is targeted at 4.5 to 5.0 million ounces. Barrick expects average cost of sales applicable to gold of $810 to $850 per ounce in 2018, all-in sustaining costs of $765 to $815 per ounce and cash costs of $540 to $575 per ounce, assuming a market gold price of $1,200 per ounce, a market oil price of $55 per barrel and an Australian dollar exchange rate of $1:A$0.75. See “Forward-Looking Information”. The Company’s 2018 gold production is expected to be lower than 2017 as a result of production decreases at Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo and Veladero. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, Barrick produced 413 million pounds of copper at cost of sales applicable to copper of $1.77 per pound, all-in sustaining costs of $2.34 per pound and C1 cash costs of $1.66 per pound. Barrick’s 2018 copper production is targeted at approximately 385 to 450 million pounds at expected cost of sales applicable to copper of $1.80 to $2.10 per pound, all-in sustaining costs of approximately $2.30 to $2.60 per pound and C1 cash costs of approximately $1.55 to $1.75 per pound, assuming a market oil price of $55 per barrel and a Chilean peso exchange rate of 650:$1. See “Forward-Looking Information”. “All-in sustaining costs” and “C1 cash costs” per pound are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs per pound, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

Reportable Operating Segments

Barrick’s business is organized into eleven individual minesites, Barrick Nevada, one publicly traded company (Acacia) and one project (Pascua-Lama). Barrick’s Chief Operating Decision Maker, the President, reviews the operating results, assesses performance and makes capital allocation decisions at the minesite, grouping, Company and/or project level, with the exception of Barrick’s 63.9% equity interest in Acacia, which is reviewed and assessed as a separate business. Therefore, each individual minesite, with the exception of Barrick Nevada, Acacia and the Pascua-Lama project, is an operating segment for financial reporting purposes.

Barrick has been pursuing step changes in performance in Nevada by fully integrating the Cortez and Goldstrike operations. Over the past three years, these mines have benefited from increased collaboration and additional synergies, including joint production planning to optimize ore processing. By fully integrating the management of their assets, infrastructure, and expertise, Barrick expects to further accelerate improvements in efficiency and productivity. As a result of these changes, in the first quarter

- 22 -

of 2017, Barrick unified the management and operation of its Cortez and Goldstrike properties, now referred to as Barrick Nevada.

Set out below is a brief description of Barrick’s updated reportable operating segments, consisting of four individual gold mines, Barrick Nevada, Acacia and one project. Each mine and project receives direction from Barrick’s head office, but has responsibility for certain aspects of its business, such as sustainability of mining operations, including exploration, production and closure. Acacia has a greater amount of independence in comparison to Barrick’s other operating segments, as further described below.

For details regarding 2017 production for all operating segments, see “General Information – General Development of the Business”. For additional details regarding the reserves and resources held in each operating segment, see “– Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”. See also Note 5 “Segment Information” to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the MD&A for further financial and other information on the Company’s operating segments. Barrick’s ability to deliver on its vision, strategic objectives and operating guidance depends on the Company’s ability to understand and appropriately respond to uncertainties and risks. For a description of certain of those sources of uncertainty, relevant risk modification activities and oversight by the Company’s Board of Directors and executive officers, see pages 35 to 38 of the MD&A. For a discussion of material risks relevant to investors, see “Risk Factors”.

Barrick Nevada

In the first quarter of 2017, Barrick unified the management and the operation of its Cortez and Goldstrike properties, which, together with the Goldrush property and the Company’s 60% interest in the South Arturo property, are now referred to as Barrick Nevada. However, each of Cortez and Goldstrike continue to be material properties for the purposes of this Annual Information Form.

Barrick Nevada produced approximately 2.3 million ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $792 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $624 per ounce and cash costs of $455 per ounce in 2017, compared to approximately 2.2 million ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $876 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $618 per ounce and cash costs of $502 per ounce in 2016. In 2017, production was positively impacted by higher grades mined and processed from Cortez Hills open pit (“CHOP”), coupled with higher throughput at the oxide mill as a result of Best-in-Class process improvements and an increased permit limit. These improvements resulted in the highest annual throughput level ever achieved at the oxide mill. This was partially offset by lower Goldstrike open pit stockpile grades available for processing at the roaster compared to higher stockpile grades in the prior year, fewer Goldstrike underground ounces processed due to a decrease in long-hole stoping and available stopes to mine, and fewer leach tonnes mined and placed in the current year at Cortez. Lower grades at Cortez Hills underground (“CHUG”) as it advances deeper into the mine were partially offset by higher mining rates as a result of digitization initiatives such as short interval control and automation. At Barrick Nevada, the Company expects 2018 gold production to be in the range of 2.0 to 2.255 million ounces. Lower production is expected at CHOP and CHUG. At CHOP, mining will transition from purely oxide ore to a mix of oxide, refractory and transitional ores. Grade mined from CHUG is expected to be lower as progression is made deeper into the mine. This is partially offset by increased throughput at the oxide mill, increased grades at Goldstrike open pit from processing the third northwest layback compared to stockpile processing in the prior year and higher grades at Goldstrike underground. Throughput initiatives at the autoclave are expected to more than offset lower autoclave recovery as the transition primarily from an all acid blend to an alkaline/acid blend occurs. In 2018, the Company expects cost of sales attributable to gold to be in the range of $760 to $810 per ounce, which is consistent with 2017. All-in sustaining costs are expected to be in the range of $610 to $660 per ounce, consistent with 2017, as lower production is offset by lower sustaining capital expenditures for tailings expansions, process improvements and

- 23 -

Goldstrike underground projects to enable mining deeper in the mine. Cash costs are expected to be in the range of $470 to $530 per ounce, an increase from 2017. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

Pueblo Viejo (60% basis)

Barrick’s 60% interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine (a material property for the purposes of this Annual Information Form, see “Material Properties – Pueblo Viejo Mine”) produced approximately 650 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $699 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $525 per ounce and cash costs of $405 per ounce in 2017, compared to approximately 700 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $564 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $490 per ounce and cash costs of $395 per ounce in 2016. Barrick is the operator of the joint venture. In 2017, cost of sales attributable to gold was negatively impacted by the effect of lower sales volume on unit production costs, combined with higher depreciation expense relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment and higher fuel prices. At Pueblo Viejo, the Company expects its equity share of 2018 gold production to be in the range of 585 to 615 thousand ounces, below 2017 production levels, driven by reduced gold head grade, partially offset by increased autoclave throughput resulting from improved maintenance strategies and small-scale pre-oxidation and flotation concentrate pre-processing expansions. In 2018, Barrick expects cost of sales attributable to gold to be in the range of $720 to $750 per ounce. All-in sustaining costs are expected to be $590 to $620 per ounce and cash costs are expected to be in the range of $425 to $450 per ounce. Cost of sales attributable to gold, all-in sustaining costs and cash costs are expected to be higher than in 2017 primarily due to a reduction in total ounces produced and sold, higher fuel prices and higher sustaining capital expenditures related mainly to increased capitalized waste stripping, tailings dam construction, Quisqueya power station gas conversion and Bonao sub-station construction capital projects. Byproduct credits are expected to be higher than in 2017, reflecting increased metal prices, ore grades and recoveries for both silver and copper. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

Lagunas Norte

Barrick’s Lagunas Norte mine (a material property for purposes of this Annual Information Form, see “Material Properties – Lagunas Norte Mine”) produced approximately 387 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $617 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $483 per ounce and cash costs of $405 per ounce in 2017, compared to approximately 435 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $651 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $529 per ounce and cash costs of $383 per ounce in 2016. The lower cost of sales attributable to gold in 2017 was mainly due to lower depreciation expense and realized cost savings from the Best-in-Class program, such as initiatives to improve efficiencies in the carbon-in-column circuit, implementation of short interval control and improvements in planned maintenance. These were partially offset by the impact of lower sales volume and higher direct mining costs, resulting from lower capitalized waste stripping and higher processing costs driven by higher tonnage processed and increased supplies consumption given the treatment of different ore types in the mine plan. At Lagunas Norte, the Company expects 2018 production to be in the range of 230 to 270 thousand ounces, lower than 2017 production levels, as a result of the progressive depletion of oxide ores, which are being replaced with harder ore material with lower kinetics and recoveries. In 2018, the Company expects cost of sales attributable to gold to be in the range of $780 to

- 24 -

$910 per ounce, mainly driven by the impact of lower gold sales combined with an increase in depreciation expense and higher corporate social responsibility expenses. All-in sustaining costs are expected to be $670 to $780 per ounce and cash costs are expected to be in the range of $420 to $490 per ounce. The increase in all-in sustaining costs is driven mainly by the decrease in production and increase in sustaining capital expenditures in 2018. Operational costs are expected to decrease, aligned to the reduced mine production plan, compared to 2017. Best-in-Class operational initiatives for 2018 will be focused on getting gold ounces from injection wells and slag processing. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

Veladero

Barrick’s 100% interest in the Veladero mine (a material property for purposes of this Annual Information Form, see “Material Properties – Veladero Mine”) from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and 50% interest in the Veladero mine from July 1, 2017 onwards (reflecting Barrick’s divestment of 50% of its interest in the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017) produced approximately 432 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $897 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $987 per ounce and cash costs of $598 per ounce in 2017, compared to approximately 544 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $872 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $769 per ounce and cash costs of $582 per ounce in 2016 when Barrick held a 100% interest in the mine throughout the year. See “General Information – General Development of the Business”. The higher cost of sales attributable to gold in 2017 was primarily due to the impact of higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense as a result of the impact of the fair value increments relating to the revaluation of Barrick’s remaining 50% interest in the Veladero mine, partially offset by a lack of depreciation in the second quarter of 2017 as Veladero was classified as held-for-sale pending the close of the sale on June 30, 2017. The increase in direct mining costs primarily related to consulting services, camp costs, mining costs due to additional fleet, maintenance, labor and contractors and due to the impact of inflation in Argentina. These increases were partially offset by higher capitalized waste stripping costs in the current year as there was no capitalized waste stripping in the third quarter of 2016 as a result of severe weather conditions.

On September 13, 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at the Veladero mine failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. In March 2016, the Provincial mining authority imposed an administrative fine against Minera Argentina Gold SRL (“MAG”), the Argentine subsidiary that operates the Veladero mine, in connection with the incident. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million. For more information about this matter, see “Material Properties – Veladero Mine”.

On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad at the Veladero mine damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the minesite and returned to the leach pad. For more information about this matter, see “Material Properties – Veladero Mine”.

On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at Veladero detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing solution on the leach pad. All solution was contained within the operating site and no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. As a result of this rupture, the Government of San Juan temporarily restricted the addition of cyanide to the Veladero mine’s heap leach facility pending completion of certain remedial works. The suspension was lifted on June 15, 2017.

- 25 -

On December 27, 2017, the San Juan mining authority assessed a combined fine for the 2016 and 2017 incidents at Veladero of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017). On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

At Veladero, the Company expects attributable 2018 production to be in the range of 275 to 330 thousand ounces, lower than 2017 production levels. The decrease is mainly the result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017, combined with slightly lower ore grade to the leach pad in 2018, offset by ongoing soluble inventory drawdown with improved solution management (see “Material Properties – Veladero Mine”). Barrick expects cost of sales attributable to gold to be in the range of $970 to $1,110 per ounce, mainly due to higher depreciation expense reflecting the effect of the fair value increments applied to Barrick’s remaining 50% interest in the Veladero mine. All-in sustaining costs are expected to be $960 to $1,100 per ounce, aligned with 2017 as lower cash costs are offset by higher capitalized waste stripping. Cash costs in 2018 are expected to be in the range of $560 to $620 per ounce, lower than 2017 levels mainly due to lower direct operating costs, partly offset by the impact of higher charges from the production inventory movements. Operating costs at Veladero are also highly sensitive to local inflation and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. The Company has assumed an average ARS exchange rate of ARS18.3:$1 and a local inflation rate of 15% for purposes of preparing its cash cost and all-in sustaining cost guidance for 2018. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

The governance, ownership and joint operation of the Veladero joint venture is governed by the terms of a shareholders’ agreement between Barrick and Shandong (the “Veladero Shareholders’ Agreement”). For further details, refer to “Material Properties – Veladero Mine – General Information – History”.

Turquoise Ridge (75% basis)

Turquoise Ridge (a material property for purposes of this Annual Information Form, see “Material Properties – Turquoise Ridge Mine”) is an underground mine that uses underhand drift-and-fill mining methods. Barrick is the operator of the joint venture. Barrick’s 75% interest in the Turquoise Ridge mine produced approximately 211 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $715 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $733 per ounce and cash costs of $589 per ounce in 2017, compared to approximately 266 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $603 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $625 per ounce and cash costs of $498 per ounce in 2016. The higher cost of sales attributable to gold in 2017 mainly reflected the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher processing costs associated with processing lower grade ore and higher organic carbon content ore. At Turquoise Ridge, the Company expects attributable 2018 production to be in the range of 240 to 270 thousand ounces, which is higher than 2017 production levels. Turquoise Ridge has completely transitioned to standardized equipment allowing for greater mining flexibility with higher reliability and less equipment. Capital and waste development requirements are in line with 2017 mining rates. Cost of sales attributable to gold are expected to be in the range of $670 to $720 per ounce which is in-line with 2017. All-in sustaining costs in 2018 are expected to be in the range of $650 to $730 per ounce. All-in sustaining costs in 2018 are expected to be lower than 2017 due to a reduction in sustaining capital as the construction of the third shaft is included in project capital. Cash costs in 2018 are expected to be in the range of $580 to $620 per ounce, consistent with 2017. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per

- 26 -

ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

Barrick continues to advance a phased approach to expansion at Turquoise Ridge that maximizes free cash flow from the operation, while optimizing the timing of capital spending for expansion.

In January 2018, Barrick and Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) reached an agreement on a new, seven-year toll milling agreement (the “TMA”) for the processing of Turquoise Ridge ore at Newmont’s Twin Creeks facility. The TMA supports plans to expand production at Turquoise Ridge by increasing contractual processing capacity. It provides for throughput of 850,000 tons per year in 2018 and 2019, rising to 1.2 million tons per year between 2020 and 2024.

Acacia Mining plc (63.9% basis)

Acacia’s operations consist of its Bulyanhulu underground mine, its North Mara open pit and underground mine and its Buzwagi open pit mine, all located in Tanzania. Barrick’s equity interest in Acacia is 63.9%. The assets, liabilities, operating results and cash flows of Acacia are consolidated by Barrick. Acacia’s shares are listed for trading on the London Stock Exchange (“LSE”). In 2017, Barrick’s equity interest in Acacia’s gold production was approximately 491 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $791 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $875 per ounce and cash costs of $587 per ounce, compared to approximately 530 thousand ounces of gold at cost of sales attributable to gold of $880 per ounce, all-in sustaining costs of $958 per ounce and cash costs of $640 per ounce in 2016. This year-over-year decline in production was due in large part to the concentrate export ban implemented by the Tanzanian government on March 3, 2017, affecting sales from Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi and leading to a decision to transition to reduced operations in the third quarter of 2017, as well as due to droughts experienced in the Kahama district, combined with lower production from North Mara as a result of lower grades at the Gokona underground mine and Nyabirama pit. These were partially offset by a production increase at Buzwagi as a result of higher grade ore from the main ore zone at the bottom of the open pit and higher ore tonnes mined. The Company expects Acacia’s 2018 gold production to be in the range of 275 to 305 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share), which is lower than 2017 production levels. Acacia’s production is expected to be lower than 2017 mainly due to Bulyanhulu’s transition to reduced operations and the planned transition of Buzwagi to a stockpile processing operation in 2018. In 2018, Barrick expects cost of sales attributable to gold to be in the range of $970 to $1,020 per ounce. All-in sustaining costs are expected to be in the range of $935 to $985 per ounce and cash costs are expected to be in the range of $690 to $720 per ounce. The increase in all three measures from 2017 is mainly due to the negative impact of approximately $50 per ounce due to increased inventory costs at Buzwagi as Acacia processes ore stockpiles previously classified as ore inventory. For more information about this matter, see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes”. “All-in sustaining costs” and “cash costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs and cash costs per ounce, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (the “Ban”). Following its imposition of the Ban, Acacia immediately ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate. While Acacia has been looking to address all issues in respect of the Ban along with other ongoing disputes through dialogue with the Tanzanian Government, it has commenced international arbitration in accordance with its Mineral Development Agreements with the Government of Tanzania to resolve these matters. On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the Government of Tanzania on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia

- 27 -

and the Government of Tanzania. Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia. Discussions concerning the implementation of the proposed framework, resolution of outstanding tax matters relating to Acacia, and the lifting of the Ban remain ongoing. Barrick is targeting the first half of 2018 for the completion of a detailed proposal for review by Acacia. For additional information, see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes”.

Barrick and its affiliates provide certain services to Acacia and its subsidiaries for the ongoing operation of Acacia’s business pursuant to a services agreement entered into by the parties. In addition, Barrick and Acacia are also parties to a relationship agreement that regulates various aspects of the ongoing relationship between the two companies. The principal purpose of the relationship agreement is to ensure that Acacia is capable of carrying on its business independently of Barrick and that any transactions and relationships with Barrick occur at arm’s length and under normal commercial terms. Under that agreement, so long as Barrick maintains a 40% equity interest in Acacia, Barrick is entitled to appoint the greater of (i) three non-executive directors to Acacia’s board of directors; and (ii) the maximum number of non-executive directors that may be appointed to Acacia’s board of directors, while ensuring Acacia is compliant with the UK Combined Code of Corporate Governance. If Barrick’s shareholding in Acacia falls below 40%, there is a sliding scale as to the number of directors it may appoint. As of March 19, 2018, Acacia had seven directors, two of which were appointed by Barrick. The relationship agreement will remain in force as long as Acacia’s shares are listed on the LSE and Barrick maintains at least a 15% equity interest. The relationship agreement contains a number of other commitments and restrictions, including a non-competition clause pursuant to which (i) Barrick agrees it will not pursue any gold or silver mining project in Africa, as such terms are defined in the relationship agreement, and (ii) Acacia agrees it will not pursue any gold or silver mining project outside of Africa, as such terms are defined in the relationship agreement. The non-competition clause is subject to various exceptions and only applies for so long as Barrick holds at least a 30% equity interest in Acacia. If either Barrick or Acacia wants to pursue a project which is subject to the non-competition restriction (the “Notifying Party”), they are required to notify the other party and, if the other party waives the opportunity or fails to respond in a timely fashion, the Notifying Party will be entitled to pursue the project described in the notice.

Barrick’s Kabanga nickel project and Lumwana copper mine are not included in the assets held by Acacia. Barrick continues to directly hold its 50% interest in the Kabanga project, which is located in Tanzania. Barrick also directly holds its 100% interest in the Lumwana mine, which is located in Zambia.

Pascua-Lama Project

The Pascua-Lama project, located on the border between Chile and Argentina, contains 21.3 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources (for more information about the Pascua-Lama project, see “Exploration and Evaluations – Pascua-Lama” and “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action”).

On January 17, 2018, Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (“SMA”) ordered the closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project. The sanction is part of a re-evaluation process order by the country’s Environmental Court in 2014 and relates to historical compliance matters. Barrick is appealing the resolution on a number of grounds, including on the basis that the sanction is disproportionate to actual environmental impacts. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions” for more detail regarding the SMA regulatory sanctions.

- 28 -

The SMA order does not affect the Company’s ongoing evaluation of an underground mine at Pascua-Lama, which would require additional permitting and regulatory approvals in both Argentina and Chile, irrespective of the recent SMA decision. In any underground scenario, Barrick would also close site facilities and surface disturbances in Chile not necessary for an underground mine. A shift to an underground operation would address a number of community concerns by significantly reducing the overall environmental impacts of the project, as compared to an open pit operation. In addition, an underground operation would be less susceptible to weather-related production impacts during the winter season.

In light of the SMA order to close surface facilities in Chile, and current plans to evaluate an underground mine, Barrick reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves of approximately 14 million ounces as measured and indicated resources as of year-end 2017.

For additional information regarding Barrick’s projects, see “Exploration and Evaluations”.

Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources

As at December 31, 2017, Barrick’s total proven and probable gold reserves were 64.4 million ounces, compared to 86.0 million ounces at the end of 2016. Approximately 9.2 million ounces were divested during 2017, approximately 14.0 million ounces at Pascua-Lama were reclassified as measured and indicated resources and 6.2 million ounces were depleted through mining and processing. Barrick replaced approximately 8.0 million of the ounces depleted through drilling at its operating mines (as well as the Goldrush project). Significant additions in 2017 included 2.1 million ounces at Turquoise Ridge, 1.4 million ounces at Cortez, 1.3 million ounces at Goldstrike, 397,000 ounces at Hemlo, and 392,000 ounces at Lagunas Norte. We also declared an initial reserve of 1.5 million ounces at the Goldrush project. In addition, Barrick’s 63.9 percent share of reserves at Acacia’s North Mara mine increased by 504,000 ounces. The average grade of Barrick’s reserves also increased by 17 percent, from 1.33 grams per tonne, to 1.55 grams per tonne.

Barrick estimated its reserves for 2017 using a gold price assumption of $1,200 per ounce (see “– Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables” below). The price assumptions used to calculate reserves in 2017 are consistent with those used by Barrick for mine planning, impairment testing and for the assessment of project economics.

As at December 31, 2017, Barrick’s total proven and probable copper reserves increased to 11.2 billion pounds compared to 11.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016. Barrick estimated its copper reserves for 2017 using a copper price assumption of $2.75 per pound, consistent with the long-term price assumption used in 2016.

Except as noted below, 2017 reserves have been estimated based on an assumed gold price of $1,200 per ounce, an assumed silver price of $16.50 and an assumed copper price of $2.75 per pound and long-term average exchange rates of C$1.25:$1 and A$:$0.75. Reserves at Kalgoorlie have been estimated based on an assumed gold price of A$1,600 and reserves at Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi have been estimated based on an assumed gold price of $1,100. Reserve estimates incorporate current and/or expected mine plans and cost levels at each property.

In confirming its annual reserves for each of its mineral properties, projects, and operations, Barrick conducts a reserve test on December 31 of each year to verify that the future undiscounted cash flow from reserves is positive. The cash flow excludes all sunk costs and only considers future operating and closure expenses as well as any future capital costs.

- 29 -

Unless otherwise noted, Barrick’s reserves and resources have been estimated as at December 31, 2017, in accordance with definitions adopted by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum and incorporated into National Instrument 43-101 (see “Glossary of Technical Terms”). Varying cut-off grades have been used depending on the mine, methods of extraction and type of ore contained in the reserves. Mineral resource metal grades and material densities have been estimated using industry-standard methods appropriate for each mineral project with support of various commercially available mining software packages. For the cut-off grades used in the estimation of reserves, see “ – Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables” below. Barrick’s normal data verification procedures have been employed in connection with the estimations. Sampling, analytical and test data underlying the stated mineral resources and reserves have been verified by employees of Barrick, its joint venture partners or its joint venture operating companies, as applicable, under the supervision of Qualified Persons, and/or independent Qualified Persons (see “Scientific and Technical Information”). Verification procedures include industry-standard quality control practices. Drill samples collected for use in geologic modeling and mineral resource estimation are under the direct supervision of the geology department at each of the Company’s properties and projects. All drill hole collar, survey and assay information used in modeling and resource estimation are manually verified and approved by the staff geologists prior to entry into the mine-wide database. Sample preparation and analyses are conducted by either independent laboratories or the laboratory onsite, in which case independent laboratories are used to verify results. Procedures are employed to ensure security of samples during their delivery from the drill rig to the laboratory. The quality assurance procedures, data verification and assay protocols used in connection with drilling and sampling at each property and project conform to industry accepted quality control methods. Regular internal auditing of the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimation processes and procedures are conducted.

Barrick reports its reserves in accordance with National Instrument 43-101, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, Industry Guide 7 (under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), as interpreted by the Staff of the SEC, applies different standards in order to classify mineralization as a reserve (see Note 8 of “– Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables” below). In addition, while the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources are required pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize such terms. Canadian standards differ significantly from the requirements of the SEC, and mineral resource information contained herein is not comparable to similar information regarding mineral reserves disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the SEC. Readers are cautioned that “inferred” mineral resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. In addition, readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Barrick’s mineral resources constitute or will be converted into reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Although the Company has carefully prepared and verified the mineral reserve figures presented below and elsewhere in this Annual Information Form, such figures are estimates, which are, in part, based on forward-looking information and certain assumptions, and no assurance can be given that the indicated level of mineral will be produced. Barrick’s estimates of proven and probable reserves may have to be recalculated based on actual production experience. Market price fluctuations of gold, copper and silver, as well as increased production costs or reduced recovery rates and other factors, may render the present proven and probable reserves unprofitable to develop at a particular site or sites. See “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Information” for additional details concerning factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ from those set out below.

See “Glossary of Technical Terms” for definitions of the terms “mineral resource”, “inferred mineral resource”, “indicated mineral resource”, “measured mineral resource”, “mineral reserve”, “probable mineral reserve” and “proven mineral reserve”.

- 30 -

GOLD MINERAL RESERVES^{1,3,4,5,8,12,13,14,15}

As at December 31, 2017	PROVEN						PROBABLE						TOTAL
Based on attributable ounces	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		50,013		2.82		4,537		9,198		3.78		1,117		59,211		2.97		5,654
Goldstrike Underground		3,982		11.49		1,471		4,599		8.75		1,294		8,581		10.02		2,765
Goldstrike Property Total		53,995		3.46		6,008		13,797		5.44		2,411		67,792		3.86		8,419
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		2.67		5,335		19,222		3.06		1,889		81,359		2.76		7,224
Cortez		19,145		1.46		898		148,775		1.92		9,188		167,920		1.87		10,086
Goldrush		—		—		—		5,671		8.12		1,481		5,671		8.12		1,481
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		7,082		15.56		3,544		4,689		15.48		2,334		11,771		15.53		5,878
South Arturo (60.00%)		2,267		3.28		239		1,557		2.52		126		3,824		2.97		365
Hemlo		935		3.66		110		23,993		2.16		1,664		24,928		2.21		1,774
Golden Sunlight		270		1.15		10		182		3.42		20		452		2.06		30
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		114,851		0.65		2,391		483,950		0.59		9,232		598,801		0.60		11,623
Veladero (50.00%)9		14,198		0.72		330		99,716		0.78		2,486		113,914		0.77		2,816
Lagunas Norte		25,719		2.23		1,840		29,711		2.27		2,165		55,430		2.25		4,005
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		635		9.21		188		12,620		4.56		1,850		13,255		4.78		2,038
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		75,145		0.89		2,161		23,915		2.21		1,697		99,060		1.21		3,858
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		1,864		10.66		639		10,716		6.86		2,362		12,580		7.42		3,001
North Mara (63.90%)		5,298		2.40		408		11,628		2.89		1,080		16,926		2.73		1,488
Buzwagi (63.90%)		9,108		0.92		269		—		—		—		9,108		0.92		269
OTHER		5,556		0.21		38		6,282		0.25		51		11,838		0.23		89
TOTAL		398,205		1.91		24,408		896,424		1.39		40,036		1,294,629		1.55		64,444

COPPER MINERAL RESERVES^{1,3,4,5,8,12,13,15}

As at December 31, 2017	PROVEN						PROBABLE						TOTAL
Based on attributable pounds	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)
Zaldívar (50.00%)		132,477		0.493		1,440.3		81,757		0.538		970.4		214,234		0.510		2,410.7
Lumwana		32,711		0.503		362.9		368,685		0.572		4,651.1		401,396		0.567		5,014.0
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		5,556		2.380		291.5		6,282		2.418		334.9		11,838		2.400		626.4
TOTAL		170,744		0.556		2,094.7		456,724		0.592		5,956.4		627,468		0.582		8,051.1

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

- 31 -

GOLD MINERAL RESOURCES^{1,2,3,7,8,12,13}

As at December 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable ounces	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		1,764		2.61		148		3,840		2.89		357		505		267		2.80		24
Goldstrike Underground		1,519		9.91		484		2,379		7.75		593		1,077		1,192		9.37		359
Goldstrike Property Total		3,283		5.99		632		6,219		4.75		950		1,582		1,459		8.16		383
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		2.39		598		93,913		2.47		7,456		8,054		27,637		2.43		2,155
Cortez		2,586		1.88		156		28,837		1.85		1,712		1,868		9,874		2.01		638
Goldrush		140		10.44		47		31,379		9.27		9,351		9,398		8,817		8.24		2,335
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		2,944		9.03		855		2,162		9.37		651		1,506		1,697		13.03		711
South Arturo (60.00%)		2,927		1.19		111.6		8,365		1.12		301		412.6		749		0.46		11
Hemlo		1,107		2.67		95		40,232		1.36		1,763		1,858		4,949		2.78		442
Golden Sunlight		121		1.54		6		3,013		1.79		173		179		2,442		2.17		170
Donlin Gold (50.00%)		3,865		2.52		313		266,803		2.24		19,190		19,503		46,108		2.02		2,997
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		11,478		0.30		112		136,846		0.36		1,574		1,686		247,720		0.38		2,995
Caspiche (50.00%)10		310,050		0.57		5,655		391,750		0.47		5,965		11,620		99,050		0.29		921
Pascua-Lama11		42,809		1.86		2,564		391,734		1.49		18,783		21,347		15,400		1.74		863
Veladero (50.00%)9		3,324		0.48		51		66,771		0.57		1,225		1,276		33,486		0.43		464
Lagunas Norte		1,925		0.87		54		29,017		0.96		896		950		1,857		0.92		55
Alturas		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		210,965		1.00		6,793
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		149		5.22		25		12,316		4.62		1,828		1,853		11,879		4.15		1,584
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		3,166		0.96		98		12,120		1.21		473		571		1,252		2.48		100
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		11.53		324		8,334		8.78		2,352		2,676		15,469		9.75		4,848
North Mara (63.90%)		1,291		2.63		109		6,522		2.77		581		690		4,112		4.15		548
Buzwagi (63.90%)		13		2.39		1		2,878		1.04		96		97		31,898		0.77		790
Nyanzaga (57.51%)		—		—		—		12,520		3.45		1,389		1,389		2,933		3.49		329
Tankoro (31.95%)		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		13,739		1.52		671
OTHER		216		0.29		2		2,404		0.61		47		49		1,860		0.25		15
TOTAL		400,041		0.92		11,809		1,554,135		1.54		76,756		88,565		795,352		1.21		30,818

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

- 32 -

COPPER MINERAL RESOURCES^{1,2,3,7,8,12,13}

As at December 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable pounds	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)
Zaldívar (50.00%)		62,629		0.402		555.5		25,248		0.389		216.4		771.9		4,408		0.511		49.7
Lumwana		28,041		0.388		239.9		553,524		0.505		6,161.3		6,401.2		119,094		0.452		1,187.4
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		216		1.617		7.7		2,404		2.004		106.2		113.9		1,860		2.300		94.3
TOTAL		90,886		0.401		803.1		581,176		0.506		6,483.9		7,287.0		125,362		0.482		1,331.4

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

- 33 -

CONTAINED SILVER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESERVES^1,12,13,A

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN PROVEN GOLD RESERVES						IN PROBABLE GOLD RESERVES						TOTAL
Based on attributable ounces	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Process recovery
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		17.97		35,909		19,222		15.55		9,612		81,359		17.40		45,521		77.8	%
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		114,851		1.91		7,043		483,950		1.43		22,300		598,801		1.52		29,343		69.0	%
Lagunas Norte		24,648		4.36		3,455		29,711		5.94		5,670		54,359		5.22		9,125		37.7	%
Veladero (50.00%)9		7,466		12.69		3,047		99,716		14.77		47,359		107,182		14.63		50,406		10.0	%
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)16		1,864		5.59		335		7,402		8.44		2,009		9,266		7.87		2,344		65.0	%
TOTAL		210,966		7.34		49,789		640,001		4.23		86,950		850,967		5.00		136,739		48.0	%

A Silver is accounted for as a by-product credit against reported or projected gold production costs.

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

CONTAINED COPPER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESERVES^1,12,13,A

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN PROVEN GOLD RESERVES						IN PROBABLE GOLD RESERVES						TOTAL
Based on attributable pounds	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Process recovery
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		0.097		132.3		19,222		0.100		42.5		81,359		0.097		174.8		47.9	%
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		114,851		0.190		480.9		483,950		0.226		2,408.8		598,801		0.219		2,889.7		87.4	%
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)16		1,864		0.436		17.9		7,402		0.567		92.5		9,266		0.540		110.4		90.0	%
Buzwagi (63.90%)		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—	%
TOTAL		178,852		0.160		631.1		510,574		0.226		2,543.8		689,426		0.209		3,174.9		85.4	%

A Copper is accounted for as a by-product credit against reported or projected gold production costs.

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

- 34 -

CONTAINED SILVER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESOURCES^1,12,13

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable ounces	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)		Ounces (000s)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000s)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		14.25		3,561		93,913		13.61		41,095		44,656		27,637		10.81		9,605
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		11,478		1.20		441		136,846		1.06		4,656		5,097		247,720		1.04		8,253
Caspiche (50.00%)10		310,050		1.20		11,976		391,750		1.20		15,147		27,123		99,050		0.91		2,909
Pascua-Lama11		42,809		57.21		78,747		391,734		52.22		657,718		736,465		15,400		17.83		8,830
Lagunas Norte		1,925		2.71		168		29,017		2.83		2,642		2,810		1,857		3.35		200
Veladero (50.00%)9		3,324		8.95		956		66,771		12.25		26,287		27,243		33,486		10.99		11,830
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		7.15		201		8,334		6.55		1,755		1,956		15,469		6.96		3,461
TOTAL		378,233		7.90		96,050		1,118,365		20.84		749,300		845,350		440,619		3.18		45,088

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

CONTAINED COPPER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESOURCES^1,12,13

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN MEASURED (M) GOLD RESOURCES						IN INDICATED (I) GOLD RESOURCES						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable pounds	Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		0.067		11.5		93,913		0.081		167.6		179.1		27,637		0.086		52.3
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		11,478		0.132		33.4		136,846		0.164		495.9		529.3		247,720		0.192		1,046.8
Caspiche (50.00%)10		277,100		0.230		1,405.1		363,950		0.180		1,444.3		2,849.4		97,800		0.120		258.7
Pascua-Lama11		42,809		0.101		95.7		391,734		0.082		704.6		800.3		15,400		0.049		16.5
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		0.405		7.8		8,334		0.441		81.0		88.8		15,469		0.632		215.5
Buzwagi (63.90%)		13		0.349		0.1		2,878		0.109		6.9		7.0		31,898		0.081		56.9
TOTAL		340,047		0.207		1,553.6		997,655		0.132		2,900.3		4,453.9		435,924		0.171		1,646.7

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

- 35 -

NICKEL MINERAL RESOURCES^{1,2,3,8,12,13}

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017

MEASURED (M)

INDICATED (I)

(M) + (I)

INFERRED

Based on attributable pounds

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

Contained lbs (millions)

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

AFRICA

Kabanga (50.00%)

6,905

2.490

379.0

11,705

2.720

701.9

1,080.9

10,400

2.600

596.1

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”

RECONCILIATION OF MINERAL RESERVES ^{1,3,4,5,6,8,13,14,15}

Based on attributable ounces
Gold Property (000’s of ounces)	Mineral Reserves 12/31/2016		Processed in 2017		Increase (decrease)		Mineral Reserves 12/31/2017
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		6,271		586		-31		5,654
Goldstrike Underground		1,806		364		1,323		2,765
Goldstrike Property Total		8,077		950		1,292		8,419
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		8,087		704		-159		7,224
Cortez		10,220		1,581		1,447		10,086
Goldrush		0		0		1,481		1,481
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		4,029		228		2,077		5,878
South Arturo (10.00%)		122		98		341		365
Hemlo		1,588		211		397		1,774
Golden Sunlight		71		49		8		30
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%)10		17,434		0		-5,811		11,623
Pascua-Lama		14,050		0		-14,050		0
Veladero (50.00%)17		6,749		466		-3,467		2,816
Lagunas Norte		4,218		605		392		4,005
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		2,207		271		102		2,038
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		4,140		482		200		3,858
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		3,271		138		-132		3,001
North Mara (63.90%)		1,209		225		504		1,488
Buzwagi (63.90%)		392		182		59		269
OTHER (3)		86		0		3		89
TOTAL		85,950		6,190		-15,316		64,444
Copper Property (million pounds)	Mineral Reserves 12/31/2016		Processed in 2017		Increase (decrease)		Mineral Reserves 12/31/2017
Zaldívar (50.00%)		2,610		214		14		2,411
Lumwana		2,684		274		2,604		5,014
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		627		46		46		626
TOTAL		5,921		534		2,664		8,051

See “- Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables”.

- 36 -

Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Tables

1 Reflects Barrick’s ownership share where ownership interest is less than 100%.

2 These mineral resources are in addition to mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability when calculated using mineral reserve assumptions.

3 Mineral reserves and resources have been calculated as at December 31, 2017, unless otherwise indicated.

4 In confirming Barrick’s annual reserves for each of its mineral properties, projects, and operations it conducts a reserve test on December 31 of each year to verify that the future undiscounted cash flow from reserves is positive. The cash flow excludes all sunk costs and only considers future operating and closure expenses as well as any future capital costs.

5 Mineral reserves as at December 31, 2017 have been calculated using an assumed gold price of $1,200 per ounce, an assumed silver price of $16.50 per ounce and an assumed copper price of $2.75 per pound and long-term average exchange rates of C$1.25:$1 and $0.75:A$1. Reserve calculations incorporate current and/or expected mine plans and cost levels at each property. Reserves at Kalgoorlie assumed a gold price of A$1,600 and Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi assumed a gold price of $1,100.

6 Mineral reserves as at December 31, 2016 have been calculated using an assumed gold price of $1,000 per ounce per ounce for 2017 through 2020 and $1,200 per ounce from 2021 onwards, an assumed silver price of $13.75 per ounce for 2017 through 2020 and $16.50 per ounce from 2021 onwards, an assumed copper price of $2.25 per pound for 2017 through 2020 and $2.75 per pound from 2021 onwards, and average exchange rates of C$1.30:$1 and $0.75:A$1. Reserve calculations incorporate current and/or expected mine plans and cost levels at each property. Reserves at Kalgoorlie assumed a gold price of A$1,600 and Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi assumed a gold price of $1,100.

7 Mineral resources as at December 31, 2017 have been calculated using varying cut-off grades, depending on both the type of mine, its maturity and ore type at each property. An assumed gold price of $1,500 per ounce, an assumed silver price of $20.50, an assumed copper price of $3.50 per pound and exchange rates of C$1.25:$1 and A$1:$0.70 have been used in estimating resources.

8 Mineral reserves and mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with National Instrument 43-101, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, Industry Guide 7 (under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), as interpreted by the Staff of the SEC, applies different standards in order to classify mineralization as a reserve. In addition, while the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources are required pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize such terms. Canadian standards differ significantly from the requirements of the SEC, and mineral resource information contained herein is not comparable to similar information regarding mineral reserves disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the SEC. Readers should understand that “inferred” mineral resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to their economic and legal feasibility. In addition, readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Barrick’s mineral resources constitute or will be converted into reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

9 On June 30, 2017, the Company divested 50% of its interest in the Veladero mine. For additional information regarding this matter, see “General Information – General Development of the Business”. Accordingly, 2017 mineral reserves and resources represent Barrick’s 50% ownership of Veladero as at December 31, 2017.

10 On June 9, 2017, Barrick completed a transaction with Goldcorp to form a new partnership at the Cerro Casale project in Chile. Pursuant to the transaction, Goldcorp acquired a 25% interest in Cerro Casale from Barrick. The transaction, coupled with the concurrent purchase by Goldcorp of Kinross’s 25% interest in Cerro Casale, resulted in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50% interest

- 37 -

in the joint operations. Goldcorp also acquired Exeter Resource Corporation, whose sole asset is the Caspiche project. The Caspiche project was contributed to the joint venture by Goldcorp. The joint venture is now referred to as Norte Abierto and includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits. For additional information regarding this matter, see “General Information – General Development of the Business”. Accordingly, 2017 mineral reserves and resources represent Barrick’s 50% ownership of Cerro Casale as at December 31, 2017.

11 On January 17, 2018, Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (SMA) ordered the closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project. As a result, the Company has reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources.

12 Grade represents an average, weighted by reference to tonnes of ore type where several recovery processes apply.

13 Ounces or pounds, as applicable, estimated to be present in the tonnes of ore which would be mined and processed. Mill recovery rates have not been applied in calculating the contained ounces or pounds.

14 Gold mineral reserves as at December 31, 2017 include stockpile material totaling approximately 208 million tonnes, containing approximately 12.4 million ounces. Properties at which stockpile material exceeds 30 thousand ounces or represents more than 5% of the reported gold reserves are as follows:

Property	Tonnes (000s)	Grade (gm/tonne)	Contained Ounces (000s)
Goldstrike Open Pit	48,293	2.722	4,226
Pueblo Viejo	46,111	2.639	3,912
Kalgoorlie	68,379	0.782	1,719
Lagunas Norte	18,858	2.164	1,312
Cortez	7,448	2.334	559
Porgera	2,460	2.200	174
Buzwagi	9,024	0.913	265
Veladero	3,482	0.518	58
North Mara	3,000	0.954	92
Golden Sunlight	260	1.077	9

15 The metallurgical recovery applicable at each property and the cut-off grades used to determine mineral reserves as at December 31, 2017 are as follows:

Gold Mine	Metallurgical Recovery (%)	Cut-off Grade (gm/tonne)
Bulyanhulu	88.6	6.22
Buzwagi	85.0	0.53 to 1.15
North Mara	92.0	1.66 to 3.13
Kalgoorlie	80.0	0.90 to 2.00
Porgera	86.1 to 89.3	1.23 to 3.62
Hemlo	94.0	0.62 to 2.50

- 38 -

Gold Mine	Metallurgical Recovery (%)	Cut-off Grade (gm/tonne)
Goldstrike Open Pit	67.9 to 83.8	1.20 to 2.23
Goldstrike Underground	89.2	5.23 to 6.58
South Arturo	75.5	1.06
Cortez	63.0 to 91.0	0.22 to 5.26
Golden Sunlight	83.0 to 85.0	2.40 to 2.94
Turquoise Ridge	92.0	9.90
Pueblo Viejo	88.0	1.61
Lagunas Norte	60.4 to 96.3	0.26 to 2.25
Cerro Casale	74.4	0.22 to 0.30
Veladero	40.0 to 87.0	0.18 to 0.80

Copper Mine	Metallurgical Recovery (%)	Cut-off Grade (%)
Zaldívar	63.1	0.19 to 0.21
Lumwana	93.0	0.19
Jabal Sayid	92.6	1.37

16 Silver and copper probable reserve tonnage at the Bulyanhulu mine is less than the gold probable reserve tonnage because the gold reserve includes 3.3 million tonnes of tailings material which are being separately reprocessed for recovery of gold only.

17 On June 30, 2017, the Company divested 50% of its interest in the Veladero mine. For additional information regarding this matter, see “General Information – General Development of the Business”. Accordingly, the 2017 processing figure represents Barrick’s ownership of Veladero on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

Marketing and Distribution

Gold

Gold can be readily sold on numerous markets throughout the world and it is not difficult to ascertain its market price at any particular time. Benchmark prices are generally based on the London gold market quotations. Gold bullion is held as an asset class for a variety of reasons, including as a store of value and a safeguard against the collapse of paper assets such as stocks, bonds and other financial instruments that are traded in fiat currencies not exchangeable into gold (at a fixed rate) under a “gold standard”, as a hedge against future inflation and for portfolio diversification. Governments, central banks and other official institutions hold significant quantities of gold as a component of exchange reserves. Since there are a large number of available gold purchasers, Barrick is not dependent upon the sale of gold to any one customer.

During 2017, the gold price ranged from $1,146 per ounce to $1,358 per ounce. The average market price for the year of $1,257 per ounce represented an increase of 0.5% compared to 2016. The price of gold generally rose over the course of 2017, experiencing its low in early January and ending the year near $1,300 per ounce. Over the year, the gold price was positively influenced by a weakening of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar to lows not seen since early 2015. This was attributable to geopolitical

- 39 -

tensions, highlighted by concerns regarding North Korea, fluctuations in long-term U.S. interest rates and investor interest in gold as a safe haven asset and hedge against record high levels in U.S. equity indices.

Barrick’s gold is refined to market delivery standards by several refiners throughout the world. The gold is sold to various gold bullion dealers at market prices. Certain of Barrick’s operations also produce gold concentrate, which is sold to various smelters. The Company believes that, because of the availability of alternative smelters or refiners, no material adverse effect would result if the Company lost the services of any of its current smelters or refiners.

Product fabrication and bullion investment are two principal sources of gold demand. The introduction of more readily accessible and liquid gold investment vehicles has further facilitated investment in gold. Within the fabrication category, there are a wide variety of end uses, the largest of which is the manufacture of jewelry. Other fabrication purposes include official coins, electronics, miscellaneous industrial and decorative uses, dentistry, medals and medallions.

Copper

Copper is a metal with inherent characteristics of excellent electrical conductivity, heat transfer and resistance to corrosion. Copper is used principally in telecommunications, power infrastructure, automobiles, construction and consumer durables. Copper is primarily traded on the London Metal Exchange (“LME”), the New York Commodity Exchange and the Shanghai Futures Exchange. The price of copper as reported on these exchanges is influenced by numerous factors, including (i) the worldwide balance of copper demand and supply, (ii) rates of global economic growth, including in China, which has become the largest consumer of refined copper in the world, (iii) speculative investment positions in copper and copper futures, (iv) the availability and cost of substitute materials, and (v) currency exchange fluctuations, including the relative strength of the U.S. dollar.

The copper market is volatile and cyclical. Over the last 15 years, LME prices per pound have ranged from a low of $0.71 to a high of $4.62, reached in February 2011. In 2017, LME copper prices traded in a range of $2.47 per pound to $3.32 per pound, averaged $2.80 per pound, and closed the year at $3.25 per pound. Copper prices are significantly influenced by physical demand from emerging markets, especially China. The price of copper traded higher over the course of 2017, reaching a three-year high near the end of the year and averaging 27% higher than the previous year. Copper prices benefited from a weakening of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, positive economic and copper usage data from China, an increase in the price of other non-precious metal mined commodities and an increase in investor sentiment. A dearth of new projects scheduled to enter production later in the decade could positively impact prices in the coming years should physical demand continue to grow.

As at December 31, 2017, utilizing option collar strategies, the Company has protected the downside on approximately 60 million pounds of expected 2018 copper production at an average floor price of $2.83 per pound and can participate up to an average ceiling price of $3.25 per pound. These positions expire evenly over the first six months of 2018. Barrick’s remaining copper production is subject to market prices.

At the Zaldívar mine, copper cathode is sold to copper product manufacturers and copper traders, while concentrate is sold to a local smelter in Chile. At the Lumwana mine, copper concentrate is sold to Zambian smelters. At the Jabal Sayid mine, copper concentrate is sold to third party smelters and copper traders. Since there are a large number of available copper cathode and copper concentrate purchasers, Barrick is not dependent upon the sale of copper to any one customer.

- 40 -

Employees and Labor Relations

As at December 31, 2017, excluding contractors, Barrick employed approximately 18,421 employees worldwide, including employees at Acacia and at operations jointly owned by Barrick, substantially all of whom are employed in the United States, Canada, Australia, Chile, Peru, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Zambia and Saudi Arabia. The number of employees represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements at the Company’s operations is approximately 6,030.

Specialized knowledge and experience are required of employees in the mining industry. Barrick has the necessary skilled employees to conduct its operations. Certain Barrick mines may be adversely impacted if increased demands from its employees lead to work stoppages or the Company is unable to retain a sufficient number of qualified employees for such operations (see “– Employee relations” and “ – Competition” in “Risk Factors”).

Competition

The Company competes with other mining and exploration companies in connection with the acquisition of mining claims and leases and in connection with the recruitment and retention of highly skilled and experienced employees (see “– Employees and Labor Relations” above).

There is significant competition for mining claims and leases and, as a result, the Company may be unable to acquire attractive assets on terms it considers acceptable.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Barrick’s sustainability vision is to partner with host governments and communities to transform their natural resources into sustainable benefits and mutual prosperity. The Company does this by managing its impacts on people and the environment, ensuring partners share in the benefits of mining and engaging respectfully with others. This vision is supported by a range of management systems and practices, which ultimately are aimed at enabling the Company to be a welcome and trusted partner of host governments and communities, the most sought-after employer and the natural choice for long-term investors. Sustainability continues to be a fundamental part of Barrick’s strategy and is critical to ensuring broad stakeholder support for Barrick’s operations.

In 2017, Barrick continued to implement its global human rights compliance program, which is aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Since 2012, human rights assessments have been conducted at all high and medium risk Barrick operations and projects. Higher risk sites or sites where particular concerns are identified are assessed more frequently. As a result of these assessments, Barrick also continued to invest in its global human rights training program at all mines and projects operated by the Company on a risk-tiered basis. For example, in 2017, approximately 2,215 employees and security personnel at the Company’s sites received in-person training on human rights issues as part of Barrick’s Code of Conduct, Human Rights and Anti-Corruption training program. In addition, approximately 3,650 employees received interactive online training relating to human rights as part of this program. Barrick continues to engage broadly on human rights and has partnerships with leading organizations such as White Ribbon. Barrick has been a member of the UN Global Compact’s (“UNGC”) Human Rights and Labour Working Group since 2013, the Steering Committee of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights between 2012 and 2014 and from 2016 to present, and the UNGC’s Steering Committee for its Business for Peace initiative and the Supply Chain and Sustainability Working Group since 2014. In 2017, Barrick issued its first stand-alone Human Rights report, which provides interested stakeholders with information on the Company’s human rights global

- 41 -

compliance program and salient risks, which Barrick intends to update on an annual basis. In 2018, the Company is also planning to convene a speaker series in several North American cities on material business and human rights issues. These and other efforts which emphasize transparency, dialogue and relationship building reinforce Barrick’s commitment to respecting human rights wherever the Company operates.

Barrick continued to invest in partnerships that matter to host governments and communities which the Company believes is an important way to share the benefits of mining and help build broad stakeholder support for its operations. In 2017, this included a new partnership with Networking Academy (NetAcad), Cisco’s information technology (IT) skills and career building program. In April 2017, Barrick, Cisco and Great Basin College announced a partnership that will bring digital and IT skills development courses, free of charge, to groups in the greater Elko, Nevada community. This program is available to Barrick employees and their families, veterans, members of the Western Shoshone tribe, and many others in Barrick’s rural host communities in Northern Nevada. Similar NetAcads are planned in other communities where the Company operates, which can ultimately help build a more skilled workforce and can contribute to the diversification of local economies.

Barrick continues to engage external experts to improve its understanding of emerging sustainability issues and improve its performance. To this end, the Company convened two meetings of its independent Corporate Social Responsibility Advisory Board in 2017. Since establishing the Advisory Board in 2012, the Company has convened twelve meetings, which have been hosted by Barrick’s CEO and, subsequently, by the President. These meetings are a forum for Advisory Board members to interact with members of Barrick’s executive committee, provide insight on emerging sustainability trends and issues that could affect the Company’s business, and provide critical feedback on the Company’s corporate social responsibility performance. Summaries of all meetings are posted on Barrick’s website. Plans are underway to host two meetings of the Advisory Board in 2018.

Barrick’s sustainability efforts continue to receive international recognition, including by the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index, in which the Company was listed in 2017 for the tenth consecutive year. Consistent with Barrick’s commitment to transparency, Barrick continues to participate in a number of voluntary disclosure initiatives, including the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, and the Carbon and Water Disclosure Projects. See “Environment” for additional information on Barrick’s environmental standards and practices.

In 2017, the Company developed a climate change strategy aligned with its overall business strategy to grow free cash flow per share through safe and responsible mining. See “Environment” for more detail regarding Barrick’s climate change strategy and initiatives.

Operations in Emerging Markets: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls

Barrick conducts or participates in mining, development and exploration and other activities through subsidiaries and/or joint ventures in many countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia and in emerging markets such as Argentina, Chile, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Zambia. Barrick has a long history of successfully developing and operating mines in emerging markets and has organizational and governance structures and protocols in place to manage the regulatory, legal, linguistic and cultural challenges and risks associated with having operations in these jurisdictions. For a detailed discussion of the risks associated with operating in emerging markets see “Risk Factors – Foreign investments and operations” starting on page 112 of this Annual Information Form.

- 42 -

Barrick holds its properties and projects in emerging markets indirectly through subsidiaries and/or joint venture entities which are locally incorporated or established for the purposes of compliance with local law. These operating subsidiaries or joint venture entities are in turn held through holding companies incorporated in jurisdictions with well-developed and reliable legal and taxation systems. Such holding companies: (i) facilitate internal company reorganizations of group companies; (ii) may facilitate project financing and commercial transactions such as the creation of joint ventures; and (iii) provide for predictability and legitimate dispute resolution processes. Barrick has designed a system of corporate governance, internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures that apply to Barrick and its consolidated subsidiaries and joint ventures. These systems, which are coordinated by the Company’s senior management and overseen by its Board of Directors, are designed to monitor the activities at, and receive timely reports from Barrick’s operating subsidiaries and joint ventures. Barrick has implemented separate reporting systems for Acacia.

The Company has extensive operating experience in each emerging market in which a material property is located – the Dominican Republic, Peru and Argentina. Operating in emerging markets exposes the Company to risks and uncertainties that do not exist or are significantly less likely to occur in other jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada or Australia. The Company manages and mitigates these risks through a variety of corporate governance mechanisms.

Board and Management Experience and Oversight

Barrick’s Board of Directors includes directors with experience working or running businesses in emerging markets. Gustavo A. Cisneros, an independent director, Chair of Barrick’s Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee and member of Barrick’s Compensation Committee, is an established businessman with significant experience running businesses in the Dominican Republic and Latin America. Mr. Cisneros is well-versed in many of the cultural, legal and regulatory considerations that are relevant to operating in Latin America and the Dominican Republic, in particular. Pablo Marcet, an Argentine-resident independent director who was appointed in December 2016, is a seasoned mining professional with nearly 30 years of experience in the exploration, development, and operation of mines across Latin America, including Argentina. Mr. Marcet’s deep operational and geopolitical experience in Latin America is a vital asset to the Company, as it manages its investments and evaluates new ones in the region. Graham G. Clow is an independent director who was elected to the Company’s Board of Directors in 2016 and is a member of the Company’s Risk Committee. Mr. Clow is the Chairman and Principal Mining Engineer of Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., a consulting firm providing reserves and resources services to the mining industry at all stages of project development. Mr. Clow has more than 40 years of experience in all aspects of mining, including acquisitions, exploration, feasibility, finance, development, construction, operations, and closure. Dambisa F. Moyo has been an independent director since 2011 and is a member of the Company’s Audit, Corporate Governance & Nominating and Risk Committees. Dr. Moyo is an international economist and author on the global economy with unique knowledge on the inherent risks and issues facing emerging markets. Kelvin P. M. Dushnisky, the Company’s President since 2015 and a member of the Board of Directors since 2016, has more than 30 years of international mining industry experience, with a focus on project development, government relations, and public affairs. Since joining the Company in 2002, Mr. Dushnisky has developed extensive experience dealing with critical issues and risks faced by the Company in emerging markets. In addition, Mr. Dushnisky is Chairman of Acacia, which has operations in Tanzania and in which the Company holds a 63.9% equity interest. Dr. Moyo and Messrs. Cisneros, Clow, Dushnisky and Marcet provide the Board of Directors and management with insight into, and an understanding of, many of the key issues that are germane to Barrick’s operations in emerging markets.

In addition, members of Barrick’s Board of Directors and senior officers regularly visit the Company’s operations in both developed and emerging markets. During these visits, they interact with

- 43 -

local employees, government officials and business persons; such interactions enhance the visiting officers’ knowledge of local culture and business practices. In 2017, various of the Company’s independent directors visited the Cortez, Jabal Sayid, Lagunas Norte, Lumwana, Turquoise Ridge and Veladero sites to monitor operational progress and risks. Barrick’s Executive Chairman, together with Brian L. Greenspun, Barrick’s independent director from Nevada, also visited the Company’s CodeMine facility in Nevada to assess progress on Barrick’s digital transformation.

The Board of Directors, through its corporate governance practices, regularly receives management and technical updates, risk assessments and progress reports in connection with its operations in emerging markets, and in so doing, maintains effective oversight of its business and operations. Through these updates, assessments and reports, the Board of Directors gains familiarity with the operations, laws and risks associated with operations in those jurisdictions. Further, the Board of Directors has access to head office management in Canada who work directly with local management and are familiar with the local laws, business culture and standard practices, have local language proficiency, are experienced in working in the applicable emerging jurisdiction and in dealing with the respective government authorities and have experience and knowledge of the local banking systems and treasury requirements.

Communications

While the reporting language with the head office is English, the primary operating language in the Dominican Republic, Peru and Argentina is Spanish. All Barrick policies, procedures, standards and training are available in both English and Spanish. Messrs. Cisneros and Marcet are native Spanish speakers. Many members of head office management are proficient in Spanish, and the majority of operational management in emerging markets are fluent in Spanish and English.

The Company maintains open communication with its operations in the Dominican Republic, Peru and Argentina through management team members who are fluent in Spanish and are proficient in English, removing language barriers between the Company’s head office in Toronto and the local management teams. The primary language used in meetings with head office management and Board meetings is English and material documents relating to the Company’s operations that are provided to the Board are in English. Material documents relating to the Company’s material operations in the Dominican Republic, Peru and Argentina are either in English or, where in Spanish, are translated into or summarized in English.

Further, the Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte and Veladero minesites participate in a weekly business plan review meeting with Barrick’s other minesites and head office. This weekly meeting is facilitated on a rotating basis by a member of the Company’s Executive Committee and serves to facilitate the timely flow of information and head office oversight of operations. Aside from the weekly meeting and frequent informal contact, Barrick does not have a formal communication plan that sets out measures that will be taken to mitigate any potential communication-related issues.

Internal Controls and Cash Management Practices

The Company maintains internal controls over financial reporting with respect to its operations in emerging markets by taking various measures and consistently applying them across its operations. Pursuant to the requirements of National Instrument 52-109 and the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Company assesses the design and operation of key internal controls over financial reporting on an annual basis at a minimum, following a risk-based approach. The working papers of the tests performed at all of the Company’s locations are reviewed at the head office level. The control standards utilized in emerging markets do not materially differ from those employed at the Company’s other operations.

- 44 -

Differences in banking systems and controls between Canada and each emerging market in which Barrick operates are addressed by having stringent controls over cash kept in the jurisdiction, especially with respect to access to cash, cash disbursements, appropriate authorization levels, performing and reviewing bank reconciliations on at least a monthly basis and the segregation of duties.

The Company also has established (or, where the Company is not the operator, has required its partner to establish) practices, protocols and routines for the management and eventual distribution of its excess cash to its foreign owners. The distribution mechanisms depend upon local circumstances and financing arrangements in place, and are compliant with applicable law. All material practices, protocols and routines are controlled and overseen by the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and are subject to customary internal reviews. Candidates for significant roles in the operations, including key positions of trust, are reviewed by the Company’s head office before appointment at the operating level. For additional details, see “Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures”.

Further, pursuant to its mandate, the Audit Committee has the authority to retain, at its sole discretion, outside legal, accounting or other advisors in any jurisdiction in which the Company operates, at the expense of the Company. The Audit Committee has unrestricted access to these advisors and may communicate directly with them. For additional details, see “Audit Committee”.

Managing Cultural Differences

Differences in cultures and practices between Canada and each emerging market in which Barrick operates are addressed by employing competent staff in Canada and the applicable emerging market jurisdiction who are familiar with the local laws, business culture and standard practices, have local language proficiency, are experienced in working in that jurisdiction and in dealing with the relevant government authorities and have experience and knowledge of the local banking systems and treasury requirements.

Books and Records

Where required by applicable law, Barrick maintains and stores original copies of all company records in the applicable language. Company management and the Board of Directors have complete access to these records.    The Company has also implemented a web-based global entity management system for recording and facilitating access to such information and documents.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

For the purposes of this Annual Information Form, Barrick has identified its Cortez, Goldstrike, Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge mines as material properties. The following is a description of Barrick’s material properties.

Cortez Property

General Information

Project Description

The Cortez property is located 100 kilometers southwest of the town of Elko, Nevada in Lander and Eureka counties at elevations ranging from 1,370 meters to 1,675 meters. Cortez employs approximately 1,250 employees and 345 contractors.

- 45 -

As of December 31, 2017, the Cortez property encompassed an area of interest of approximately 307,022 hectares. The Cortez property is comprised of the Cortez Hills, Pipeline, Cortez and Gold Acres Complexes. Current mining activity is primarily focused on the Cortez Hills and Pipeline Complexes, located approximately 26 kilometers south and 18 kilometers southwest of the town of Crescent Valley, Nevada, respectively. The property rights controlled by Cortez, either from outright ownership or by lease, consist of 90,055 hectares of unpatented mining claims held subject to the paramount title of the United States of America and 17,226 hectares of patented mining claims and fee mineral and surface land, owned or controlled through various patents issued by the United States of America. All mining claims are renewed on an annual basis and all necessary fees are paid prior to August 31 of each year. All mining leases and subleases are reviewed on a monthly basis and all payments and commitments are paid as required by the specific agreements. The property is accessible year round by paved road from Elko, Nevada.

Sufficient surface rights have been obtained for current operations at the property.

Starting with the first quarter of 2017, Cortez and the Goldstrike property described below (along with Goldrush and Barrick’s 60% interest in South Arturo) were combined into one operating segment, Barrick Nevada.

History

In 1964, a joint venture was formed to explore the Cortez area. In 1969, the original Cortez mine went into production. From 1969 to 1997, gold ore was sourced from open pits at Cortez, Gold Acres, Horse Canyon and Crescent. In 1991, the Pipeline and South Pipeline deposits were discovered, with development approval received in 1996. In 1998, the Cortez Pediment was discovered, with the Cortez Hills discovery announced in April 2003. The Cortez Hills development was approved by Placer Dome and Kennecott, then joint venturers, in September 2005 and confirmed by Barrick in 2006. Barrick obtained an interest in the Cortez property through its acquisition of Placer Dome in 2006. Barrick consolidated its 100% interest in the property following its purchase of the Kennecott interest in 2008.

Geology

Geological Setting

The Cortez property is situated along the Cortez/Battle Mountain trend. The principal gold deposits and mining operations are located in the southern portion of Crescent Valley, which was formed by basin and range extensional tectonism. Mineralization is sedimentary rock-hosted and consists of submicron to micrometer-sized particles, very fine sulfide grains, and gold in solid solution in pyrite. Mineralization is disseminated throughout the host rock matrix in zones of silicified, decarbonatized, argillized, silty calcareous rocks and associated jasperoids.

Mineralization

Mineralization is sedimentary rock-hosted and consists of submicron to micrometer-sized gold particles and gold in solid solution in pyrite. Mineralization is disseminated throughout the host rock matrix in zones of silicified, decarbonatized, argillized, silty calcareous rocks.

The Cortez Hills deposit consists of the Breccia Zone, Middle Zone, Lower Zone, Renegade Zone and the Pediment deposit. The maximum strike length of mineralization in the Cortez Hills deposit is approximately 1,300 meters, and the maximum width is approximately 420 meters. The mineralized zone starts at approximately 120 meters below surface and continues to more than 600 meters below surface. It is open at depth in the Renegade Zone. Exploration to fully delineate the extent of the Cortez Hills deposit is ongoing.

- 46 -

Ore at the Pipeline deposit is hosted within silty carbonates associated with the Roberts Mountain and Wenban Formations. The maximum strike length of mineralization in the Pipeline deposit is approximately 1,600 meters and the maximum width is approximately 1,200 meters. The mineralized zone starts approximately 60 meters below surface and continues to 600 meters below surface.

Mining Operations

Production and Mine Life

Deposits within the Pipeline Complex are being mined by conventional open pit methods. Mining at the Cortez Hills Complex is being conducted at the open pit operations using conventional methods. At the underground operations, two different underground mining methods are used: long-hole open stoping and drift-and-fill.

Mining production rates (open pit and underground combined) for all mining activity at Cortez are expected to average about 134 million tonnes per year. Conventional open pit mining at Cortez Hills is currently scheduled through 2019 and underground mining through 2029. Open pit mining at the Pipeline Complex is scheduled to continue through 2027. Based on existing reserves and production capacity, including the Cortez Underground Expansion Project discussed in further detail below, the expected remaining mine life at Cortez is 10 years for open pit mining, 12 years for underground mining, and 17 years for processing operations.

Cortez Underground Expansion Project

In 2015, Barrick completed a prefeasibility study for expanded underground mining in the Deep South Zone, below currently permitted areas of the Lower Zone at the CHUG mine. The Deep South project remains on track to contribute average underground production of more than 300,000 ounces per year between 2022 and 2026.

Development of the range front twin declines that will provide access to the lower zone of the mine began in the fourth quarter of 2016. For the first time, the mine is using a roadheader (a piece of machinery that employs mechanical cutting to facilitate continuous tunnel boring), rather than traditional drilling and blasting.

The prefeasibility study anticipated a cost of sales of $840 per ounce, and average all-in sustaining costs of $580 per ounce, for mining in the Deep South Zone. Optimization work completed as part of a feasibility study has identified a number of opportunities to reduce these costs, including through the use of autonomous loading with a smart conveyance system, compared to a traditional conveyor system contemplated in the prefeasibility study. As result of this optimization work, the Company now anticipates cost of sales of approximately $649 per ounce with substantially the same all-in sustaining costs.

The expansion will enable Barrick to access approximately 1.9 million ounces of proven and probable reserves in the Deep South Zone, of which about 60% is oxide (see Note 8 of “– Notes to the Mineral Reserves and Resources Table” in “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources” for information regarding the classification of these reserves for U.S. reporting purposes). “All-in sustaining costs” is a non-GAAP financial performance measure. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs per ounce refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

- 47 -

Permitting was initiated in 2016 with the submission to the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) of an amendment to the current Mine Plan of Operations. The permitting process is expected to take approximately three to four years, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A record of decision is expected in 2019 or 2020. On this basis, dewatering and development work could begin as early as 2019 or 2020, with initial production from the Deep South Zone commencing in 2022 or 2023.

Processing

The gold-recovery process used at Cortez is determined by considering the grade and metallurgical character of the particular ore: lower grade run-of-mine oxide ore is heap leached at existing facilities; higher-grade non-refractory ore is treated in a conventional mill using cyanidation and the CIL process; and refractory ore is stockpiled on site in designated areas and trucked 160 kilometers to Goldstrike for processing (see “– Goldstrike Property”). Gold recovered from the ore is processed into doré on-site and shipped to outside refineries for processing into gold bullion.

The active heap leach facilities are located at the Pipeline and Cortez Hills Complexes. Milling activities at Cortez are conducted at the Pipeline Complex, which includes crushing and grinding facilities, CIL circuits, reagent storage areas and a recovery/refining circuit. Mill throughput varies from 9,500 to 13,500 tonnes per day (10,430 to 15,000 tons per day) depending on the hardness of the ore being processed.

Water for process use at the Pipeline Complex is supplied from open pit dewatering systems, which include wells, pipelines and infiltration basins.

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance

Electric power for the Pipeline and Cortez Hills Complexes is purchased in the open market and supplied through an 80 kilometer distribution line.

On December 28, 2015, a Cortez employee was killed in a collision while operating a haul truck. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) commenced a fatal accident investigation following the incident and issued three citations to Cortez on January 26, 2016: (i) Citation 877927, issued under §104(a) of the Mine Act, for which Cortez paid a fine of $8,627; (ii) Citation 8779298, under §104(a) of the Mine Act, for which Cortez paid a fine of $42,000; and (iii) Citation 8779299, under §104(d)(1) of the Mine Act, for which Cortez paid a fine of $56,000.

All material permits and rights to conduct existing operations at the Cortez property have been obtained and are in good standing.

Cortez initiated a digital transformation effort in late 2016 which is focused on automating some aspects of the mobile equipment fleet, automating the processing plant, using locating technology to increase the effective duration of work during mining shifts, and automating the maintenance work order process to improve mechanic and warehouse efficiency (see “General Information – General Development of the Business – Strategy”).

Environment

Vegetation is dominated by grass and shrubs. The climate is relatively arid and has little impact on mine operations. Operations are conducted throughout the year.

- 48 -

The mine’s dewatering operations have been enhanced with the addition of several new rapid infiltration sites. Current dewatering operations focus on bedrock water production. A portion of the dewatering water is utilized for mining and milling, and a portion is utilized at a local ranch on a seasonal basis for irrigation purposes. The balance is returned to the basin through the rapid infiltration basins or consumed in processing activities (i.e., dust suppression and process makeup water).

In 2017, all activities at the Cortez property were, and continue to be, in compliance in all material respects with applicable corporate standards and environmental regulations.

Estimated future reclamation and closure costs at Cortez are reported in Barrick’s financial statements as part of the amounts that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37 at Barrick Nevada. As at December 31, 2017, the recorded amount of estimated future reclamation and closure costs for Barrick Nevada that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37, and that have been updated each reporting period, was $289 million (as described in Note 2U to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The portion of this amount attributable to Cortez for 2017 was $147 million. Barrick has provided the financial security as required by governmental authorities in connection with the reclamation of the mine area.

For additional information regarding Barrick’s environmental initiatives, see “Environment”.

Exploration and Drilling

In 2017, approximately 43,019 meters in 155 exploration holes were drilled around Cortez, including Cortez Hills, Pipeline, Gold Acres and Robertson. Spacing ranged from nominal 100 to 300 meters for earlier stage projects to 15 to 45 meter spacing for resource and reserve delineation programs. Drilling in the Cortez Hills area is conducted from surface and underground platforms. Mineralization remains open at depth. In the Renegade Zone, exploration continued to further define the limits of mineralization to the northwest and southeast.

A total of 14,648 meters of drilling is planned for the Cortez operations area (Cortez Hills, Pipeline and Robertson).

Approximately 17,000 drill holes have been drilled to date. Reverse circulation drilling is currently used during the initial phases of exploration. Where reverse circulation holes encounter mineralization, they are re-drilled with core holes to produce high-quality sampling of the mineralization. The Pipeline Complex is drilled on 43 meter centers and the Cortez Hills Complex on 30 meter centers for open pit ore definition. CHUG ore is delineated by nominal 15 meter spaced core holes with additional in-fill reverse circulation drilling as required to define ore boundaries.

Royalties and Taxes

All production from Pipeline is subject to a gross smelter return royalty of approximately 1.3%. In addition, production from certain portions of the Pipeline Complex is subject to a gross smelter return royalty (graduating from 0.4% to 5.0% based on the price of gold) and a net value royalty of 5%. There is also a net value royalty of 3.75% on gold sales from the South Pipeline deposit.

All other production by Cortez, including Cortez Hills, is subject to a gross smelter return royalty of approximately 1.3%.

In addition, once the total amount of gold produced by Cortez after January 1, 2008 exceeds 15 million ounces, which has not yet occurred, 40% of production at Cortez will be subject to a royalty

- 49 -

graduating from 0% to 3%, depending on the gold price, on the gross value of gold delivered, minus certain deductions for pre-existing royalties.

The State of Nevada imposes a 5% net proceeds tax on the value of all minerals severed in the State. This tax is calculated and paid based on a prescribed net income formula which is different from book income.

Mining and Processing Information

The following table summarizes certain mining and processing information for the Cortez property for the periods indicated.

	Year ended December 31, 2017	Year ended December 31, 2016
Tonnes mined (000s)	134,503	124,919
Tonnes of ore processed (000s)	15,853	25,112
Average grade processed (grams per tonne)	3.10	1.73
Ounces of gold produced (000s)	1,447	1,059

For certain additional financial information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Reportable Operating Segments – Barrick Nevada”.

The most recent technical report on the Cortez property is the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Cortez Operations, State of Nevada, U.S.A.” dated March 21, 2016 and authored by Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (“RPA”). This technical report has been filed on SEDAR in accordance with National Instrument 43-101.

The diagram on the following page shows the design and layout of the Cortez property.

- 50 -

- 51 -

Goldstrike Property

General Information

Project Description

The Goldstrike property is located in Elko and Eureka Counties in north central Nevada, approximately 40 kilometers north of the town of Carlin and 160 kilometers northeast of the Cortez property, at an elevation of 1,700 meters in the hilly terrain of the Tuscarora Mountains. Goldstrike employs approximately 1,700 employees and 400 contractors.

Current mining activity at Goldstrike is primarily focused on the Betze pit, Rodeo and Meikle underground and South Arturo pit. As of December 31, 2017, the Goldstrike property comprised 4,198 hectares of surface rights ownership/control (3,420 hectares private and 778 hectares public), and 3,535 hectares of mineral rights ownership/control (2,741 hectares private and 794 hectares public). These rights are owned or controlled through various forms of patents issued by the United States of America and by ownership of unpatented mining and mill-site claims that are held subject to the paramount title of the United States of America. The Goldstrike property includes a total of 298 unpatented mining and mill-site claims to control the public acreage. Unpatented mining claims are maintained on an annual basis. All mining leases and subleases are reviewed on a monthly basis and all payments and commitments are paid as required by the specific agreements. The Betze open pit, the underground mines and the beneficiation and processing facilities at the Goldstrike property are predominantly situated on land owned by Barrick. Access to the property is via paved road from Elko, Nevada, certain access agreements with Newmont and a right-of-way issued by the Bureau of Land Management.

Sufficient surface rights have been obtained for current operations at the property.

Starting with the first quarter of 2017, Goldstrike and the Cortez property described above (along with Goldrush and South Arturo) were combined into one operating segment, Barrick Nevada.

History

PanCana Minerals Ltd. (“PanCana”) first mined the property for gold in 1976. In 1978, Western States Minerals Corporation (“WSMC”) became the operator in a 50/50 joint venture with PanCana. Barrick acquired a 50% interest and assumed management of the Goldstrike property on December 31, 1986 with the acquisition of WSMC’s 50% interest in the property. It completed the acquisition of 100% ownership of the property pursuant to a plan of arrangement entered into with PanCana in January 1987.

Geology

Geological Setting

The property is located on the Carlin Trend, one of North America’s most prolific gold producing areas. The area of the Goldstrike property consists of folded and faulted Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, which were intruded by the diorite to granodiorite Goldstrike stock of the Jurassic Age. Mesozoic folding and thrust faults form important structural traps for the mineralization in the Betze-Post pit. Tertiary faulting developed ranges and basins, which were subsequently filled with volcanic and sedimentary rocks during the Tertiary time.

- 52 -

Mineralization

The major gold deposits – Post Oxide, Betze, Rodeo and Meikle – are all hosted in sedimentary rocks of the Silurian to Devonian ages. The gold mineralization at the Betze open pit (Post Oxide and Betze deposits) is controlled by favourable stratigraphy, structural complexities in the form of faults and folds, and the contact of the Goldstrike intrusive. Overall, the Betze-Post ore zones extend for 1,829 meters in a northwest direction and average 183 to 244 meters in width and 122 to 183 meters in thickness.

Carbonate breccias and limestones of the Devonian Popovich Formation and various intrusive rocks host the orebodies that comprise the Goldstrike underground mine (Rodeo and Meikle deposits). In contrast to the Goldstrike open pit area, the overlying mudstones and argillites of the Devonian Rodeo Creek Member are generally unmineralized. The maximum strike length of mineralization in the Rodeo-Meikle ore zones is approximately 3,660 meters, and the maximum width is approximately 595 meters. The mineralized zone starts at approximately 180 meters below surface and continues to more than 586 meters below surface.

Mining Operations

Production and Mine Life

Goldstrike’s open pit mine is an open pit truck-and-shovel operation, using standard, proven equipment. Two different underground mining methods are used at the underground mine: long-hole open stoping and drift-and-fill (used for flat-lying mineralization or where ground conditions are less competent). The underground mine is a trackless operation.

Based on existing reserves and production capacity, the expected remaining mine life at Goldstrike extends to 2032 for underground mining, to 2030 for open pit mining and to 2037 for processing operations. There is potential for further extensions to the mine life from open pit, underground and additional processing of toll ores purchased from third-party vendors.

Barrick’s 60% owned South Arturo project is located approximately eight kilometers northwest of Goldstrike. Waste stripping at South Arturo commenced shortly after receipt of the final water pollution control permit on March 26, 2015. Primary ore mining commenced in the second half of 2016. Phase 2 of South Arturo was completed in the first half of 2017. Barrick expects that the bulk of the ore from the South Arturo pit will be processed through Goldstrike’s refractory processing facilities, which are described in further detail below.

Processing

The Goldstrike property has two processing facilities: an autoclave installation, which was originally designed to treat the property’s non-carbonaceous sulfide (refractory) ore, and the roaster, which is currently used to treat the property’s carbonaceous ore, which is also refractory and responds poorly to cyanidation. The original combined installed capacity of these two facilities was approximately 27,000 to 30,000 tonnes per day. With the implementation of calcium thiosulfate leaching as described below, the combined installed capacity of the two facilities is approximately 26,000 to 27,000 tonnes per day. These processing facilities treat the ore from Goldstrike’s open pit and underground mines, as well as refractory ore from Barrick’s Cortez property. Gold recovered from the ore is processed into doré on-site and shipped to outside refineries for processing into gold bullion.

In 2014, Goldstrike completed the first phase of construction of its Total Carbonaceous Material (“TCM”) project, which utilizes a thiosulfate-based resin in leach technology to allow double-refractory

- 53 -

carbonaceous ores to be processed through the autoclaves rather than the roaster. The TCM technology uses calcium thiosulfate to leach the gold after pressure oxidation rather than cyanide. Resin is used to collect the dissolved gold rather than activated carbon. First gold from the TCM process was produced in November 2014, following completion of construction of the first phase of the TCM facility. After a staged start-up, the autoclaves reached 85% of full production capacity of 12,000 tonnes per day in 2015. Tonnes processed increased by 22% in 2017 versus 2016 performance. The new TCM circuit will allow the autoclaves to continue to process the remaining autoclave amenable stockpiles through 2023. As a result, Goldstrike expects to be able to process stockpiled carbonaceous material earlier than anticipated and increase its capacity to process ore transported to Goldstrike from other properties. The expected average annual contribution is approximately 310 thousand ounces of production over the next four years.

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance

Most of Goldstrike’s power requirements are provided by a 115 megawatt natural gas-fired power plant. The remaining power requirements are satisfied by open market purchases of electricity. A natural gas pipeline was completed in the second quarter of 2013 to provide natural gas to the major production equipment at the autoclave and roaster facilities, which are fully operational.

Dewatering of the Betze Pit is accomplished through the use of perimeter wells located peripheral to the pit area, in-pit wells, horizontal drains installed for passive dewatering of pit walls, and water collection sumps installed in the bottom of the pit.

Groundwater pumping for dewatering at the Goldstrike property is primarily from the carbonate rock aquifer, with very small amounts of pumping from shallower siltstones and unconsolidated basin fill deposits.

Water is conveyed by pipelines to support mining, milling and related uses at the Goldstrike property. Water that is not used for mining or milling purposes is delivered to the 72-inch-diameter gravity flow pipeline to the TS Ranch Reservoir. Barrick is authorized by a discharge permit issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to discharge water produced by its groundwater pumping operations to groundwater via percolation, infiltration and irrigation.

All material permits and rights to conduct existing operations at the Goldstrike property have been obtained and are in good standing.

Environment

The Northern Nevada climate is fairly arid and has little impact on mine operations. Vegetation is dominated by grass and shrubs.

In 2017, all activities at the Goldstrike property were, and continue to be, in compliance in all material respects with applicable corporate standards and environmental regulations.

Estimated future reclamation and closure costs at Goldstrike are reported in Barrick’s financial statements as part of the amounts that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37 at Barrick Nevada. As at December 31, 2017, the recorded amount of estimated future reclamation and closure costs for Barrick Nevada that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37, and that have been updated each reporting period, was $289 million (as described in Note 2U to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The portion of this amount attributable to Goldstrike for 2017 was $142 million. Barrick has provided the financial security as required by governmental authorities in connection with the reclamation of the mine area.

- 54 -

Exploration and Drilling

In 2017, surface near-mine exploration at the Goldstrike property completed five exploration drill programs and two target delineation surface sampling programs northwest of the Betze pit. The drill programs followed up on 2016 drilling success and identified surface geochemical anomalies. Drilling focused on key structural intersections controlling gold distribution with the aim of expanding the gold resource at the South Arturo pits and adding additional gold resources adjacent to existing mineralization at South Arturo. Surface sampling focused on confirming continuation of geochemical anomalies along faults. A total of 37,985 meters of reverse circulation and core drilling was completed. Additional near-mine exploration drilling is scheduled in this area for 2018.

In 2017, Goldstrike conducted nine underground exploration projects including initial drill testing, in-fill drilling, reserve definition drilling and geotechnical drilling for a total of 126,409 meters using both reverse circulation and diamond core drilling, of which 76,427 meters was exploration-related. Exploration drilling focused on extending known mineralization ahead of mining and testing new target zones.

Surface near-mine exploration drill programs in 2018 are planned in order to complete 9,417 meters of reverse circulation and diamond core drilling for drill test through resource definition programs. The drill test programs include North Carlin Trend exploration targets. The resource definition program is focused on advancing the South Arturo Phase 3 pit project through completion of supplemental metallurgical test holes.

Underground near-mine exploration drill programs in 2018 are planned to complete 21,632 meters of reverse circulation and diamond core drilling for drill test through advanced exploration. The underground drilling will focus on one delineation target, two drill test targets and five advanced exploration programs so as to expand the existing gold resource. The planned drilling will focus on new target zones and follow-up of 2017 drilling program successes.

Royalties and Taxes

Most of the property comprising the Betze open pit mine is subject to net smelter return and net profits interest royalties payable on the valuable minerals produced from the property.

The maximum third party royalties payable on the Betze deposit are a 4% net smelter return and a 6% net profits interest. The maximum royalties payable on the Meikle deposit are a 4% net smelter return and a 5% net profits interest.

The State of Nevada imposes a 5% net proceeds tax on the value of all minerals severed in the State. This tax is calculated and paid based on a prescribed net income formula which is different from book income.

- 55 -

Mining and Processing Information

The following table summarizes certain mining and processing information for the Goldstrike property for the periods indicated.

	Year ended December 31, 2017	Year ended December 31, 2016
Tonnes mined (000s)	76,587	67,834
Tonnes of ore processed (000s)	8,041	7,361
Average grade processed (grams per tonne)	4.28	5.65
Ounces of gold produced (000s)	865	1,096

For certain additional financial information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Reportable Operating Segments – Barrick Nevada”.

The most recent technical report on the Goldstrike property is the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Goldstrike Mine, Eureka and Elko Counties, Nevada, USA” dated April 25, 2017 and authored by RPA. This technical report has been filed on SEDAR in accordance with National Instrument 43-101.

The diagram on the following page shows the design and layout of the Goldstrike property.

- 56 -

- 57 -

Pueblo Viejo Mine

General Information

Project Description

The Pueblo Viejo mine is an open pit mining operation located in the province of Sánchez Ramírez in the central part of the Dominican Republic on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola. The mine is approximately 100 kilometers northwest of the national capital of Santo Domingo. Pueblo Viejo employs approximately 2,300 employees and 2,200 contractors.

The Pueblo Viejo mine is situated on the Montenegro Fiscal Reserve, an area specially designated by Presidential Decree for the leasing of minerals and mine development, which covers an area of 4,880 hectares at the head of the Arroyo Margajita Valley in the eastern portion of the Cordillera Central. A special lease agreement (“SLA”) between the Dominican State and Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation (“PVDC”) governs the development and operation of the Pueblo Viejo mine. The SLA provides PVDC with the right to operate the Pueblo Viejo mine for a 25-year period commencing from the date on which PVDC delivered the Project Notice under the SLA, with one extension by right for 25 years and a second 25-year extension by mutual agreement of the parties, allowing a possible total term of 75 years. The Pueblo Viejo deposits are located in two major areas, the Monte Negro pit and the Moore pit. The property is accessible year-round by paved road from Santo Domingo.

Sufficient surface rights have been obtained for current operations at the property.

History

Early mining activity at the site dates back to the 1500s. Subsequent to that early mining activity, Rosario Resources commenced mining operations on the property in 1975. In 1979, the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic purchased all foreign-held shares in Rosario Resources and the Dominican Government continued operations as Rosario Dominicana S.A. Gold and silver production from oxide, transitional, and sulfide ores occurred from 1975 to 1999. The mine ceased operations in 1999. In 2000, the Dominican Republic invited international bids for the leasing and mineral exploitation of the Pueblo Viejo minesite. In July 2001, PVDC (then known as Placer Dome Dominicana Corporation), an affiliate of Placer Dome, was awarded the bid. PVDC and the Dominican Republic subsequently negotiated the SLA for the Montenegro Fiscal Reserve, which was ratified by the Dominican National Congress and became effective on July 29, 2003. In March 2006, Barrick acquired Placer Dome and in May 2006 amalgamated the companies. At the same time, Barrick sold a 40% stake in the Pueblo Viejo project to Goldcorp. On February 26, 2008, PVDC delivered the Project Notice to the Government of the Dominican Republic pursuant to the SLA and delivered the Pueblo Viejo Feasibility Study to the Government. In 2009, the Dominican Republic and PVDC agreed to amend the terms of the SLA. The amendment became effective on November 13, 2009 following its ratification by the Dominican National Congress. The Pueblo Viejo mine achieved commercial production in January 2013. A second amendment to the SLA became effective on October 5, 2013, and has resulted in additional and accelerated tax revenues to the government of the Dominican Republic (see “– Royalties and Taxes” below).

- 58 -

Geology

Geological Setting

The Pueblo Viejo deposit consists of high sulfidation or acid sulfate epithermal gold, silver, copper, and zinc mineralization that was formed during the Cretaceous Age island arc volcanism. The two main areas of alteration and mineralization are the Monte Negro and Moore deposits. Exploration drilling has identified two satellite deposits, under the historic Cumba and Upper Mejita mine workings. Pueblo Viejo is situated in the Los Ranchos Formation, a series of volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks that extend across the eastern half of the Dominican Republic, generally striking northwest and dipping southwest.

Mineralization

The Moore deposit is located at the eastern margin of the Pueblo Viejo member sedimentary basin. Stratigraphy consists of finely bedded carbonaceous siltstone and mudstone (PV sediments) overlying horizons of spilite (basaltic-andesite flows), volcanic sandstone, and fragmental volcaniclastics. The Monte Negro deposit is located at the northwestern margin of the sedimentary basin. Stratigraphy consists of interbedded carbonaceous sediments ranging from siltstone to conglomerate that are interlayered with volcaniclastic flows. Metallic mineralization in the deposit areas is primarily pyrite with lesser amounts of sphalerite and enargite. Pyrite mineralization occurs as disseminations, layers, replacements, and veins. Sphalerite and enargite mineralization is primarily in veins, but disseminated sphalerite has been noted in core. The mineralization extends for 2,800 meters north-south and 2,500 meters east-west and extends from the surface to 500 meters in depth.

Mining Operations

Production and Mine Life

The Pueblo Viejo mine achieved commercial production in January 2013 and completed its ramp-up to full design capacity in 2014. Mining operations are planned for the Monte Negro pit in phases 4 and 5 as well as the Moore pit in phase 3 and phases 5 to 7.

Based on existing tailings capacity, the expected mine life is just over four years for mining and just over 16 years of processing and quarrying operations. Pueblo Viejo produced 650 thousand ounces of gold in 2017 (Barrick’s 60% share).

Processing

Gold and silver are recovered through pressure oxidation of the whole ore followed by hot cure and hot lime boil prior to cyanidation of gold and silver in a CIL circuit.

The autoclave circuit is designed to oxidize approximately 1,750 tonnes per day of sulfide, to average just over 24,000 tonnes per day run-of-mine ore annually. The rest of the process plant is designed to handle the maximum process throughput, and the mine is progressing toward design capacity for silver and copper concentrate production. Pueblo Viejo is evaluating opportunities to further increase average plant throughput by optimizing autoclave controls and sulfide content in the mill.

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance

The tailings storage area is located in the El Llagal valley located approximately four kilometers south of the plant site. The tailings storage area will contain all of the process tailings, waste rock and

- 59 -

high density sludge precipitate to be generated over the life of the Pueblo Viejo mine, and runoff water from the design flood event. Additional tailings impoundment capacity will be studied and implemented as required by the resource base, as described in further detail below. In addition to solids storage, each cell in the tailings facility is sized to provide storage for an operating pond and for extreme precipitation events. The mine is situated in a seismically active area. The design of the dams at site was based on the maximum credible earthquake.

In addition to existing reserves, Pueblo Viejo had approximately 8.054 million ounces of gold and 44.656 million ounces of silver in the measured and indicated resource category (Barrick’s 60% share) as of December 31, 2017. In 2017 Barrick completed an initial scoping-level study for a plant expansion at the Pueblo Viejo mine that would increase throughput by 50 percent to 12 million tonnes per year, allowing the mine to maintain average annual production of 800,000 ounces after 2022 (100 percent basis). The project involves the addition of a pre-oxidation heap leach pad with a capacity of eight million tonnes per year, a new mill and flotation concentrator with a capacity of four million tonnes per year, and additional tailings capacity. Higher grade ore would be processed through the mill before moving through the flotation and autoclave circuits. Lower-grade ore would be treated on the pre-oxidation pad before moving through the mill and autoclave circuits. This project has the potential to convert approximately seven million ounces of measured and indicated resources to proven and probable reserves (100 percent basis). Prefeasibility level studies have now been initiated, along with the construction of on-site proof of concept facilities for pre-oxidation and flotation.

The Hatillo and Hondo Reservoirs supply fresh water for the process plant. Reclaimed water from the El Llagal tailings containment pond is used as a supplementary water supply.

Operational power requirements vary but are generally less than 130 MW at a process rate of 18,000 tonnes per day to 150 MW at 24,000 tonnes per day. In 2013, PVDC commissioned a 218 MW Wartsila combined cycle reciprocating engine power plant together with an approximately 140 kilometer transmission line connecting the plant to the minesite. The power plant is located near the port city of San Pedro de Macoris on the south coast and will provide the long-term power supply for the Pueblo Viejo mine. The plant is dual fuel and is currently operated on heavy fuel oil (“HFO”) with the capability to convert to natural gas in the future if a supply becomes feasible. The HFO is delivered at an existing HFO off-loading facility in the harbor at San Pedro and transported to the plant by an 8 kilometer fuel pipeline.

All material permits and rights to conduct existing operations at the Pueblo Viejo mine have been obtained and are in good standing.

Environment

Elevation at the minesite ranges from 565 meters at Loma Cuaba to approximately 65 meters at the Hatillo Reservoir. The site is characterized by rugged and hilly terrain covered with subtropical wet forest and scrub cover. The region has a tropical climate with little fluctuation in seasonal temperatures. The heaviest rainfall occurs between May and October.

The Pueblo Viejo minesite is affected by a number of significant legacy environmental issues resulting from the conduct of operations at site prior to Barrick’s involvement in the mine. Under the terms of the SLA, the Dominican State is obligated, at its sole cost and expense, to remediate and rehabilitate, or otherwise mitigate all historic environmental matters. PVDC has agreed to cover the capital costs related to such remediation up to $75 million. Subject to the verification of certain conditions, PVDC has agreed to act as an agent of the Dominican State to remediate the historical environmental liabilities of the State. However, upon PVDC giving the Dominican State a Project

- 60 -

Notice, which was issued by PVDC in 2008, PVDC assumed the responsibilities for all historic environmental matters within the boundaries of the “Development Areas”, except for hazardous substances at the Rosario’s plant site which remain the responsibility of the Dominican State. In addition, the Dominican State is required under the SLA, in compliance with the applicable Environmental and Social Guidelines and Policies, and at its sole cost and expense, to relocate and pay all indemnification and other compensation due to certain persons with valid claims to land within the Monte Negro Fiscal Reserve. Under the SLA, PVDC and the Dominican State, respectively, were required to come into compliance with the historic environmental mitigation and remediation matters for which they are responsible under that agreement by November 2014. PVDC achieved compliance by that deadline. In the second half of 2016, PVDC was contracted to act as an agent of the Dominican State to carry out activities for which the Dominican State is responsible under the SLA pursuant to the Environmental Management Plan of the State (Plan de Administración del Estado). The requisite environmental permits were received in November 2016 to carry out the first stage of the closure plan, which will focus on dewatering, buttressing, and improving the stability of the old Mejita tailings facility. Dewatering of the old Mejita tailings facility commenced in 2017 and a geotechnical investigation is underway with the design stage expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2018. Construction activities for the buttress are planned to commence in late 2018.

In 2017, all of PVDC’s activities at the Pueblo Viejo mine were, and continue to be, in compliance in all material respects with applicable corporate standards and environmental regulations.

As at December 31, 2017, the recorded amount of estimated future reclamation and closure costs that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37, and that have been updated each reporting period was $174 million (as described in Note 2U to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

Exploration and Drilling

During 2017, three exploration programs were undertaken at Pueblo Viejo consisting of a combination of reverse circulation drilling and diamond drilling at Upper Mejita, Monte Negro feeder and the Monte Negro underground. In 2018, exploration plans include reverse circulation and diamond drilling over seven targets. There will be four areas of primary exploration: Monte Negro west deep, Moore west deep, Arroyo Hondo and Moore north. There will also be advanced exploration occurring at three previously drilled targets: Upper Mejita, adjacent to Acid Rock Drainage Pond #1 and Monte Negro underground.

As of December 31, 2017, the drill hole database used to support the development of mineral resources for the Pueblo Viejo property contains 2,816 drill holes, comprised of 937 diamond drill core holes, 681 reverse circulation, and 1,198 percussion holes and rotary samples. Samples totaling 185,865 meters from diamond drill holes, 62,552 meters from rotary and percussion holes and 100,850 meters from reverse circulation have been collected. In addition, 13,889 close-spaced reverse circulation grade control drill holes, totaling 571,279 meters were used to estimate the gold, copper and silver resources. The drill hole spacing is variable, ranging from 10 to 15 meters.

Royalties and Taxes

Under the SLA, PVDC is obligated to make the following payments to the Dominican Republic: certain fixed payments due upon achieving certain milestones; a net smelter return royalty of 3.2%, which does not apply to copper or zinc; a net profits interest royalty of 28.75%; an income tax under a stabilized tax regime, which includes a 25% tax on income; and a withholding tax on interest paid on loans and on payments abroad and other general tax obligations.

- 61 -

A second amendment to the SLA became effective on October 5, 2013 and has resulted in additional and accelerated tax revenues to the Dominican government. The second amendment to the SLA includes the establishment of a graduated minimum tax, which will be adjusted up or down based on future metal prices. During 2017, PVDC and the Dominican government reached an agreement on an updated financial model for the graduated minimum tax rates that will apply from 2017 through 2019 (see “Legal Matters – Government Controls and Regulations”).

In addition, an environmental reserve fund has been established in an offshore escrow account as required by the SLA and is being funded by PVDC during operations until the escrowed funds are adequate to discharge PVDC’s closure reclamation obligations.

The government of the Dominican Republic has made significant progress repaying balances due under the SLA for payments made by PVDC on behalf of the government and amounts relating to Pueblo Viejo’s energy sales. As of December 31, 2017, the remaining balance owed to PVDC by the government of the Dominican Republic for balances due under the SLA was $0.1 million.

Financing

During 2010, PVDC secured a variable rate $1.035 billion loan facility for the Pueblo Viejo mine which was insured for political risks by Export Development Corporation of Canada. Substantially all the assets of PVDC, including the Pueblo Viejo mine property and related assets, were pledged as security under the loan. During 2017, Barrick and Goldcorp repaid the full $423 million of principal that was outstanding under the facility. The collateral pledged by PVDC as security to the lenders was released following the repayment. The settlement resulted in a debt extinguishment loss of $24 million.

Streaming Transaction

On September 29, 2015, Barrick closed a gold and silver streaming transaction with Royal Gold for production linked to Barrick’s 60% interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine. Royal Gold made an upfront cash payment of $610 million and will continue to make cash payments for gold and silver delivered under the agreement. The $610 million upfront payment is not repayable and Barrick is obligated to deliver gold and silver based on Pueblo Viejo’s production. Barrick has accounted for the upfront payment as deferred revenue and recognizes it in earnings, along with the ongoing cash payments, as the gold and silver is delivered to Royal Gold. Barrick will also be recording accretion expense on the deferred revenue balance as the time value of the upfront deposit represents a significant component of the transaction.

Under the terms of the agreement, Barrick sells gold and silver to Royal Gold equivalent to: (i) 7.5% of Barrick’s interest in the gold produced at Pueblo Viejo until 990,000 ounces of gold have been delivered, and 3.75% thereafter; and (ii) 75% of Barrick’s interest in the silver produced at Pueblo Viejo until 50 million ounces have been delivered, and 37.5% thereafter. Silver is delivered based on a fixed recovery rate of 70%. Silver above this recovery rate is not subject to the stream. There is no obligation to deliver gold or silver under the agreement if there is no production from Pueblo Viejo.

Barrick receives ongoing cash payments from Royal Gold equivalent to 30% of the prevailing spot prices for the first 550,000 ounces of gold and 23.1 million ounces of silver delivered. Thereafter payments will double to 60% of prevailing spot prices for each subsequent ounce of gold and silver delivered. Ongoing cash payments to Barrick are tied to prevailing spot prices rather than fixed in advance, maintaining exposure to higher gold and silver prices in the future.

- 62 -

Mining and Processing Information

The following table summarizes certain mining and processing information for the Pueblo Viejo mine (Barrick’s proportional share) for the period indicated:

	Year ended December 31, 20171	Year ended December 31, 20161
Tonnes mined (000s)	23,430	23,278
Tonnes of ore processed (000s)	4,791	4,527
Average grade processed (grams per tonne)	4.57	5.29
Ounces of gold produced (000s)	650	700

1 Barrick’s proportional share.

The most recent technical report on the Pueblo Viejo mine is the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Pueblo Viejo Mine, Sanchez Ramirez Province, Dominican Republic” dated March 19, 2018 and authored by RPA. This technical report has been filed on SEDAR in accordance with National Instrument 43-101.

The Company has extensive operating experience in the Dominican Republic. Nevertheless, operating in emerging markets, such as the Dominican Republic, exposes the Company to risks and uncertainties that do not exist or are significantly less likely to occur in other jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada or Australia, such as the SLA negotiations described above. As an emerging market, additional risks and uncertainties are applicable to Barrick’s operations in the Dominican Republic. For additional details, see “– Foreign investments and operations”, “– Permits”, “– Inflation”, “– Joint ventures”, “– Security and human rights”, “ – Community relations and license to operate”, “– Government regulation and changes in legislation” and “U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws” in “Risk Factors”.

While all risks cannot be mitigated or eliminated, the Company manages and mitigates controllable risks at its Pueblo Viejo operation through the consistent application of a variety of corporate governance structures and processes that are materially the same as those applied at its other operations located in developed markets. For additional details, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Operations in Emerging Markets: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls”.

The map on the following page sets out the design and layout of the Pueblo Viejo mine.

- 63 -

- 64 -

Lagunas Norte Mine

General Information

Project Description

The Lagunas Norte mine is an open pit, heap leaching operation located in the Alto Chicama mining district, 90 kilometers east of the coastal city of Trujillo, Peru, and 175 kilometers north of Barrick’s Pierina mine (now in closure). The property is located on the western flank of the Peruvian Andes at an elevation of 4,000 to 4,260 meters above sea level. The mine has approximately 782 employees and 1,253 contractors.

In 2002, Barrick acquired the three primary mining concessions, named “Derechos Especiales del Estado No. 1, 2 and 3,” respectively, from Centromin Peru S.A. (“Centromin”) pursuant to an international bid process. In 2004, these three concessions were consolidated into a single mining concession called “Acumulación Alto Chicama” with an extension of 18,002 hectares, within which the existing open pit and process plant are located. Three additional mining concessions named “Los Angeles,” “Lagunas 15” and “Lagunas 16” were subsequently acquired directly by Barrick. The Alto Chicama mining property encompasses the above mentioned four mining concessions totaling 19,774 hectares. The mining rights have an expiry date if production is not commenced within certain timeframes. Additionally, to keep the mining rights in good standing, rights holders are required to pay annual land fees (currently $3.00 per hectare) and additional penalty payments during any period the properties are not in production. Currently, production activities are being carried out on the Acumulación Alto Chicama. On December 29, 2004, Barrick entered into a Legal Stability Agreement with the Peruvian Government. The Legal Stability Agreement provides increased certainty with respect to foreign exchange and the fiscal and administrative regime for 15 years. The 15-year period commenced January 1, 2006. In January 2015, Barrick made a limited election out of the tax stability provisions included in the Legal Stability Agreement in order to benefit from reduced income tax rates (see “– Royalties and Taxes” below). The property is accessible year round by road from both Trujillo and Huamachuco, Peru.

Sufficient surface rights have been obtained for current operations at the property.

History

The Alto Chicama region has been actively mined for coal since the 19th century, principally for domestic consumption. In 1990, Minero Peru S.A., the State mining company, constructed a camp to re-evaluate the previous coal operations. The Alto Chicama region hosts a low-grade anthracite coal deposit, but it was not developed due to the availability of cheaper sources of energy elsewhere.

Geology

Geological Setting

The regional geology of the Alto Chicama area is dominated by a thick sequence of Mesozoic marine clastic and carbonate sedimentary rocks and andesitic and dacitic volcanic rocks of the Tertiary Calipuy Group. The Mesozoic sequence is unconformably overlain by the Tertiary Calipuy volcanic rocks and cut by numerous small intrusive bodies. The Mesozoic sequence has been affected by at least one and probably two stages of compressive deformation during Andean orogenesis.

- 65 -

Mineralization

The Lagunas Norte mineralization occurs on the 185 square kilometer Alto Chicama property. The mineralization is of the high sulfidation type. It is disseminated and hosted in variably brecciated sedimentary rocks as well as in volcanic breccias and tuffs. Mineralization outcrops have been defined by drilling over an area of 1,000 meters long by 2,000 meters wide and up to 300 meters deep.

Mining Operations

Production and Mine Life

In 2017, mining activity at the Lagunas Norte mine was focused on Phases 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. For 2018, Barrick expects mining activity to be concentrated in Phases 12, 13 and 14 (phases with a balanced content of “clean” ore and carbonaceous material and sulfur content).

Based on existing reserves and the current mine plan, production is expected to continue until 2026 with the processing of stockpiled material. Lagunas Norte produced 387 thousand ounces of gold in 2017.

Processing

The orebody is being mined as an open pit, truck-and-shovel operation, at an average mining rate of 90,025 tonnes per day. Ore is crushed and then transported via truck to the leach pad and run-of-mine ore is transported directly to the leach pad at an average rate of 48,971 tonnes per day.

Gold and silver recovered from the leached ore is smelted into doré on-site and shipped to an outside refinery for processing into bullion.

Lagunas Norte Mine Life Extension Project

Barrick is studying a sequenced approach to extending the life of the Lagunas Norte mine by first optimizing the recovery of carbonaceous oxide ore contained in existing stockpiles (“CMOP Project”), followed by potential extraction and processing of refractory ores (“PMR Project”), in each case subject to a feasibility study, detailed engineering completion, permitting and approval of investments.

The prefeasibility study for the CMOP Project and PMR Project contemplates an aggregate initial capital expenditure of approximately $640 million for the construction of a grinding and carbon-in-leach processing circuit that would treat remaining carbonaceous oxide material (the CMOP Project) and the construction of a flotation and autoclave processing circuit to treat refractory material (the PMR Project).

Barrick expects to complete detailed engineering on the CMOP Project in 2018 and 2019. If approved, construction and commissioning are expected to take place in 2019 and 2020, with initial production expected in 2021.

If the PMR Project is approved, detailed engineering and environmental permitting is expected to take place between 2021 and 2023, with construction and commissioning between 2024 and 2026, followed by initial production expected in 2027.

- 66 -

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance

Power is provided by a utility company through a 138 kilovolt line connected to the Trujillo Norte substation, located in the coastal city of Trujillo, approximately 90 kilometers from the mine. The east waste dump and leach pad facilities are contained within one valley, limiting potential environmental impacts. Water for process use is taken from two small lagoons pursuant to authorizations granted by the water authority. Lagunas Norte has a surface water and ground water monitoring system in order to identify and prevent potential adverse effects to such water resources.

All material permits and rights to conduct existing operations at the Lagunas Norte mine have been obtained and are in good standing.

Environment

The Lagunas Norte mine is located in a mountainous climate. Generally, the climate of the area does not impact the mine’s operations. Vegetation consists of small shrubs and grasses. The area experiences heavy rainfalls between October and April.

In February 2010, Barrick filed an amendment to the Environmental Impact Assessment (the “First EIA Amendment”) which proposed certain modifications to some of the mine facilities at the Lagunas Norte mine. The First EIA Amendment was approved by the environmental mining authority on August 6, 2010. Barrick completed construction and start-up of a carbon-in-column plant in 2013 and a new leach pad (Phase 5), secondary treatment plant and operational ponds in 2014. A new reverse osmosis water treatment plant was completed in 2014 and achieved start-up in February 2015. Construction of Phase 6 of the new leach pad commenced in 2015 and was completed in 2016.

On November 18, 2013, Barrick obtained approval from the environmental mining authority for an open pit expansion (Phase 8 open pit) and connection between the new and existing leach pads (Phase 8 leach pad) as well as for an increase in the height of the existing leach pad and the development of clay quarries and additional auxiliary mining infrastructure. In addition, on February 13, 2014, Barrick obtained approval from the environmental mining authority to increase Lagunas Norte’s mining fleet, modify the carbon-in-column plant and add storage capacity for mining equipment.

In November 2014, Barrick submitted to the environmental mining authority a second amendment to the EIA, which proposed modifications to the mining plan, an increase in open pit area and tonnage, modifications to the east waste dump and heap leach designs and additional ancillary facilities. This second amendment to the EIA was approved in July 2015.

In December 2015, the government modified the 2008 water quality standards in various respects, including to better align with international standards and provided a new implementation schedule. This plan was submitted to the authority during the first quarter of 2017.

On July 4, 2017, Barrick obtained environmental approval from the National Environmental Authority to develop the CMOP Project.

In 2017, all activities at the Lagunas Norte property were, and continue to be, in compliance in all material respects with applicable corporate standards and environmental regulations.

As at December 31, 2017, the recorded amount of estimated future reclamation and closure costs that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37, and that have been updated each reporting period was $277 million (as described in Note 2U to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

- 67 -

For additional information regarding the Company’s environmental initiatives, see “Environment”.

Exploration and Drilling

During 2017, Lagunas Norte completed 10,538.15 meters of in-fill drilling in 62 holes with drill spacing of 50 meters. The objective of the 2017 in-fill drilling program was to improve the resource model at the mine and confirm the potential for additional mineralization below and surrounding the current open pit. In addition, as part of the PMR Project, six metallurgical drill holes were drilled to run metallurgical tests.

For 2018, Lagunas Norte expects to conduct a reserves and resources delineation program involving approximately 5,000 meters of drilling. The program is intended to further increase the reserves and resources of the minesite looking for in-pit oxides mineralization as priority to be potentially included in the short term mine plan (depending on its profitability). The planned infill drilling has a reduced drilling spacing of 25 meters to confirm the continuity of mineralization associated with the leachable gold in oxides mineralization. In addition, Lagunas Norte is also planning to develop drill test programs (initial exploration stage) looking for oxide mineralization (shallow drilling) in areas near the mine.

As of December 31, 2017, a total of 1,557 holes and 258,445 meters have been drilled at Lagunas Norte with approximately 47.766 meters of reverse circulation drilling and over 210,679 meters of diamond drilling. The drilling program at Lagunas Norte has been completed at an average of approximately 30 meter centers.

Royalties and Taxes

Under the terms of the agreement with Centromin, Barrick paid Centromin an advance contractual royalty of $2 million, which was credited against Centromin’s retained net smelter return royalty of 2.51% in 2005. In December 2006, Centromin transferred all of its rights and obligations (including the foregoing royalty) with respect to the mine to Activos Mineros S.A.C., a State mining company (“Activos”). In 2017, $12.6 million was paid to Activos under the terms of this royalty.

On October 20, 2011, Minera Barrick Misquichilca S.A. (“MBM”), Barrick’s subsidiary that operates Lagunas Norte, signed an agreement with the Peruvian Government under which it voluntarily committed to pay on a quarterly basis the Special Mining Contribution (“SMC”) approved by Law No. 29790 until the expiration of the Legal Stability Agreement. Beginning in January 2015, following its limited election out of the tax stability provisions in the Legal Stability Agreement, MBM ceased to contribute SMC and became subject to the Special Tax on Mining (“STM”) approved by Law No. 29789, which is assessed on a sliding scale ranging from 2.0% to 8.4% based on quarterly operating income margin. The SMC and STM paid for 2017 totaled $10.6 million.

In December 2013, the Peruvian government established two different contributions to be paid by mining companies to the regulatory agencies in charge of supervising mining, energy and environmental activities (OSINERGMIN and OEFA). The contributions are calculated on a monthly basis of mineral sales at rates of 0.16% for OSINERGMIN and 0.13% for OEFA. In 2017, $1.3 million was paid to OSINERGMIN and OEFA, collectively.

For the years 2015 and 2016, following the opt-out by MBM of the tax stability provisions in the Legal Stability Agreement, MBM was subject to a 28% income tax rate at the corporate level and a 6.8% income tax rate at the shareholder level. As a result of income tax rates approved in December 2016, MBM is now subject to a 29.5% income tax rate at the corporate level and a 5% income tax rate at the

- 68 -

shareholder level. In addition to the tax changes, the Peruvian government introduced other measures benefiting mining tenure and permitting activities.

Financing

MBM has established a number of capital lease programs with certain financial institutions to partially finance the construction of certain assets at Lagunas Norte. As at December 31, 2017, the aggregate amount outstanding under these capital lease programs was $27.7 million. The average interest rate in 2017 for the capital leases was LIBOR plus 3%.

Mining and Processing Information

The following table summarizes certain mining and processing information for the Lagunas Norte mine for the periods indicated:

	Year ended December 31, 2017	Year ended December 31, 2016
Tonnes mined (000s)	32,859	40,847
Tonnes of ore processed (000s)	17,874	17,253
Average grade processed (grams per tonne)	1.05	1.12
Ounces of gold produced (000s)	387	435

The most recent technical report on the Lagunas Norte mine is the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Lagunas Norte Mine, La Libertad Region, Peru” dated March 21, 2016 and authored by RPA. This technical report has been filed on SEDAR in accordance with National Instrument 43-101.

The Company has extensive operating experience in Peru. Nevertheless, operating in an emerging market such as Peru subjects the Company to risks and uncertainties that do not exist or are significantly less likely to occur in other jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada or Australia. For additional details, see “– Foreign investments and operations”, “– Permits”, “– Inflation”, “ – Joint ventures”, “– Security and human rights”, “ –Community relations and license to operate”, “– Government regulation and changes in legislation” and “U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws” in “Risk Factors”.

While all risks cannot be mitigated or eliminated, the Company manages and mitigates controllable risks at its Lagunas Norte operation through the consistent application of a variety of corporate governance structures and processes that are materially the same as those applied at its other operations located in developed markets. For additional details, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Operations in Emerging Markets: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls”.

The diagram on the following page sets out the design and layout of the Lagunas Norte mine.

- 69 -

- 70 -

Veladero Mine

General Information

Project Description

The Veladero mine is an open pit mine using heap leaching located in San Juan Province, Argentina. The mine is located immediately to the south of Barrick’s Pascua-Lama project and approximately 360 kilometers by road northwest of the city of San Juan at elevations of between 3,900 and 4,800 meters above sea level. The mine has approximately 1,470 employees and an average of 2,500 contractors between summer high season and winter low season, including short-term construction contractors.

The Veladero mine comprises the following mining properties: (i) the Veladero mining group, consisting of eight mining concessions owned by the Provincial Mining Exploration and Exploitation Institute (“IPEEM”) and operated by MAG pursuant to applicable provincial law and the Exploitation Contract between IPEEM and MAG (as amended) and (ii) the Filo Norte mining group, consisting of five mining concessions owned by MAG, which are: Ursulina Sur; Florencia 1; Gaby M; Río 2 and Río 3. The Veladero mining properties cover an area of approximately 14,447 hectares.

Pursuant to the Argentina Mining Code, mining concessions do not have an expiry date, however, to keep them in good standing, concession holders are required to pay certain annual fees and meet minimum capital investment requirements. As of December 31, 2017, the Veladero mine has complied with these requirements with respect to its current mining properties.

Barrick has an undivided 90% interest in “Campo Las Taguas,” which encompasses the surface property affected by Veladero’s mining facilities. With respect to the 10% interest of “Campo Las Taguas” owned by third parties, all necessary easements have been obtained for access over surface property. Certain other mine related facilities are located in Campo Colangui, which is also owned by Barrick. The Argenta pit is also located at the Campo Las Taguas. Access to the property is via a combination of public highways and an upgraded private gravel road.

Sufficient surface rights have been obtained for current operations at the property.

History

Following a competitive bidding process completed by IPEEM in 1994, Argentina Gold Corp. (“AGC”), a Canadian exploration company, was awarded exploration rights to Veladero. AGC then entered into a joint venture agreement with Lac Minerals Ltd. (“Lac Minerals”), which was acquired by Barrick a short time later. In 1995, AGC assigned its interest to MAG and from 1996 through 1998 the MAG/Barrick joint venture successfully explored Veladero. In early 1999, Homestake acquired AGC. The December 2001 merger of Homestake and Barrick resulted in Barrick gaining 100% indirect control of Veladero through MAG and Barrick Exploraciones Argentina S.A. Full construction of the Veladero mine commenced in the fourth quarter of 2003 and the first gold pour occurred in September 2005.

On June 30, 2017, Barrick completed the sale of a 50% indirect interest in the Veladero mine to Shandong. Shandong holds its 50% indirect interest in the Veladero mine through a subsidiary that holds a 2.1547% equity interest in MAG and a 50% equity interest in Argentina Gold (Bermuda) II Ltd. (“AGB II”). AGB II holds a 95.6906% equity interest in MAG. Two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Barrick hold the remaining 2.1547% equity interest in MAG, while another wholly-owned subsidiary of Barrick holds the remaining 50% equity interest in AGB II. Following completion of the sale, Barrick and Shandong jointly operate the Veladero mine pursuant to the terms of the Veladero Shareholders’ Agreement.

- 71 -

Under the terms of the Veladero Shareholders’ Agreement, the MAG management committee, as MAG’s governing body, is responsible for the management of the Veladero mine and implementing decisions of Barrick and Shandong with respect to governance, funding and other aspects of joint operations. The agreement provides that for so long as Barrick and Shandong each hold a 50% proportionate indirect interest in MAG, each will have the right to nominate an equal number of managers of the MAG management committee and an equal number of the directors of AGB II, with the majority of matters relating to the business and affairs of Veladero decided by a majority vote. To the extent not covered by available free cash flow generated from the Veladero mine, Barrick and Shandong are required to fund AGB II and MAG for their respective indirect proportionate interest of all expenditures required under approved programs and budgets, and a failure to so fund could result in the dilution of the defaulting party’s interest. The sale of an interest by either Barrick or Shandong in the Veladero mine is subject to restrictions including a preferential purchase right in favour of the non-selling party.

MAG rebranded in 2017 and is now doing business as Minera Andina del Sol.

Geology

Geological Setting

The Veladero deposit is situated at the north end of the El Indio Gold Belt, a 120 kilometer by 25 kilometer north-trending corridor of Permian to late Miocene volcanic and intrusive rocks.

Mineralization

The Veladero deposit is an oxidized, high sulfidation gold-silver deposit hosted by volcaniclastic sediments, tuffs, and volcanic breccias related to a Miocene diatreme-dome complex. Disseminated precious metals mineralization forms a broad, 3 kilometer long by 400 meter to 700 meter wide tabular blanket localized between the 4,000 and 4,350 meter elevations. The Veladero deposit comprises four orebodies: Cuatro Esquinas in the center, Filo Federico in the north, and Amable and Argenta in the south. Much of the Veladero deposit is covered by up to 170 meters of overburden. A variety of volcanic explosion breccias and tuffs are the principal host rocks at the Filo Federico orebody, where alteration consists of intense silicification. The Amable orebody was exhausted in 2013 and the Argenta orebody was exhausted in 2015.

Mining Operations

Production and Mine Life

The Veladero mine is an open pit truck-and-shovel operation. Production currently includes the mining of gold and silver from the Filo Federico pit. Stockpiled ore from the Argenta pit, where mining was completed in 2015, will be processed during the remaining life of the mine. Mining is currently scheduled to commence at the Cuatro Esquinas orebody in 2019, with initial gold production expected in 2022.

Based on existing reserves and production capacity, the expected mine life is approximately eight years, with mining and processing operations ending by 2024. MAG is investigating extending processing operations for an additional four years through 2028 via the continued leaching of stacked ore. Veladero produced 432 thousand ounces of gold in 2017 (Barrick’s 100% share from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and 50% share from July 1 to December 31, 2017).

- 72 -

Following completion of the sale of a 50% indirect interest in the Veladero mine to Shandong effective June 30, 2017, Barrick and Shandong are each entitled to 50% of all of the gold produced at the Veladero mine, based on their respective ownership interests in AGB II. Barrick is entitled to all silver produced at the Veladero mine until March 31, 2018 following which Barrick and Shandong are each entitled to 50% of the silver produced at the mine.

Processing

The Veladero mine has a valley-fill heap leach operation and two-stage crushing process. Recovered gold is smelted into doré on-site and shipped to an outside refinery for processing into bullion. Current crushing capacity at the Veladero mine is approximately 83,000 tonnes per operating day.

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance

Veladero self generates electric power using a diesel power plant (permanently-installed diesel-generator sets) with an aggregate 23.8 megawatt capacity, and a wind turbine that can generate up to 2 additional megawatts, depending on wind speed.

In December 2015, the new Argentinean government removed certain foreign exchange and import control restrictions. However, an import control regime remains in place and, while Barrick continues to experience delays in the importation of goods, supply times are slightly more predictable.

In December 2013, the Province of San Juan, Argentina adopted a new provincial law that creates a registry of approved local suppliers to be administered by the provincial mining ministry. In order to be designated as a “local supplier,” a company must be based and domiciled in the Province of San Juan, and must also hire 80% of its work force from the Province of San Juan. The law requires mining companies conducting exploration or exploitation activities in the Province, such as MAG, to allocate 75% of their annual purchases or contracts to such local suppliers. The registry of approved local suppliers is not yet operative. MAG is continuing to evaluate certain proposed amendments as well as a possible judicial or administrative challenge to this law and notes that while the law is in place, it is currently not enforced due to a lack of approved local suppliers on the registry.

In December 2016, an agreement was entered into between the Province of San Juan, the Mining Ministry of San Juan and local industry groups and unions to prioritize procurement of local services and man power. The successful implementation of this agreement could lead to the revocation of the law that led to the creation of the registry referred to above.

All material permits and rights to conduct existing operations at the Veladero mine have been obtained and are in good standing.

Environment

Vegetation at the minesite is sparse. The area is considered to have a sub-arid, sub-polar, mountain climate. During the winter months, extreme weather may create a challenging operating environment. Recognizing this issue, the potential impact of extreme weather conditions, to the extent possible, has been incorporated into the mine’s operating plan.

The Veladero mine received environmental impact study (“EIS”) approval in November 2003 from the Mining Authority of the San Juan Province. Under Argentine law, Veladero is required to update the EIS at least every two years. Updates to the study were approved in April 2007, March 2009, November 2010, April 2014 and December 2016.

- 73 -

On December 30, 2016, the Provincial mining authority approved the fifth EIS update, as amended, which as submitted by Barrick had included a request for approval of the expansion of the valley leach facility at Veladero (the “VLF”) by the building of Phases 6 to 9 of the VLF. Environmental approval for Phases 6 to 9 of the VLF expansion was confirmed on May 19, 2017 by the San Juan Mining Minister, however, the construction of these phases is subject to additional permitting, which MAG is in the process of obtaining.

MAG submitted a sixth EIS update on February 25, 2016, incorporating changes to the environmental monitoring program as well as details regarding the environmental impact of the 2015 cyanide release discussed in further detail below. MAG has also prepared a seventh EIS update covering the period from January 2014 to June 2017, and filed it on February 9, 2018.

Production at Veladero remains subject to restrictions that affect the amount of leach solution that can be applied to the leach pad. The fifth EIS update has maintained requirements previously imposed by the Provincial mining authority that set a level limit for the leach solution storage area, which affects the operation of the leach pad. This permit also restricts the addition of cyanide to the leaching process when the level limits of the storage area are exceeded. These restrictions are factored into Barrick’s 2018 operating guidance.

On September 13, 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at Veladero failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. MAG notified regulatory authorities of the situation. Environmental monitoring was conducted by MAG and independent third parties following the incident. The Company believes this monitoring demonstrates that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. A temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the mine’s processing circuit was lifted on September 24, 2015, and mine operations returned to normal. Monitoring and inspection of the minesite will continue in accordance with a court order.

On October 9, 2015, the Provincial mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAG for alleged violations of the mining code relating to the valve failure and release of cyanide-bearing process solution. MAG submitted its response to these allegations in October 2015 and provided additional information in January 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso to U.S. dollar exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On July 11, 2017, the San Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, Barrick commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts. These proceedings are still pending. MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the Provincial mining authority. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution – San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction Proceeding”.

Also on March 11, 2016, a San Juan Provincial court laid criminal charges based on alleged negligence against nine current and former MAG employees in connection with the incident. The indictments of eight of the nine current and former MAG employees were confirmed on appeal by the San Juan Court of Appeals. These individuals have appealed the indictments to the San Juan Supreme Court. On September 15, 2017, the San Juan Provincial court proceeded to trial. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was rejected on November 30, 2017 and appealed on December 4, 2017. No

- 74 -

confirmation or date for the trial in the San Juan Provincial court has been established as of yet. MAG is not a party to the Provincial Action. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution – Criminal Matters”.

On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the minesite and returned to the leach pad. Extensive water monitoring in the area conducted by MAG has confirmed that the incident did not result in any environmental impacts. A temporary suspension of operations at the Veladero mine was ordered by the Provincial mining authority and a Provincial court on September 15, 2016 and September 22, 2016, respectively, as a result of this incident. On October 4, 2016, following, among other matters, the completion of certain urgent works required by the Provincial mining authority and a judicial inspection of the mine, the Provincial court lifted the suspension of operations and ordered that mining activities be resumed. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Veladero – September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution – Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding”.

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the VLF. In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environment damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution described below. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Veladero Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action”.

On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at Barrick’s Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. This solution was contained within the operating site; no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. All affected soil was promptly excavated and placed on the leach pad. Barrick notified regulatory authorities of the situation, and San Juan provincial authorities inspected the site on March 29, 2017. On March 29, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against MAG in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following the completion and inspection of corrective actions. On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. Barrick filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this proceeding into a single administrative proceeding against MAG, encompassing both the September 8, 2016 incident described above and the March 28, 2017 incident. On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Veladero – March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”.

- 75 -

On September 30, 2010, the National Law on Minimum Requirements for the Protection of Glaciers was enacted in Argentina, and came into force in early November 2010. The federal law banned new mining exploration and exploitation activities on glaciers and in the “peri-glacial” environment, and subjected ongoing mining activities to an environmental audit. If such audit identifies significant impacts on glaciers and peri-glacial environment, the relevant authority is empowered to take action, which according to the legislation could include the suspension or relocation of mining activity. In late January 2013, the Province of San Juan, where Barrick’s operations are located in Argentina, announced that it had completed the required environmental audit, which concluded that Veladero does not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers. On October 3, 2016, federal authorities published a partial national inventory of glaciers, which includes the area where the Veladero mine and Pascua-Lama project are located. The Company has analyzed the national inventory in the area where Veladero and Pascua-Lama are located and has concluded that this inventory is consistent with the provincial inventory that the Province of San Juan used in connection with its January 2013 environmental audit.

The constitutionality of the federal glacier law is the subject of a challenge before the National Supreme Court of Argentina, which has not yet ruled on the issue (for additional information about this matter, see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation”). On October 27, 2014, the Company submitted its response to a motion by the federal government to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the federal glacier law on standing grounds. A decision on the motion is pending.

As at December 31, 2017, the recorded amount of estimated future reclamation and closure costs that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37, and that have been updated each reporting period, was $56 million (as described in Note 2U to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

For additional information regarding Barrick’s environmental initiatives, see “Environment”.

Exploration and Drilling

During 2017, a total of 1,997 meters of reverse circulation drilling was completed in the Federico area in order to improve the reserves and resources model for the mine in 2018. The 2017 exploration plan included approximately 1,564 meters of diamond core drill holes in the Federico phases 3 and 4.

The 2018 exploration plan contemplates a total of 2,720 meters of reverse circulation drilling to further improve the mine’s reserves. For resources, the 2018 plan includes 2,268 meters of reverse circulation drilling and 432 meters of diamond drill holes and resource model. In addition, 1,750 meters in diamond drill holes will be completed in the Federico pit area site to explore a new target area. The Pecos – Brujas target that is located within the boundaries of the Veladero property contemplates a total 2,450 meters of diamond drill holes.

As at December 31, 2017, the Veladero drilling database was comprised of 1,331 drill holes totaling 340,977 meters and a total of 4,195 meters of channel samples from declines. Drill hole spacing within mineralized zones is approximately 60 meters.

Drill hole spacing varies across the deposit. In the central portions of the Amable and Filo Federico pits, average drill hole spacing is in the range of 35 meters to 40 meters, increasing outwards to 50 meters to 90 meters spacing, and increasing to approximately 100 meters to 120 meters spacing toward the peripheries of the orebodies.

- 76 -

Royalties and Taxes

Pursuant to federal legislation which implemented law 24.196 in May 1993, and provincial legislation adhering to the same, operating mines are required to pay to the Provincial government a royalty of up to 3% (“Boca Mina”) for minerals extracted from Argentinean soil. This Boca Mina is defined as the sales value of the extracted minerals less certain permitted expenses. In addition to the above-mentioned royalty, under the terms of the Exploitation Contract between Barrick and IPEEM, a 0.75% Boca Mina royalty is payable to IPEEM for the metals produced from the Veladero property, including from stockpiled ore from the Argenta deposit.

Finally, and only for the Argenta deposit, an additional royalty equivalent to 1.5% on sales calculated on estimated life-of-pit production, a gold price of $1,500 per ounce and a silver price of $35 per ounce was levied in the first quarter of 2012, payable to a Provincial development trust fund pursuant to the EIS. Although mining of Argenta Mineral Reserves is complete, there is still approximately 0.8Mt of Argenta ore in stockpiles containing 14,100 ounces of gold. A final adjustment to this royalty is to be made once all ounces are recovered.

In June 2011, the Provincial government and mining companies operating in San Juan Province, including MAG, signed a responsible mining agreement under which the mining companies agreed not to deduct certain expenses when calculating their 3% Provincial royalty. In October 2011, Barrick and IPEEM agreed to modify the calculation of the 0.75% royalty payable to the IPEEM under the Exploitation Contract using the same criteria, thus effectively changing the royalty calculation to 0.75% of gross sales of doré.

In 2002, as an emergency measure, Argentina adopted a 5% export duty on certain mineral products, including gold. At the time, the duty was described as “temporary”. Veladero’s export of gold doré was subject to this 5% export duty from the commencement of operations in 2005 until December 20, 2015, when the duty was repealed by the new Argentinean government.

In October 2011, the Argentinean government issued Decree 1722, which requires crude oil, natural gas, and mining companies to repatriate and convert all foreign currency revenues resulting from export transactions into Argentine pesos. A bank transaction tax of 0.6% will apply to the subsequent conversion of pesos to foreign currencies in transactions that would otherwise have been executed using offshore funds.

In September 2013, Argentina adopted a 10% tax on dividends paid by Argentinean entities to individuals and non-resident investors. The dividend tax was repealed on July 23, 2016. On December 29, 2017, Argentina adopted a 7% withholding tax on dividends for 2018 and 2019 with the rate going to 13% for 2020 and onwards. A grandfathering rule applies for dividends paid out of profits from 2017 and prior years whereby there is no withholding tax.

For details of Argentina tax reform measures enacted in 2017, see “Legal Matters – Government Controls and Regulations”.

- 77 -

Mining and Processing Information

The following table summarizes certain mining and processing information for the Veladero mine (Barrick’s proportional share) for the periods indicated:

	Year ended December 31, 20171	Year ended December 31, 2016
Tonnes mined (000s)	48,376	62,227
Tonnes of ore processed (000s)	21,190	28,028
Average grade processed (grams per tonne)	1.02	0.82
Ounces of gold produced (000s)	432	544

1 On June 30, 2017, the Company divested 50% of its interest in the Veladero mine. For additional information regarding this matter, see “General Information – General Development of the Business”. Accordingly, 2017 mining and processing figures represent Barrick’s ownership of Veladero on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

The most recent technical report on the Veladero mine is the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Veladero Mine, San Juan Province, Argentina” dated February 28, 2018 and authored by RPA. This technical report has been filed on SEDAR in accordance with National Instrument 43-101. The Company has extensive operating experience in Argentina. Nevertheless, operating in emerging markets, such as Argentina, exposes the Company to risks and uncertainties that do not exist or are significantly less likely to occur in other jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada or Australia, such as the imposition of the export duty and foreign currency controls described above.

Barrick’s operations in Argentina have historically been subject to particular exposure from inflationary risks and currency fluctuations. Under the administration of the former President of Argentina, the exchange rate between the Argentine peso and the U.S. dollar was fixed, despite a steadily depreciating value for the Argentine peso in global currency markets. As the Company is required to pay its in-country suppliers and employees in the local currency, it experienced a steady increase in operating costs as a result of the fixed exchange rate. In late 2015, the new administration of President Macri changed the exchange rate of the Argentine peso from fixed to floating, resulting in an initial devaluation of the Argentine peso by approximately 25%. This change resulted in lower operating costs in Argentina for the Company, which had a net positive effect on results from Veladero. However, further fluctuation in the exchange rate may have a negative impact on the Company’s operations in Argentina.

For additional details on the risks and uncertainties applicable to Barrick’s operations in Argentina, see “– Foreign investments and operations”, “– Permits”, “– Inflation”, “– Joint ventures”, “– Security and human rights”, “ – Community relations and license to operate”, “– Government regulation and changes in legislation” and “U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws” in “Risk Factors”.

While all risks cannot be mitigated or eliminated, the Company manages and mitigates controllable risks at its Veladero operation through the consistent application of a variety of corporate governance structures and processes that are materially the same as those applied at its other operations located in developed markets. For additional details, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Operations in Emerging Markets: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls”.

The diagram on the following page sets out the design and layout of the Veladero mine.

- 78 -

- 79 -

Turquoise Ridge Mine

General Information

Project Description

The Turquoise Ridge mine is located on Barrick’s Getchell property in Humboldt County, Nevada, approximately 40 kilometers northeast of the village of Golconda, Nevada, and approximately 70 kilometers northeast of the city of Winnemucca, at an elevation of approximately 1,600 meters. The mine has approximately 470 employees and 90 contractors. Barrick is the operator and 75% owner of the mine with Newmont owning the remaining 25%.

Current mining activity is focused on the Turquoise Ridge underground mine. As of December 31, 2017, the Turquoise Ridge property covers an area of 11,993 hectares, which consists of 8,212 hectares of unpatented mining and mill site claims and 3,781 hectares of patented/fee land. All mining claims are renewed on an annual basis. Turquoise Ridge is an underground gold mining operation with limited land disturbance that has been previously approved and permitted with governing state and federal agencies. The underground is accessed via two shafts that are 540 meters and 550 meters in depth. Primary conveyance and hoisting is via the second shaft while the first shaft provides emergency egress and ventilation.

Turquoise Ridge uses underhand drift-and-fill mining methods and ore is transported to Newmont’s Twin Creeks mill for processing under the new TMA with Newmont. The refractory gold ore is treated by pressure oxidation technology and gold is recovered using conventional carbon-in-leach technology. In January 2018, Barrick and Newmont reached a new, seven-year TMA for the processing of Turquoise Ridge ore at Newmont’s Twin Creeks facility. The TMA supports plans to expand production at Turquoise Ridge by increasing processing capacity. It provides for throughput of 850 thousand tons per year in 2018 and 2019, rising to 1.2 million tons per year between 2020 and 2024.

Sufficient surface rights have been obtained for current operations at the property.

History

Mining for copper, lead, and silver first began on the mine property in 1883. Tungsten was discovered in 1916 and mined sporadically until 1957. Gold was discovered in 1933 and Getchell Mine Inc. operated the property from 1934 to 1945, producing a total of 788,875 ounces of gold. From 1960 to 2009, there was sporadic production at the Getchell mine including underground mining, open pit mining and heap leaching of the dumps.

A deep drilling program began in 1993 in the Turquoise Ridge area. Planning and engineering for a new underground mine was completed in 1995. By mid-1998, a production shaft was completed at a depth of 1,820 feet below the surface. In February 2000, mining was suspended at the Getchell Main underground mine. Drilling continued on the Turquoise Ridge and North Zone deposits, but due to depressed gold prices the entire property was shut down in February 2002. Production resumed in February 2003.

In April 2003, Placer Dome announced the commencement of construction and the subsequent start-up of the Turquoise Ridge mine. In December 2003, a joint venture agreement was signed between Placer Dome and Newmont for the Turquoise Ridge mine whereby Newmont acquired a 25% interest in the joint venture in return for the contribution of certain pre-existing royalties and at-cost processing at the nearby Twin Creek’s Sage mill. In January 2006, Barrick acquired Placer Dome’s 75% interest in the

- 80 -

joint venture as part of its acquisition of Placer Dome. Pursuant to the terms of the joint venture agreement, Barrick is the operator of the Turquoise Ridge mine.

Geology

Geological Setting

The Turquoise Ridge underground gold mine of northern central Nevada is situated within the Basin and Range province, near the northeast end of the Osgood Mountains. Rocks in the area consist of Cambrian to Ordovician carbonates, mudstones, and basalts of the Valmy, Comus and Preble Formations, Mississippian to Pennsylvanian Havallah Formation, Pennsylvanian to Permian Etchart limestone, Pennsylvanian to Permian Farrel Canyon Formation and Cretaceous granodiorite of the Osgood Stock and related dikes. The mine occupies the hanging wall of the Getchell fault, which is a major, moderately east-dipping range front structure bounding the east side of the Osgood Mountains.

Mineralization

At the Turquoise Ridge property, the major Carlin-type gold deposits – Footwall Getchell Fault, Getchell open-pit and the Hanging wall Getchell fault – are primarily hosted in the Comus Formation of the Ordovician age. The gold mineralization in the Footwall of the Getchell is controlled by favourable stratigraphy, structural complexities of fault intersections and along the margins of igneous dikes. The 2.2 km long, 0.4 km wide and 0.2 km deep Getchell Open-pit was excavated from the surface principally along and down the mineralized NWN-SES striking, NE dipping, Getchell fault zone.

Currently, underground mining is focused on the gold mineralization hosted in the laminated to thin bedded silty limestone sedimentary units in the Hanging wall of the Getchell Fault. The mineralization, much like the Footwall mineralization, is controlled by favourable stratigraphy, complex faulting geometries, adjacent to igneous dikes, and broad ponding beneath a thick basalt flow in the sediment package. The underground mineralized zone in the hanging wall starts about 0.4 km beneath the surface and extends northward from the shafts for 1.8 km and continues to more than a depth of 1.0 km below surface.

Mining Operations

Production and Mine Life

The Turquoise Ridge mine is a shaft access, mechanized mine with an extensive system of ramps connecting the north and south zones of the mine to the shafts. Planning and surface preparations for construction of the third shaft are underway and is included in the current life of mine plan. The third shaft will provide additional ventilation and will allow Turquoise Ridge to increase mining rates.

The primary mining method used at the Turquoise Ridge mine is underhand drift-and-fill.

Based on existing reserves and production capacity, the expected remaining mine life at Turquoise Ridge extends to 2038. Turquoise Ridge produced 211 thousand ounces of gold in 2017 (Barrick’s 75% share).

Turquoise Ridge Third Shaft

In August 2017, Turquoise Ridge began surface preparations for the third shaft project, which will provide a new production shaft located closer to the current mining areas. Surface earthworks

- 81 -

preparation, long lead procurement, final engineering and electrical infrastructure installation comprise the majority of the works underway. The project was approved in January 2018. Permitting for the project has been completed and a shaft sinking contractor has been selected.

The shaft will be sunk conventionally to approximately 1,000 meters of total depth and will have the ability to load skips at two elevations. The final shaft configuration will contain one service cage for personnel and materials serviced by a double drum hoist, two skip compartments serviced by a double drum hoist and one Mary-Ann compartment serviced by a single drum hoist. In addition to servicing the mine’s production needs, the shaft will provide power supply, utilities to support mining efforts and new change/office facilities.

Through the development of a third shaft, the mine has the potential to increase output to an average of 500 thousand ounces per year (100% basis) from existing reserves at an average cost of sales of around $720 per ounce and average all-in sustaining costs of roughly $630 per ounce. The project would require total capital expenditures of approximately $300 to $325 million (100% basis) for underground development and shaft construction. Surface preparation activities will continue through Q2 of 2019, with shaft sinking activities commencing immediately after. Initial production is expected to begin in 2022, and sustained production is expected to begin in 2023.

Processing

Turquoise Ridge ore has been processed at Newmont’s Twin Creeks operation since establishing a joint venture agreement between the previous owner of Turquoise Ridge (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Barrick) and Newmont on January 1, 2004. Initially, ore was sold by Turquoise Ridge to Newmont and subsequently processed at Twin Creeks; however, this was changed to a toll milling agreement on July 1, 2006. In January 2018, Barrick and Newmont signed the new, seven-year TMA for the processing of Turquoise Ridge ore at Newmont’s Twin Creeks mill. The TMA supports plans to expand production at Turquoise Ridge by increasing processing capacity. It provides for throughput of 850,000 tons per year in 2018 and 2019, rising to 1.2 million tons per year between 2020 and 2024.

Infrastructure, Permitting and Compliance

The Turquoise Ridge mine’s power requirements are purchased outside the local provider system under open access provisions whereby power is purchased on the open market or from the Western 102 plant (which is owned and operated by Barrick), whichever is cheaper. Power requirements in 2017 were 8.5 MW.

Mine water is diverted to sumps and then to main pumping stations for settling and pumping to the surface. Water is recycled for reuse in the mine and excess water is treated in the water treatment plant before discharge to infiltration ponds. When water is non-compliant, it is diverted to the Turquoise Ridge impoundment and eliminated by evaporation in the summer months.

All material permits and rights to conduct existing operations at the Turquoise Ridge mine have been obtained and are in good standing.

Environment

The climate is semi-arid and has little impact on mine operations. Vegetation is dominated by low dense shrubs and sage bush mixed with sparse native grasses and low flowering plants.

- 82 -

In 2017, all activities at the Turquoise Ridge mine were, and continue to be, in compliance in all material respects with applicable corporate standards and environmental regulations.

As at December 31, 2017, the recorded amount of estimated future reclamation and closure costs that were recorded under IFRS as defined by IAS 37, and that have been updated each reporting period was $20.3 million (as described in Note 2U to the Consolidated Financial Statements). In connection with the reclamation of the mine area, Barrick has provided the financial security as required by governmental authorities.

For additional information regarding Barrick’s environmental initiatives, see “Environment”.

Exploration and Drilling

Three mine exploration programs were drilled in 2017. A total of 7,940 meters of diamond core, in 17 holes, were drilled from underground and surface exploration drilling programs.

The North East Turquoise Ridge Corridor program, which was drilled on the eastern side of the underground resource, targeted mineralization extending northeast out on the Turquoise Ridge Corridor fault structures. The North East Turquoise Ridge Corridor program followed up on successes of the Lower Main Bullion Decline program that targeted the proximal portions of TR Corridor fault structures in 2016.

A second underground program drilled conceptual targets at the intersections of high-angle north-east striking faults and the low-angle Getchell Fault.

The third program targeted down-dip mineralization of the Footwall Pond. Two 1,700-meter holes were drilled from surface and discovered mineralization below the North Pillow basalt, about 350 meters from the existing infrastructure. Two wedge holes followed up this intercept in late 2017.

In 2018, one program will continue to develop potential new resources from the existing surface drill pad to follow up on 2017 exploration successes. Another mining exploration program will be infilling significant intercepts from a new Exploration drift at the bottom of the mine. Three other programs will be undertaken to explore upgrading existing resources along the Getchell Fault both from the surface and underground.

In all, a total of approximately 32,400 meters of exploration and delineation drilling is planned at Turquoise Ridge in 2018.

Royalties and Taxes

There are no royalties associated with the Turquoise Ridge mine. The State of Nevada imposes a 5% net proceeds tax on the value of all minerals severed in the State. This tax is calculated and paid based on a prescribed net income formula which is different from book income.

- 83 -

Mining and Processing Information

The following table summarizes certain mining and processing information for the Turquoise Ridge mine (Barrick’s 75% share) for the period indicated:

	Year ended December 31, 20171	Year ended December 31, 20161
Tonnes mined (000s)	643	598
Tonnes of ore processed (000s)2	472	523
Average grade processed (grams per tonne)2	15.01	17.04
Ounces of gold produced (000s)	211	266

1 Barrick’s proportional share.

2 Ore is processed off-site at Newmont’s Twin Creeks mill pursuant to the TMA.

The most recent technical report on the Turquoise Ridge mine is the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Turquoise Ridge Mine, State of Nevada, U.S.A.” dated March 19, 2018 and authored by RPA. This technical report has been filed on SEDAR in accordance with National Instrument 43-101.

The map on the following page sets out the design and layout of the Turquoise Ridge mine.

- 84 -

- 85 -

EXPLORATION AND EVALUATIONS

Barrick has historically grown its reserve base through a combination of discovery and acquisitions involving an exploration strategy that includes district development programs, which focus on exploration in and around its operating properties, as well as early-stage exploration programs. The Company’s strategy is to maintain a mix of projects at different stages in the exploration and development sequence. In 2017, Barrick spent a total of $195 million on its exploration and evaluation activities (2016: $154 million), comprised of $151 million of exploration expenditures ($129 million expensed; $22 million capitalized) and $44 million of expensed evaluation expenditures. Of the total $151 million spent on exploration in 2017, approximately $72 million was spent in North America, approximately $41 million was spent in South America, approximately $13 million was spent in Australia Pacific and approximately $25 million was spent by Acacia.

Barrick’s exploration strategy focuses on: finding new discoveries; replacing and adding reserves and resources at Barrick’s existing operations and development projects; and identifying and delivering exploration upside following acquisitions. Exploration is directed from Barrick’s head office in Toronto and is conducted through its regional exploration offices and sites around the world. Barrick’s exploration success can be largely attributed to the fact that Barrick has extensive land positions on many of the world’s most prospective mineral districts and a structured and disciplined approach to exploration which provides a framework for how regions and projects are selected, how they are resourced and managed, and how exploration activities are performed. The Company has maintained a strong commitment to exploration by recognizing the value to the Company through exploration and evaluations success. Highlights of the Company’s greenfield exploration program for 2018 include the Fourmile target, adjacent to its Goldrush discovery in Nevada, and the Frontera District on the border of Argentina and Chile.

Barrick’s partnerships are thoughtful and strategic in nature. The Company has completed six new partnerships in the Americas in 2017. For Barrick’s exploration partnerships there are two primary objectives. The first is to augment Barrick’s operating presence in core regions. The second is to focus on emerging new district plays that have the potential to yield multiple new economic discoveries. Barrick seeks out partners with talent, credibility, integrity, proven track records and a strong commitment to communities and the environment. In addition, Barrick and Shandong have formed a working group to explore the joint development of the Pascua-Lama deposit, and will evaluate additional investment opportunities on the highly prospective El Indio gold belt on the border of Argentina and Chile.

In 2018, Barrick expects to incur approximately $185 to $225 million of exploration and evaluation expenditures. Approximately 80% of the Company’s total exploration budget is allocated to the Americas. Barrick’s exploration programs strike a balance between high-quality brownfield projects, greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that have the potential to become profitable mines. Barrick continues to take advantage of existing infrastructure and advance key growth projects such as Goldrush (discussed in further detail below) and Cortez Hills Deep South (see “Material Properties – Cortez Property”). These expenditures are expected to provide a near-term return on investment by adding to and/or upgrading Barrick’s reserve and resource base, and in some cases may positively impact production and mine life.

In 2018, Barrick expects to incur approximately $140 to $180 million of project expenses compared to $181 million in 2017. Project expenses for 2018 include the Pascua-Lama study to evaluate and permit the development of an underground mine at Pascua-Lama, accessed from the Argentinean side of the project, and ongoing site costs which include the cost of care and maintenance associated with water management and monitoring activities and other holding costs. 2018 project expenses also include the re-scoping study of the Donlin Gold project, costs associated with regional digital projects and additional

- 86 -

costs for the Norte Abierto project (formerly the Cerro Casale project). Barrick’s key projects, which are at various stages of development, are described below.

Goldrush

Barrick has completed a feasibility study at Goldrush, which is located six kilometers southeast of the Cortez Hills mine and 24 kilometers southeast of the Pipeline mine on 100% Barrick-owned property in Nevada. The study contemplates an estimated initial capital investment of approximately $1 billion to access approximately 1.5 million ounces of gold classified as proven and probable reserves and 9.4 million ounces of gold classified as measured and indicated resources as of year-end 2017. For further information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”.

Average annual production for the first full five years of operation is expected to be approximately 500,000 ounces of gold. Goldrush is expected to have a mine life of 21 years, with first production as early as 2021, and sustained production in 2023. The feasibility study anticipates a cost of sales of $750 per ounce, and average all-in sustaining costs of $640 per ounce. Barrick has identified opportunities to further reduce operating costs while advancing the feasibility study. “All-in sustaining costs” is a non-GAAP financial performance measure. For an explanation of all-in sustaining costs per ounce refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures – All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound” at pages 150 to 164 of this Annual Information Form.

During 2016, Barrick obtained the necessary permits for the construction of twin exploration declines. This will enable further drilling of the ore body in support of the feasibility study, including the conversion of measured and indicated resources to proven and probable reserves. The twin decline portal access site has been cleared and work on the portal pad started in the second quarter of 2017 and will be complete in the first quarter of 2018, which will provide access to the orebody at depth to enable further exploration drilling. These exploration declines can be converted into production declines in the future.

The Goldrush deposit remains open in a number of directions. In addition, Barrick continues to drill at the highly prospective Fourmile target, just north of the Goldrush discovery.

Alturas

In April 2015, Barrick announced a new gold discovery known as Alturas, located in the Andean region of Chile approximately 30 kilometers south of the former El Indio mine. Alturas is part of a large mineralized system which extends well beyond the limits of the current drilling area. At year-end 2017, Barrick reported an inferred resource of 6.8 million ounces of gold at Alturas. For further information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”. In 2017, Barrick completed a scoping-level study for a conventional open pit heap leach operation at Alturas, which fell just short of the Company’s hurdle rate. In support of project optimization efforts, the Company’s drilling programs in 2018 will focus on increasing the grade, defining additional shallow mineralization and increasing the potential mine resource tonnage of Alturas. This deposit is geologically similar to the nearby Veladero mine in Argentina.

Pascua-Lama

Pascua-Lama is located on the border of Chile and Argentina, in the Frontera district at an elevation of 3,800 to 5,200 meters, approximately 10 kilometers from Barrick’s Veladero mine. The Chilean part of the deposit, which is at an elevation of approximately 4,300 to 5,250 meters above sea level, was

- 87 -

acquired by Barrick through its acquisition of Lac Minerals in 1994. With respect to the portion of the project located in Argentina, Barrick acquired certain of the mining concessions that form part of the project in 1995 and the remaining project mining concessions were acquired from Minera S.A. in 1997. The Pascua-Lama project has cross-border mining operations that are granted by a mining treaty between Chile and Argentina. The initial Pascua-Lama project was designed as a large-scale open pit operation centered at an elevation of 4,800 meters with processing facilities having an initial designed throughput capacity of 45,000 tonnes per day.

Construction on the Pascua-Lama project began in October 2009. During the fourth quarter of 2013, Barrick announced the temporary suspension of construction, except for those activities required for environmental and regulatory compliance. The Company had previously suspended construction activities on the Chilean side of the project, except for those activities deemed necessary for environmental protection, during the second quarter of 2013 as a result of the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The suspension of construction in Chile and Argentina postponed and reduced near-term cash outlays, allowing Barrick to proceed with development at the appropriate time. The ramp-down was completed on schedule and budget in mid-2014. In late 2015, the Pascua-Lama project began implementing a temporary suspension plan as submitted to the mining authorities in Chile and Argentina. On March 13, 2017, the Chilean Supreme Court vacated the temporary suspension plan, ruling that additional information from Chile’s environmental regulator was required, and ordering the Chilean mining authority to issue a new resolution on the plan after receiving such information (see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action” for more information about this matter). In January 2018, Barrick received a revised resolution from the SMA ordering the closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project.

The Company is evaluating an underground block-caving operation at Pascua-Lama with an initial processing capacity of 13,000 to 15,000 tonnes per day, with the potential to expand to 30,000 tonnes per day in the future. The project would utilize the existing process plant and tailings facility on the Argentinean side of the border, construction of which is already well-advanced. A switch to underground mining addresses a number of community concerns by significantly reducing the overall environmental footprint of the project, as compared to an open pit operation.

In November 2017, Barrick initiated a targeted drill program to improve ore body knowledge on the Argentinean side of the deposit, where further data was required to validate underground development plans and metallurgy. As of March 19, 2018, all twelve holes have been completed. Preparations for permitting an underground operation are underway in Argentina and Chile, including closure of existing surface facilities in Chile.

In light of the SMA order to close surface facilities in Chile (see “Narrative Description of the Business – Reportable Operating Segments – Pascua-Lama Project” and Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions”) and current plans to evaluate an underground mine, Barrick has reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves of approximately 14 million ounces, which were based on an open pit mine plan, as measured and indicated resources.

At present, the Pascua-Lama project does not meet Barrick’s investment criteria. The Company’s intention is to seek a partner for the development of the project. Barrick and Shandong have formed a working group to explore the possible joint development of the Pascua-Lama deposit, and will evaluate additional investment opportunities on the highly prospective El Indio gold belt on the border of Argentina and Chile.

For more information about these matters, see the following sections of “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings”, “– Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions”, “– Pascua-Lama – Constitutional

- 88 -

Protection Action” and “– Pascua-Lama – Water Quality Review”. Certain additional permits and authorizations will be required for the construction, operation and/or closure of project facilities at Pascua-Lama in both countries.

In 2009, Barrick entered into the Silver Purchase Agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals International Ltd. (“Wheaton Precious Metals”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Wheaton Precious Metals Corp., whereby Barrick sold the equivalent of 25% of the life of mine Pascua-Lama silver production from the later of January 1, 2014 or completion of project construction, and 100% of silver production from the Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines until that time. Barrick initiated the closure of the Pierina mine in August 2013 and does not anticipate significant silver production from that mine in future years. Under the agreement, the Company was entitled to an upfront cash payment of $625 million payable over three years from the date of the agreement, as well as ongoing payments in cash of the lesser of $3.90 (subject to an annual inflation adjustment of 1% starting three years after project completion at Pascua-Lama) and the prevailing market price for each ounce of silver delivered under the agreement. Barrick received the final cash installment payment of $137.5 million in 2012. Barrick had provided Wheaton Precious Metals with a completion guarantee, requiring the Company to complete Pascua-Lama to at least 75% design capacity by December 31, 2015. In 2014, Wheaton Precious Metals agreed to extend the completion date for Pascua-Lama to June 30, 2020 and will continue to receive silver production from the Lagunas Norte, Pierina (now in closure) and Veladero mines until March 31, 2018. If the requirements of the completion guarantee have not been satisfied by June 30, 2020, the agreement may be terminated by Wheaton Precious Metals, in which case Wheaton Precious Metals will be entitled to the return of the upfront cash consideration paid less a credit for silver delivered up to the date of that event. As at December 31, 2017, the remaining cash obligation was $262 million.

As of December 31, 2017, the Pascua-Lama project received $484 million in value added tax (“VAT”) refunds in Chile relating to the development of the Chilean side of the project. Under the current arrangement, this amount plus $313 million of interest must be repaid if the project does not evidence exports for an amount of $3,538 million within a term that expires on December 31, 2026. The terms of the current VAT arrangement in Chile are applicable to either an open pit or an underground mine design. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability related to VAT refunds in Chile. As of December 31, 2017, the Pascua-Lama project recorded $221 million in VAT recoverable in Argentina relating to the development of the Argentine side of the project. These amounts may not be recoverable if the project does not enter into production and are subject to devaluation risk as the amounts are recoverable in Argentine pesos.

As a result of the reclassification of approximately 14 million ounces of proven and probable reserves to measured and indicated resources as described above, Pascua-Lama had no proven and probable gold reserves as of year-end 2017 and measured and indicated gold resources of 21.3 million ounces. For further information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”.

Donlin Gold

Donlin Gold contains large, long life mineral resources in a stable jurisdiction, has significant leverage to the price of gold, and therefore represents a valuable long-term opportunity for the Company.

The Donlin Gold project is a large, predominantly refractory gold deposit located in Southwestern Alaska. In December 2007, Barrick entered into an agreement with NOVAGOLD Resources Inc. to form Donlin Gold LLC. a jointly owned limited liability company on a 50/50 basis, to advance the project. In 2012, the National Environmental Policy Act permitting process commenced, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) as the lead agency. Current activities, by which Barrick maintains and

- 89 -

enhances the option value of this project at a modest cost, are focused on permitting, community outreach and workforce development. Donlin Gold has a life of mine mineral lease with the Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation, and a life of mine surface use agreement with The Kuskokwim Corporation, an Alaska village corporation, for the project . In 2015, Donlin Gold continued to advance key permits for the project, and in November 2015, USACE released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) for public review and comment. The comment period for the DEIS ended in May 2016. The Company expects the final EIS to be published by USACE in early 2018, with a Record of Decision expected in the second half of the year. State of Alaska permitting is proceeding in parallel with the federal process. As the Donlin Gold project continues to advance through the permitting process, Barrick is also working with its partner on strategies to further optimize the project. This includes evaluating alternative development scenarios with the potential to lower capital intensity, as well as incorporating innovation, automation, and other opportunities to improve overall economics. This will provide the Company with the option to make construction decisions in the future should investment conditions warrant. In support of this, a drilling program of 7,040 meters was completed in 2017 to strengthen understanding of target mineralized zones.

At year-end 2017, Donlin Gold, on a 50% basis, had approximately 19.5 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources. For further information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”.

Norte Abierto (formerly Cerro Casale)

The Norte Abierto project (formerly known as the Cerro Casale project) contains large, long life mineral resources in a stable jurisdiction, has significant leverage to the price of gold, and therefore represents a valuable long-term opportunity for the Company.

Acquired in connection with Barrick’s acquisition of Arizona Star in 2007, the Cerro Casale deposit is a large, undeveloped gold and copper deposit located in the Maricunga district of Region III in Chile, 145 km southeast of Copiapo. On June 9, 2017, Barrick completed a transaction with Goldcorp to form a new partnership at Cerro Casale. Pursuant to the transaction, Goldcorp acquired a 25% interest in Cerro Casale from Barrick. The transaction, coupled with the concurrent purchase by Goldcorp of Kinross’s 25% interest in Cerro Casale, resulted in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50% interest in the joint operations.

As consideration for the 25 percent interest acquired from Barrick, Goldcorp is required to fund Barrick’s first $260 million of expenditures on the project and must spend an equivalent amount on its own behalf for a total project investment commitment of $520 million. Under the agreement, Goldcorp must spend a minimum of $60 million in the two-year period following closing of the transaction, and then $80 million in each successive two-year period. The outstanding funding commitment accrues interest at an annual rate of 4.75%. In the event that Goldcorp does not spend the minimum amount, 50% of any shortfall will be paid directly to Barrick in cash.

In addition, in connection with the transaction, Goldcorp was also required to fund Norte Abierto’s acquisition of a 100% interest in the adjacent Quebrada Seca property from Kinross upon closing. Upon a construction decision, Goldcorp is required to pay Barrick $40 million in cash and Barrick will receive a 1.25% royalty on 25% of the gross revenues derived from metal production from both Cerro Casale and Quebrada Seca.

In connection with the transaction, Goldcorp also acquired Exeter Resource Corporation, whose sole asset is the Caspiche project, located 10 kilometers north of Cerro Casale. The Caspiche project was contributed to the joint venture and 50% of the acquisition costs incurred by Goldcorp was deducted from

- 90 -

the $260 million expenditure commitment described above. Moving forward, the joint venture will be referred to as Norte Abierto, which includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits.

Approval of the environmental impact assessment for Cerro Casale was received in January 2013 from the Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental, the environmental authority of northern Chile (for additional information regarding the project’s environmental permits, see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Cerro Casale”). Barrick and Goldcorp are evaluating ways in which the Norte Abierto deposits can be profitably developed by the joint venture. Among other things, the joint venture has initiated an exploration program on these deposits which includes validating the models of these two geological deposits, an initial 16,000 meter diamond drill program that was commenced in late 2017 to increase geological confidence of both deposits, and data evaluation of four satellite targets which demonstrate exploration potential. Work in 2018 will include trade-off and engineering studies on power, water, mining methods and metallurgy, as well as ongoing stakeholder engagement and environmental baseline monitoring.

The Cerro Casale deposit, on a 50% basis, had approximately 11.6 million ounces of proven and probable gold reserves and 2,890 million pounds of contained copper within reported gold reserves, as well as approximately 1.7 million ounces of measured and indicated resources, as at year-end 2017. The Caspiche deposit, on a 50% basis, had approximately 11.6 million ounces of measured and indicated resources as at year-end 2017. For further information, see “Narrative Description of the Business – Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources”.

ENVIRONMENT

The Company’s mining, exploration and development activities are subject to various levels of federal, provincial or state, and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including requirements for closure and reclamation of mining properties (see “Legal Matters – Government Controls and Regulations”). Barrick’s investment in environmental management systems is aimed at eliminating or mitigating environmental risks as they are identified. The governance aspects of Barrick’s systems are designed to inform management early enough to respond to risks as they arise.

Barrick has a policy of conducting periodic environmental and closure reviews of its business activities, on a regular and scheduled basis in order to evaluate compliance with: applicable laws and regulations; permit and license requirements; company policies and management standards including guidelines and procedures; and adopted codes of practice. The Corporate Responsibility Committee of Barrick’s Board of Directors reviews the Company’s environmental policies and programs and oversees Barrick’s environmental performance. In addition, all Barrick facilities have staff and systems in place to manage Barrick’s regulatory and permit obligations.

Barrick’s policies and standards conform to international and industry standards. Ten of Barrick’s operating mines are currently certified under the ISO 14001 standard for environmental management. Barrick has adopted an environmental policy that mandates full compliance with site obligations and provides for a culture of continual improvement. Barrick has also adopted specific performance standards applicable to its Environmental Management System, Environmental Incident Reporting and Investigation, Biodiversity, Water Conservation, Mine Closure, and Tailings and Heap Leach Management. These performance standards are continually reviewed and revised to reflect experience and best industry practices.

As of March 19, 2018, over half of Barrick-operated mines were zero discharge sites where most water is recycled or re-used, thereby reducing Barrick’s draw on local water supplies. Because of the strategic importance of water management to Barrick’s operations, in 2016, the Company created the new

- 91 -

position of Vice-President of Water Management to focus on improving sites’ understanding of their water-related risks and opportunities. In 2017, Barrick was recognized as a leader in disclosure of water-related information by the CDP Water Disclosure program.

Each year, Barrick issues a Responsibility Report that outlines its environmental, health and safety and social responsibility performance for the year. Barrick is deliberately working towards improving transparency into its environmental stewardship activities. For example, in 2016, the Pascua-Lama project became the first Barrick operation to provide water quality monitoring results directly to the public through an online website. Through 2018, Barrick will continue to develop systems and tools that will provide additional transparency into its operations.

Climate change, including shifts in temperature and precipitation and more frequent severe weather events, will affect the mining industry in a range of possible ways. Volatile climatic conditions can affect the stability and effectiveness of infrastructure and equipment; potentially impact environmental protection and site closure practices; lead to changes in the regulatory environment, including increased financial exposure to carbon tax regimes; and potentially impact the stability and cost of water and energy supplies. Barrick therefore views climate change as a Company, community and global concern. In 2017, Barrick developed a climate change strategy aligned with its overall business strategy to grow free cash flow per share through safe and responsible mining.

Barrick’s climate change strategy has three pillars: understand and mitigate the risks associated with climate change; reduce the Company’s impact on climate change; and improve the Company’s disclosure on climate change.

In 2017, Barrick performed a climate change risk assessment, using Barrick’s standard risk management framework. Barrick assessed risks and opportunities across both potential transition (e.g., regulatory, policy, reputational) and physical (e.g., extreme climate events) aspects of climate change. Barrick has identified three salient climate-related risks and opportunities for its business: an increase in extended duration extreme precipitation events; an increase in climate change regulations to limit greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions; and increased global investment in innovation and low carbon technologies. The assessment also included a review of the current mitigation and controls associated with each risk and identified areas which may need further strengthening to reduce risk.

The Company also analyzed its current and forecasted GHG emissions to develop an ambitious but realistic goal to reduce Barrick’s GHG emissions. Mining is an energy-intensive business, and the Company understands the important link between energy use and GHG emissions. By effectively managing energy use, Barrick can reduce its draw from local energy grids, reduce its GHG emissions, achieve more efficient production and save direct mining costs. Barrick has set a goal to keep its current GHG emissions flat in the short term and is targeting a 30% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, from a 2016 baseline of 3.5MT carbon dioxide equivalent emitted.

In 2017, the Company committed to supporting the voluntary recommendations of the industry-led Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). The TCFD recommendations are considered the new benchmark for disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities, and Barrick was the only Canadian mining company to make this public commitment. Barrick aims to implement the full recommendations over the next two years.

Governance over climate-related risks and opportunities is provided at both the Board and management level. The Company’s Corporate Responsibility Committee meets at least quarterly and is responsible for overseeing Barrick’s policies, programs and performance relating to the environment, including climate change. The Risk Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s

- 92 -

management of enterprise risks as well as the implementation of policies and standards for monitoring and mitigating such risks. Climate change is built into Barrick’s formal risk management process, outputs of which are reviewed by the Risk Committee. The Audit Committee reviews the Company’s approach to climate change in the context of Barrick’s disclosures.

At the management level, Barrick’s Climate Change Committee, comprised of senior members of the Company’s management team, provides strategic oversight and governance over key decisions related to Barrick’s Climate Change Strategy, such as overseeing climate change risk and opportunity assessments, monitoring progress against GHG emissions targets and providing guidance on external disclosures.

Further to the specific focus of the Climate Change Committee, the weekly Business Plan Review allows for discussion of opportunities and risks that may help or hinder the Company from achieving its objectives, including climate-related risks (e.g., spring snow melts, hurricanes, flooding and mud slides).

Consistent with Barrick’s goal to minimize the environmental and social impacts of its projects and operations, the Company develops comprehensive closure and reclamation plans as part of its initial project planning and design. If it acquires a property that lacks a closure plan, Barrick requires preparation of a closure plan. The Company periodically reviews and updates closure plans to account for additional knowledge acquired in respect of a property or for changes in applicable laws or regulations. The Company has estimated future site reclamation and closure obligations, which it believes will meet current regulatory requirements. See Notes 2U and 27 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company’s operating facilities have been designed to mitigate environmental impacts and Barrick staff work to continually improve its environmental management programs. The operations have processes, procedures, or facilities in place to manage substances that have the potential to be harmful to the environment. To help prevent and control spills and protect water quality, Barrick utilizes multiple levels of spill containment procedures and routine inspection and monitoring of its facilities. Environmental incidents can occur despite these precautions. For example, in September 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at the Veladero mine failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. In September 2016, falling ice damaged a pipe carrying process solution in the leach pad area, causing some material to leave the leach pad. In March 2017, the monitoring system at the Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad; however, all solution was contained within the operating site and no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. See “Material Properties – Veladero Mine” for more information about these matters.

The Company also has various programs to re-use and conserve water at its operations. In order to mitigate the impact of dust produced by its operations, Barrick uses several different dust suppression techniques at its properties. The Company also installs air pollution controls on air pollution point sources, such as roaster and autoclave exhaust stacks, that meet or exceed applicable legal standards. The Company has also implemented safeguards at its properties that are designed to protect wildlife in the surrounding areas. Such safeguards include fencing and netting or other coverings of ponds and tanks, bird hazing techniques, such as mechanized scarecrows or noisemakers, and the establishment of alternate water sources and programs to improve wildlife habitat.

Certain of the Company’s operating and closed properties handle ore or rock with the potential to leach acidity, metals and dissolved salts (“Acid Rock Drainage Metal Leaching”) and hence potentially contaminate water. Other operating and closed properties lack this potential, but still present the potential for leaching of dissolved salts, such as sulfates, or metalloids, such as arsenic, by water that might run off of the property (“Neutral Mine Drainage”). The Company has implemented programs to manage the

- 93 -

handling of ore and rock to reduce the potential for contamination of surface or groundwater by either Acid Rock Drainage Metal Leaching or Neutral Mine Drainage. Such procedures include segregation or submergence of rock with potential for leaching, containment systems for the collection and treatment of drainage and reclamation and closure steps designed to minimize water infiltration and oxygen flux. Where necessary, the Company installs and operates water treatment facilities to manage the quality of water discharged into the environment.

Many of the Company’s operating properties use cyanide. Those facilities are designed and constructed to prevent process solutions from being released to surface water or groundwater. Those facilities include leak detection systems and have the ability to collect and treat seepage that may occur. The tailings storage facilities are controlled and process ponds are either covered, netted or additional deterrents are used to prevent access. In September 2005, the Company became a signatory to the International Cyanide Management Code (the “Code”), which is administered by the International Cyanide Management Institute (the “ICMI”). The ICMI is an independent body that was established by a multi-stakeholder group under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The Code establishes operating standards for manufacturers, transporters and mines and provides for third-party certification of facilities’ compliance with the Code. Under the Code, each of the mines that uses cyanide must receive a third party certification inspection. All Barrick-operated mines that use cyanide have achieved certification or re-certification under the Code.

Certain of the Company’s operations produce mercury as a by-product of ore processed at those sites. The mercury is captured at each of these sites by specially designed operating equipment and mercury emissions control devices. The Company is committed to the operation of proven technology for controlling sources of mercury emissions. Site-specific management procedures for mercury handling, monitoring, and transportation exist at each of the operations that produce mercury as a by-product. Further, employees receive training in the safe use and proper management of cyanide, mercury and other hazardous materials. Consistent with U.S. law, Barrick ceased the export of elemental mercury from U.S. facilities in January 2013. Barrick complies with all applicable regulatory requirements for temporary storage of mercury in the jurisdictions where it operates. The Company has developed general mercury storage guidelines to establish environmentally sound practices for temporary on-site storage, where allowed.

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) and its state law equivalents, present or past owners of a property may be held jointly and severally liable for cleanup costs or forced to undertake remedial actions in response to unpermitted releases of hazardous substances at such property, in addition to, among other potential consequences, potential liability to governmental entities for the cost of damages to natural resources, which may be substantial. These subject properties are referred to as “superfund” sites. There is a chance that our current or legacy operations in the U.S. could be designated as a superfund site in the future, exposing Barrick to potential liability under CERCLA.

See the disclosure under “Material Properties” above for details about specific environmental matters and estimated future reclamation and closure costs applicable to Barrick’s material properties.

LEGAL MATTERS

Government Controls and Regulations

The Company’s business is subject to various levels and types of government controls and regulations, which are supplemented and revised from time to time. Accordingly, the Company monitors political and economic developments in the jurisdictions in which it does or may carry on business, as

- 94 -

well as changes in regulation to which Barrick is subject. Set out below is a summary of potentially material developments related to government controls and regulations that may affect Barrick or its properties.

In the United States, certain of Barrick’s mineral reserves and operations occur on unpatented lode mining claims and mill sites that are on federal lands subject to federal mining and other public land laws. Changes in such laws, or regulations promulgated under such laws, could affect mine development, expansion, and closure projects. Significant increases in regulatory obligations could raise compliance costs with respect to exploration, mine development, mine operations and closure and could prevent or delay certain operations by the Company. Changes to mining and public lands laws are often proposed in the U.S. Congress, and changes to the regulations promulgated under such laws are often proposed by federal regulatory agencies. In addition, non-governmental organizations often litigate to influence the application of existing regulations.

In November 2009, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by challenging regulations promulgated under the federal mining law: Earthworks, et al. vs. U.S. Department of the Interior. The lawsuit seeks to impose different rules on mill-site claims and unpatented lode claims and seeks an injunction of all permitting of mines on federal lands until new rules are promulgated. An unfavourable outcome in that litigation could result in changes to the mining law. Barrick intervened in support of the federal agency defendants in the lawsuit. Cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed and briefed, and oral argument was conducted on October 27, 2017. A decision could be issued at any time.

In September 2015, the BLM amended land use plans governing management on federal lands across the western states to impose additional restrictions and mitigation obligations on development activities occurring to protect habitat of the greater sage grouse. The affected lands include lands in northern Nevada where the Company develops and operates mines. In anticipation of the BLM decision, in March 2015, the Company negotiated a separate agreement with the BLM and other agencies, the Barrick Nevada Sage-Grouse Bank Enabling Agreement (the “Agreement”), which specifies a methodology for measuring the impact of mine development activities on sage grouse habitat and offsetting mitigation measures. The Agreement allows the Company to bank mitigation credits in anticipation of future mine development and avoids some of the restrictions in the land use plan amendments. The Agreement applies to some, but not all of the sage grouse habitat where development activities may occur. Those lands not covered by the Agreement will be subject to the amended land use plans. Implementation of the Agreement may result in additional costs for some operations. Access to or development of some lands not covered by the Agreement may be restricted.

In Chile, on March 6, 2015, the environmental minister and members of the Chilean legislature reached an agreement to propose a new glacier protection law in the current legislative session that, among other things, would recognize certain types of glaciers in that country as environmental reserves and prohibit commercial activity in the vicinity of those reserves. Under the proposed law, mining projects will be subject to new permitting, monitoring and other regulatory requirements relating to glaciers. It is contemplated that certain elements of the proposed law, including the requirement to monitor and mitigate environmental damage to glaciers, could apply retroactively to certain existing environmental approvals. The proposed law is still under discussion in the Chilean legislature. Barrick is monitoring the legislative process and evaluating the potential impact of the proposed legislation on the Pascua-Lama project.

In September 2014, the Chilean government enacted certain tax reform measures. Under the new regime, certain Chilean taxpayers were able to elect between an attributed profits or a partially integrated two-tier tax system. For taxpayers subject to the attributed profits system, a 35% Chilean income tax rate

- 95 -

applies on profits with no additional tax on distributions of profits. For taxpayers subject to the partially integrated two-tier system, the first tier corporate income tax rate is 27%. Under this system, an additional tax applies on distributions of profits, which could result in a maximum aggregate effective tax rate of 35% or 44.45% depending on the domicile of the company’s shareholders. Chile’s DL 600 foreign investment regime was eliminated as of December 31, 2016. However, the current DL 600 contracts for the Zaldívar joint venture, Norte Abierto project and Pascua-Lama project remain in effect.

In Argentina, on December 29, 2017, congress approved tax reform measures that are effective from 2018. A key change is the introduction of a two-tier income tax regime that decreases the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 30% and increases the withholding tax on dividends from 0% to 7% for 2018 and 2019. From 2020 and onwards, the corporate income tax rate will be 25% and withholding tax will be 13%. A grandfathering rule applies for dividends paid out of profits from 2017 and prior years whereby there is no withholding tax. Additionally, the 2:1 debt to equity ratio with respect to the deductibility of interest has been eliminated and there is an interest deduction limitation of 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Excess interest not deducted can be carried forward for 5 years. The impact of these reform measures on the Veladero mine is being analyzed.

In Zambia, the taxation framework effective on July 1, 2015 included the introduction of a 30% corporate income tax, a 50% of taxable income limitation on the utilization of tax loss carry-forward and a 15% variable profits tax. While the 9% mineral royalty rate was in effect, the Zambian Cabinet in February 2016 announced the approval of further revisions to the mining tax laws. Effective as of June 1, 2016, the government introduced mineral royalty tax rates for copper as follows: 4% at copper prices below $2.04 per pound, 5% at copper prices between $2.04 per pound and $2.72 per pound, and 6% at copper prices of $2.72 per pound and above. Also effective as of June 1, 2016, the Zambian government eliminated the variable profits tax, with the effect that income from mining operations will now be taxed at the 30% corporate income tax rate.

The mining taxes assessed to the Lumwana Mine have contradicted the Development Agreement that was finalized between Lumwana Mining Company Limited and the Government of Zambia on December 16, 2005. Based on local and international legal advice, the Company believes that the compensation rights for breach of the 10-year stability period granted under the Development Agreement prevail over the historical changes to the Zambian mineral royalty and tax regime. In 2015, the Company began to take steps to preserve its rights under the Development Agreement and started to engage in formal discussions with the government to redress historical tax issues relating to the Development Agreement.

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Ministry of Energy and Minerals imposed the Ban, a ban on exports of gold/copper concentrate, following a directive made by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. In 2016, gold/copper concentrate exports amounted to approximately 30% of Acacia’s revenues. Acacia ceased exports of gold/copper concentrate, and is seeking to have the Ban lifted through the appropriate government channels. See “– Legal Proceedings – Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” below.

In Papua New Guinea, a revised additional profits tax (“APT”) was enacted in January 2017 that applies to all resource projects in that country. The government’s objective is to simplify the administration of the APT and to ensure a level playing field across the entire resource sector. The hurdle rate beyond which the revised APT applies is a flat nominal rate of 15% and the APT rate is 30%. The revised APT became effective on January 1, 2017. The government has recently confirmed that existing resource projects can take into account expenditure from prior years for purposes of calculating the APT. While the precise details are not yet known, it is Barrick’s expectation that no material APT liability should arise in connection with Barrick’s interest in the Porgera mine.

- 96 -

In the Dominican Republic a second amendment to the SLA became effective on October 5, 2013 and has resulted in additional and accelerated tax revenues to the Dominican government. The second amendment to the SLA includes the establishment of a graduated minimum tax, which will be adjusted up or down based on future metal prices. During 2017, PVDC and the Dominican government reached an agreement on the updated financial model to reset the graduated minimum tax rates for the three-year period from 2017 through 2019.

On December 22, 2017 tax reform was enacted in the United States. The significant changes include: (i) a reduction from 35% to 21% in the corporate income tax rate for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017; (ii) a repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017; and (iii) a mandatory one-time deemed repatriation of earnings and profits of specified foreign corporations effective December 31, 2017 that effectively results in a repatriation toll charge of 15.5% for liquid assets and 8% for non-liquid assets with toll charge payable in instalments over 8 years (8% for the first 5 years, 15% in year 6, 20% in year 7 and 25% in year 8).

The one-time repatriation toll charge is estimated at $228 million for 2017 and is offset by AMT credits in the amount of $88 million, for a net charge of $140 million payable over eight years, as discussed above. The impact of the tax reform may differ from current estimates due to changes in interpretations and assumptions, and additional legislation and guidance.

For details about specific regulatory initiatives applicable to each of Barrick’s material properties, see the disclosure under “Material Properties” above.

Barrick is unable to predict what additional legislation or revisions may be proposed that might affect its business or when any such proposals, if enacted, will become effective. Such changes, however, could require increased capital and operating expenditures and could prevent or delay certain operations by the Company.

Various levels of government controls and regulations address, among other things, the environmental impact of mining and mineral processing operations. With respect to the regulation of mining and processing, legislation and regulations in various jurisdictions establish performance standards, air and water quality emission standards and other design or operational requirements for various components of operations, including health and safety standards. Legislation and regulations also establish requirements for decommissioning, reclamation and rehabilitation of mining properties following the cessation of operations, and may require that some former mining properties be managed for long periods of time (see “Environment”). In addition, in certain jurisdictions, the Company is subject to foreign investment controls and regulations governing its ability to remit earnings abroad.

Legal Proceedings

Set out below is a summary of potentially material legal and administrative proceedings to which Barrick is a party.

U.S. Shareholder Class Action

On May 10, 2017, Shepard Broadfoot, a purported shareholder of Barrick, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against the Company, Kelvin Dushnisky, Catherine Raw, Richard Williams and Jorge Palmes. The complaint asserted claims against the defendants arising from allegedly false and misleading statements concerning production estimates and environmental risks at the Veladero mine, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2017, a second and substantially identical purported class action complaint was filed in the SDNY.

- 97 -

On October 4, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A briefing schedule has been set by the Court, and the plaintiff’s amended consolidated complaint was filed on December 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 2, 2018. Briefing on the motion to dismiss will be completed by April 18, 2018. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Canadian Securities Class Actions

Between April and September 2014, eight proposed class actions were commenced against Barrick in Canada in connection with the Pascua-Lama project. Four of the proceedings were commenced in Ontario, two were commenced in Alberta, one was commenced in Saskatchewan, and one was commenced in Quebec. The Canadian proceedings alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements to the investing public relating (among other things) to the cost of the Pascua-Lama project, the amount of time it would take before production commenced at the project, and the environmental risks of the project, as well as alleged internal control failures.

The first Ontario and Alberta actions were commenced by Statement of Claim on April 15 and 17, 2014, respectively. The same law firm acts for the plaintiffs in these two proceedings, and the Statements of Claim were largely identical. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky and Ammar Al-Joundi were also named as defendants in the two actions. Both actions purported to be on behalf of anyone who, during the period from May 7, 2009 to May 23, 2013, purchased Barrick securities in Canada. Both actions sought $4.3 billion in general damages and $350 million in special damages for alleged misrepresentations in Barrick’s public disclosure. The first Ontario action was subsequently consolidated with the fourth Ontario action, as discussed below. The first Alberta action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on June 26, 2015.

The second Ontario action was commenced on April 24, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. Following a September 8, 2014 amendment to the Statement of Claim, this action purported to be on behalf of anyone who acquired Barrick securities during the period from October 29, 2010 to October 30, 2013, and sought $3 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in Barrick’s public disclosure. The amended claim also reflected the addition of a law firm that previously acted as counsel in a third Ontario action, which was commenced by Notice of Action on April 28, 2014 and included similar allegations but was never served or pursued. As a result of the outcome of the carriage motion and appeals described below, the second Ontario action has now been stayed.

The Quebec action was commenced on April 30, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who resides in Quebec and acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013. The action seeks unspecified damages for alleged misrepresentations in Barrick’s public disclosure.

The second Alberta action was commenced on May 23, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in Barrick’s public disclosure. The action was dismissed on consent on June 19, 2017.

The Saskatchewan action was commenced by Statement of Claim on May 26, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from

- 98 -

May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in Barrick’s public disclosure. The action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on December 19, 2016.

The fourth Ontario action was commenced on September 5, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013 in Canada, and seeks $3 billion in damages plus an unspecified amount for alleged misrepresentations in Barrick’s public disclosure. The Statement of Claim was amended on October 20, 2014, to include two additional law firms, one of which was acting as counsel in the first Ontario action referred to above and the other of which no longer exists. In January 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a consolidated statement of claim in this action.

In November 2014, an Ontario court heard a motion to determine which of the competing counsel groups would take the lead in the Ontario litigation. The court issued a decision in December 2014 in favour of the counsel group that commenced the first and fourth Ontario actions, which have been consolidated in a single action. The lower court’s decision was subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Court in May 2015 and the Court of Appeal for Ontario in July 2016 following appeals by the losing counsel group. The losing counsel group sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but later discontinued the application after reaching an agreement with the counsel group that commenced the first and fourth Ontario actions.

The proposed representative plaintiffs in the Quebec and Ontario actions have brought motions seeking: (i) leave to proceed with statutory misrepresentation claims pursuant to provincial securities legislation; and (ii) orders certifying the actions as class actions. It is expected that the Quebec motions will be heard in late February 2019, while the motion for leave to proceed in the Ontario action will be heard in early April 2019 (with the certification motion to be heard concurrently or shortly thereafter).

Barrick intends to vigorously defend all of the proposed Canadian securities class actions.

Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions

In May 2013, Compañía Minera Nevada (“CMN”), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion of the Pascua-Lama project, received a Resolution (the “Original Resolution”) from SMA, Chile’s environmental regulator, that requires CMN to complete the water management system for the project in accordance with the project’s environmental permit before resuming construction activities in Chile. The Original Resolution also required CMN to pay an administrative fine of approximately $16 million for deviations from certain requirements of the project’s Chilean environmental approval, including a series of reporting requirements and instances of non-compliance related to the project’s water management system. CMN paid the administrative fine in May 2013.

In June 2013, CMN began engineering studies to review the project’s water management system in accordance with the Original Resolution. The studies were suspended in the second half of 2015 as a result of CMN’s decision to file a temporary and partial closure plan for the project (for more information about this plan, see “– Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action” below). The review of the project’s water management system may require a new environmental approval and the construction of additional water management facilities.

In June 2013, a group of local farmers and indigenous communities challenged the Original Resolution. The challenge, which was brought in the Environmental Court of Santiago, Chile (the “Environmental Court”), claimed that the fine was inadequate and requested more severe sanctions against CMN including the revocation of the project’s environmental permit. The SMA presented its

- 99 -

defense of the Original Resolution in July 2013. On August 2, 2013, CMN joined as a party to this proceeding and vigorously defended the Original Resolution. On March 3, 2014, the Environmental Court annulled the Original Resolution and remanded the matter back to the SMA for further consideration in accordance with its decision (the “Environmental Court Decision”). In particular, the Environmental Court ordered the SMA to issue a new administrative decision that recalculated the amount of the fine to be paid by CMN using a different methodology and addressed certain other errors it identified in the Original Resolution. The Environmental Court did not annul the portion of the Original Resolution that required Barrick to halt construction on the Chilean side of the project until the water management system is completed in accordance with the project’s environmental permit. On December 30, 2014, the Chilean Supreme Court declined to consider CMN’s appeal of the Environmental Court Decision on procedural grounds. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, on April 22, 2015, the SMA reopened the administrative proceeding against CMN in accordance with the Environmental Court Decision.

On April 22, 2015, CMN was notified that the SMA had initiated a new administrative proceeding for alleged deviations from certain requirements of the project’s environmental approval, including with respect to the project’s environmental impact and a series of monitoring requirements. In May 2015, CMN submitted a compliance program to address certain of the allegations and presented its defense to the remainder of the alleged deviations. The SMA rejected CMN’s proposed compliance program on June 24, 2015, and denied CMN’s administrative appeal of that decision on July 31, 2015. On December 30, 2016, the Environmental Court rejected CMN’s appeal and CMN declined to challenge this decision.

On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against CMN into a single proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the Original Resolution in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.

On January 17, 2018, CMN received the revised resolution (the “Revised Resolution”) from the SMA, in which the environmental regulator reduced the original administrative fine from approximately $16 million to $11.5 million and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the Project in addition to mandating certain monitoring activities. The Revised Resolution does not revoke the Project’s environmental approval. CMN filed an appeal of the Revised Resolution on February 3, 2018. The appeal argues, among other things, that the sanction is disproportionate to actual environmental impacts.

Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action

CMN filed a temporary and partial closure plan for the Pascua-Lama project (the “Temporary Closure Plan”) with the Chilean mining authority (“Sernageomin”) on August 31, 2015. Sernageomin approved the Temporary Closure Plan on September 29, 2015, and issued a resolution requiring CMN to comply with certain closure-related maintenance and monitoring obligations for a period of two years. The Temporary Closure Plan does not address certain facilities, including the project’s water management system, which remain subject to the requirements of the project’s original environmental approval and other regulations.

On December 4, 2015, a constitutional protection action was filed in the Court of Appeals of Santiago, Chile by a group of local farmers and other individuals against CMN and Sernageomin in order to challenge the Temporary Closure Plan and the resolution that approved it. The plaintiffs asserted that the Temporary Closure Plan cannot be approved until the water management system for the project has been completed in accordance with the project’s environmental permit. On August 12, 2016, the court

- 100 -

ruled in favour of CMN and Sernageomin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Temporary Closure Plan for the Pascua-Lama project. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the Chilean Supreme Court and on March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the Temporary Closure Plan, ruling that additional information regarding the SMA regulatory sanction process was required from the environmental regulator, and ordering Sernageomin to issue a new resolution on the Temporary Closure Plan after receiving such information. On August 29, 2017, Sernageomin issued a new resolution in which it reapproved the Temporary Closure Plan as originally issued. This approval is valid through September 2019.

Pascua-Lama – Water Quality Review

CMN initiated a review of the baseline water quality of the Rio Estrecho in August 2013 as required by a July 15, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals of Copiapo, Chile. The purpose of the review was to establish whether the water quality baseline has changed since the Pascua-Lama project received its environmental approval in February 2006 and, if so, to require CMN to adopt the appropriate corrective measures. As a result of that study, CMN requested certain modifications to its environmental permit water quality requirements. On June 6, 2016, the responsible agency approved a partial amendment of the environmental permit to better reflect the water quality baseline from 2009. That approval was appealed by certain water users and indigenous residents of the Huasco Valley. On October 19, 2016, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over claims of this nature, voted to uphold the permit amendments. On January 27, 2017, the Environmental Court agreed to consider an appeal of the Chilean Committee’s decision brought by CMN and the water users and indigenous residents. A hearing took place on July 25, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the water users withdrew their appeal. The Environmental Court dismissed that appeal on January 5, 2018. A decision of the Environmental Court on the remaining appeals is still pending.

Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution

San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction Proceeding

On September 13, 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at Barrick’s Veladero mine in San Juan Province, Argentina failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. MAG, the company that operates the Veladero mine, notified regulatory authorities of the situation. Environmental monitoring was conducted by MAG and independent third parties following the incident. Barrick believes this monitoring demonstrates that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. A temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the mine’s processing circuit was lifted on September 24, 2015, and mine operations returned to normal. Monitoring and inspection of the minesite will continue in accordance with a court order.

On October 9, 2015, the San Juan Provincial mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAG for alleged violations of the mining code relating to the valve failure and release of cyanide-bearing process solution. MAG submitted its response to these allegations in October 2015 and provided additional information in January 2016.

On March 11, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso to U.S. dollar exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was

- 101 -

pending. On December 29, 2016, the request for reconsideration was rejected by the San Juan Provincial mining authority. On July 11, 2017, the San Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, MAG commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts. MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority.

Criminal Matters

On March 11, 2016, a San Juan Provincial court laid criminal charges based on alleged negligence against nine current and former MAG employees in connection with the solution release (the “Provincial Action”). On August 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictment against eight of the nine individuals that had been charged with alleged negligence in connection with the solution release. The individual defendants filed a special appeal, called a “cassation” appeal, of the indictments with the San Juan Supreme Court, which was rejected on August 31, 2017. The San Juan Provincial court rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 30, 2017, and the defendants appealed this decision on December 4, 2017. A trial date has not yet been set. MAG is not a party to the Provincial Action.

In addition, a federal criminal investigation was initiated by a Buenos Aires federal court based on the alleged failure of certain current and former federal and provincial government officials and individual directors of MAG to prevent the solution release (the “Federal Investigation”). The federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation admitted a local group in San Juan Province as a party. In March 2016, this group requested an injunction against the operations of the Veladero mine. The federal judge ordered technical studies to assess the solution release and its impact and appointed a committee to conduct a site visit, which occurred in late April 2016.

On May 5, 2016, the National Supreme Court of Argentina limited the scope of the Federal Investigation to the potential criminal liability of the federal government officials, ruling that the Buenos Aires federal court does not have jurisdiction to investigate the solution release. As a result of this decision, the investigation into the incident will continue to be conducted by the San Juan Provincial judge in the Provincial Action. To date, no charges have been laid against any specific individuals in connection with the Federal Investigation, consistent with its more limited scope.

On October 17, 2016, a separate criminal investigation was initiated by the federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation based on the alleged failure of federal government officials to regulate the Veladero mine under Argentina’s glacier legislation (see “– Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation” below). On June 16, 2017, MAG submitted a motion to challenge the federal judge’s decision to assign this investigation to himself. MAG also requested to be admitted as a party to the proceeding in order to present evidence in support of MAG. On September 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals consolidated the two investigations before the federal judge and allowed MAG to participate in the consolidated Federal Investigation. On November 21, 2017, the Court of Appeals clarified that MAG is not a party to the case and therefore did not have standing to seek the recusal of the federal judge. The Court recognized MAG’s right to continue to participate in the case without clarifying the scope of those rights.

On November 27, 2017, the federal judge indicted four former federal government officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s national glacier legislation including the methodology used to complete the national inventory of glaciers, a portion of which was published on October 3, 2016, and also requiring the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development to determine if there has been any environmental damage to glaciers since the glacier law went into effect in light of his decision. On December 12, 2017, the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that

- 102 -

it does not have jurisdiction to audit environmental damage to glaciers, as this is the responsibility of the Provincial authorities. On March 5, 2018, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictment against the four former federal officials.

Veladero – September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution

Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding

On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad at the Veladero mine damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the minesite and returned to the leach pad. Extensive water monitoring in the area conducted by MAG has confirmed that the incident did not result in any environmental impacts. A temporary suspension of operations at the Veladero mine was ordered by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a San Juan Provincial court on September 15, 2016 and September 22, 2016, respectively, as a result of this incident. On October 4, 2016, following, among other matters, the completion of certain urgent works required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a judicial inspection of the mine, the San Juan Provincial court lifted the suspension of operations and ordered that mining activities be resumed.

On September 14, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority commenced an administrative proceeding in connection with this incident that included, in addition to the issue of the suspension order, an infringement proceeding against MAG. On December 2, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code. A new criminal judicial investigation has also been commenced by the Provincial prosecutor’s office in the same San Juan Provincial court that is hearing the Provincial Action. The court in this proceeding issued the orders suspending and resuming the operations at the Veladero mine described above.

On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated the administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident described below (see “– Veladero – March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”).

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident described below. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

Veladero Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the VLF. In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing

- 103 -

process solution incident described below (see “ – Veladero – March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution” above). The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously.

Veladero – March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution

Regulatory Infringement Proceeding and Temporary Suspension of Addition of Cyanide

On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at Barrick’s Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. This solution was contained within the operating site; no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. All affected soil was promptly excavated and placed on the leach pad. Barrick notified regulatory authorities of the situation, and San Juan provincial authorities inspected the site on March 29, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against MAG in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following inspection of corrective actions.

On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. Barrick filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017.

On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above (see “– Veladero – September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution”) and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

Provincial Amparo Action

On March 30, 2017, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit, called an “amparo” protection action, filed in the Jachal First Instance Court (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine. The plaintiffs sought an injunction as part of the lawsuit, requesting, among other things, the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the leaching process at the mine. On March 30, 2017, the Jachal Court rejected the request for an injunction to cease all activities at the Veladero mine, but ordered, among other things, the suspension of the leaching process at the Veladero mine and for MAG and the San Juan Provincial mining authority to provide additional information to the Jachal Court in connection with the incident.

- 104 -

The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy (see “– Federal Amparo Action” below).

Federal Amparo Action

On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident (see “– Veladero – March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution” above). The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAG submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAG also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court and a decision on the matter is pending.

Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation

On September 30, 2010, the National Law on Minimum Requirements for the Protection of Glaciers was enacted in Argentina, and came into force in early November 2010. The federal law banned new mining exploration and exploitation activities on glaciers and in the “peri-glacial” environment, and subjected ongoing mining activities to an environmental audit. If the audit identifies significant impacts on glaciers and peri-glacial environment, the relevant authority is empowered to take action, which according to the legislation could include the suspension or relocation of the activity. In the case of the Veladero mine and the Argentinean side of the Pascua-Lama project, the competent authority is the Province of San Juan. In late January 2013, the Province announced that it had completed the required environmental audit, which concluded that Veladero and Pascua-Lama do not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers. On October 3, 2016, federal authorities published a partial national inventory of glaciers, which included the area where the Veladero mine and Pascua-Lama project are located. The Company has analyzed the national inventory in the area where Veladero and Pascua-Lama are located and has concluded that this inventory is consistent with the provincial inventory that the Province of San Juan used in connection with its January 2013 environmental audit.

The constitutionality of the federal glacier law is the subject of a challenge before the National Supreme Court of Argentina, which has not yet ruled on the issue. On October 27, 2014, the Company submitted its response to a motion by the federal government to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the federal glacier law on standing grounds. A decision on the motion is pending. If the federal government’s arguments with respect to standing are accepted then the case will be dismissed. If they are not accepted, then the National Supreme Court of Argentina will proceed to hear evidence on the merits.

- 105 -

Pueblo Viejo – Amparo Action

In October 2014, PVDC received a copy of an action filed in an administrative court (the “Administrative Court”) in the Dominican Republic by Rafael Guillen Beltre (the “Petitioner”), who claims to be affiliated with the Dominican Christian Peace Organization. The action alleges that environmental contamination in the vicinity of the Pueblo Viejo mine has caused illness and affected water quality in violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Dominican Constitution and other laws. The primary relief sought in the action, which is styled as an “amparo” remedy, is the suspension of operations at the Pueblo Viejo mine as well as other mining projects in the area until an investigation into the alleged environmental contamination has been completed by the relevant governmental authorities. On November 21, 2014, the Administrative Court granted PVDC’s motion to remand the matter to a trial court in the Municipality of Cotuí (the “Trial Court”) on procedural grounds. On June 25, 2015, the Trial Court rejected the Petitioner’s amparo action, finding that the Petitioner failed to produce evidence to support his allegations. The Petitioner appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Constitutional Court on July 21, 2015. On July 28, 2015, PVDC filed a motion to challenge the timeliness of this appeal as it was submitted after the expiration of the applicable filing deadline. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Perilla Complaint

In 2009, BGI and Placer Dome were purportedly served in Ontario with a complaint filed in November 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Boac (the “Court”), on the Philippine island of Marinduque, on behalf of two named individuals and purportedly on behalf of the approximately 200,000 residents of Marinduque. The complaint alleges injury to the economy and the ecology of Marinduque as a result of the discharge of mine tailings from the Marcopper mine into Calancan Bay, the Boac River, and the Mogpog River. Placer Dome, which was acquired by Barrick in 2006, had been a minority indirect shareholder of the Marcopper mine. The plaintiffs are claiming for abatement of a public nuisance allegedly caused by the tailings discharge and for nominal damages for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In June 2010, BGI and Placer Dome filed a motion to have the Court resolve their unresolved motions to dismiss before considering the plaintiffs’ motion to admit an amended complaint and also filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to admit on the same basis. By Order dated November 9, 2011, the Court granted a motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs. It is not known when these motions or the outstanding motions to dismiss will be decided by the Court. To date, neither the plaintiffs nor the Company has advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.

Writ of Kalikasan

In February 2011, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order (the “Petition”) was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (the “Supreme Court”) in Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy (the “Petitioners”) versus Placer Dome Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation. In March 2011, the Supreme Court issued an En Banc Resolution and Writ of Kalikasan, directed service of summons on Placer Dome and Barrick, ordered Placer Dome and Barrick to make a verified return of the Writ with ten (10) days of service and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for hearing. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome violated the Petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, among other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam break, the 1996 Boac River tailings spill and failure of Marcopper to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. The Petitioners have pleaded that Barrick is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome, which was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times, and is seeking orders requiring Barrick to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the minesite that are alleged to

- 106 -

have sustained environmental impacts. The Petitioners purported to serve Barrick in March 2011, following which Barrick filed an Urgent Motion For Ruling on Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”) pursuant to which the Petition was filed, as well as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Barrick. By resolution dated October 12, 2011, the Court of Appeals granted the Petitioners’ October 4, 2011 motion to suspend proceedings to permit the Petitioners to explore the possibility of a settlement. The proceedings are suspended pending further notice from the Petitioners. In November 2011, two local governments, or “baranguays” (Baranguay San Antonio and Baranguay Lobo) filed a motion with the Supreme Court seeking intervenor status with the intention of seeking a dismissal of the proceedings. No decision has as yet been issued with respect to the Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction, the motion for intervention or certain other matters before the Supreme Court. The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously.

In November 2016, the Petitioners notified the Court of Appeals that settlement negotiations did not resolve the action. In March 2017, the Court of Appeals required the Petitioners to advise whether they intend to pursue the action. Without responding to the court, Petitioners’ counsel advised the Court of Appeals in July 2017 of their withdrawal as counsel for the Petitioners and informed the court of the death of one of the Petitioners. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution in November 2017 requiring the Petitioners to notify the court whether they have engaged new counsel. Petitioners’ new counsel filed an entry of appearance in December 2017 with the Court of Appeals. To date, the Petitioners have still not advised the Court of Appeals whether they intend to pursue the action. The Company is awaiting receipt of the Petitioners’ notification of their intentions.

Cerro Casale

One of the environmental permits related to the open pit and water management system at Barrick’s 50%-owned Cerro Casale project (now known as the Norte Abierto project) in Chile is subject to an environmental regulation (the “Regulation”) that, if applied as written, would have required Barrick to begin construction of the project by January 26, 2015 or risk cancellation of the environmental permit. The Company sought relief from the Regulation as construction was not feasible and did not begin by that date. On October 15, 2015, the Chilean environmental authority issued a resolution confirming that initial project activities were timely commenced as required by the environmental permit and the matter is now closed. Permits required for the majority of the project’s proposed operations were obtained under a second environmental approval (the “Cerro Casale environmental permit”) that was subject to a January 2018 construction commencement deadline. The Company requested relief using the same procedure described above, and the environmental authority confirmed that the initial project activities were timely commenced.

The Cerro Casale environmental permit was challenged in 2013 by local and indigenous community members for alleged procedural deficiencies in the community consultation process and other aspects of the evaluation of the project by the Chilean environmental authority. The challenge was brought before the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over procedural claims of this nature. On January 19, 2015, the Committee of Ministers for the Environment rejected the majority of claims made against the Cerro Casale environmental permit while also imposing new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the project may extract for mining operations. The Company appealed this decision to the Environmental Court, which held a hearing on August 27, 2015. On June 12, 2017, the Environmental Court ordered the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment to review its January 9, 2015 decision to impose new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the Cerro Casale project may extract for mining operations. The Company and the Chilean environmental authority appealed this decision to the Chilean Supreme Court.

- 107 -

While this appeal was pending, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment issued a new decision on November 23, 2017 in which it modified the limitations on groundwater extraction imposed in its original ruling. The decision may provide additional water resources for the project and therefore the Company and the Chilean environmental authority agreed to withdraw the appeal to the Supreme Court. The matter is now closed.

Acacia Mining plc – Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessments

The Tanzanian Revenue Authority (“TRA”) has issued a number of tax assessments to Acacia related to past taxation years from 2002 onwards. Acacia believes that the majority of these assessments are incorrect and has filed objections and appeals accordingly in an attempt to resolve these matters by means of discussions with the TRA or through the Tanzanian appeals process. Overall, it is Acacia’s current assessment that the relevant assessments and claims by the TRA are without merit.

The claims include an assessment issued to Acacia in the amount of $41.3 million for withholding tax on certain historic offshore dividend payments paid by Acacia to its shareholders from 2010 to 2013. Acacia is appealing this assessment on the substantive grounds that, as an English incorporated company, it is not resident in Tanzania for taxation purposes. The appeal is currently pending at the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded for any potential liability and Acacia intends to continue to defend this action vigorously.

Further TRA assessments were issued to Acacia in January 2016 in the amount of $500.7 million, based on an allegation that Acacia is resident in Tanzania for corporate and dividend withholding tax purposes. The corporate tax assessments have been levied on certain of Acacia’s net profits before tax. Acacia is in the process of appealing these assessments at the TRA Board level. Acacia’s substantive grounds of appeal are based on the correct interpretation of Tanzanian permanent establishment principles and law, relevant to a non-resident English incorporated company.

In addition, the TRA issued adjusted tax assessments totaling approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. For more information about these adjusted tax assessments, see “– Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” below.

Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Ministry of Energy and Minerals imposed the Ban, a general ban on the export of metallic concentrates. This includes gold/copper concentrate exported by Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Following the imposition of the Ban, Acacia immediately ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate, including 27 containers previously approved for export prior to the Ban.

During the second quarter of 2017, investigations were conducted on behalf of the Tanzanian Government by two Tanzanian Government Presidential Committees, which have resulted in allegations of historical undeclared revenue and unpaid taxes being made against Acacia and its predecessor companies. Acacia considers these findings to be implausible and has fully refuted the findings of both Presidential Committees. Acacia has requested copies of the reports issued by the two Presidential Committees and called for independent verification of the findings, but has not yet received a response to these requests.

- 108 -

On July 4, 2017, Acacia’s subsidiaries, Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited (“BGML”), the owner of the Bulyanhulu mine, and Pangea Minerals Limited (“PML”), the owner of the Buzwagi mine, each commenced international arbitrations against the Government of Tanzania in accordance with the dispute resolution processes agreed by the Government of Tanzania in the Mineral Development Agreements (“MDAs”) with BGML and PML. These arbitrations remain ongoing.

In July 2017, Acacia received adjusted assessments for the tax years 2000-2017 from the TRA for a total amount of approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. These assessments are being disputed and the underlying allegations are included in the matters that have been referred to international arbitration.

In addition, following the end of the third quarter, Acacia was served with notices of conflicting adjusted corporate income tax and withholding tax assessments for tax years 2005 to 2011 with respect to Acacia’s former Tulawaka joint venture, and demands for payment, for a total amount of approximately $3 billion. Interest and penalties represent the vast majority of the new assessments. The TRA has not provided Acacia with any explanations or reasons for the adjusted assessments, or with the TRA’s position on how the assessments have been calculated or why they have been issued. Acacia disputes these assessments and has requested supporting calculations, which have not yet been received. Acacia is objecting to these assessments and defending this matter through the Tanzanian tax appeals process.

In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. In January 2018, new Mining Regulations were announced by the Tanzanian Government introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations, the scope and effect of which remain under review by Acacia. Acacia continues to monitor the impact of all new legislation in light of its MDAs with the Government of Tanzania. However, to minimize further disruptions to its operations Acacia will, in the interim, satisfy the requirements imposed as regards the increased royalty rate in addition to the recently imposed 1% clearing fee on exports. Acacia is making these payments under protest, without prejudice to its legal rights under its MDAs.

Acacia has been looking to address all issues in respect of the Ban along with other ongoing disputes through dialogue with the Tanzanian Government. Acacia remains of the view that a negotiated resolution is the preferable outcome to the current disputes and Acacia will continue to work to achieve this. During the third quarter of 2017, Barrick and the Government of Tanzania engaged in discussions for the potential resolution of the disputes. Acacia did not participate directly in these discussions as the Government of Tanzania had informed Barrick that it wished to continue dialogue solely with Barrick.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the Government of Tanzania on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the Government of Tanzania include: (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to manage Acacia’s Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara mines and all future operations in the country with key officers located in Tanzania and Tanzanian representation on the board of directors; (ii) maximization of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the Government’s

- 109 -

share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Negotiations concerning the proposed framework remain ongoing and the definitive terms of any final proposal for the implementation of the framework remain outstanding. Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia.

General

Barrick and its subsidiaries are, from time to time, involved in various claims, legal proceedings and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. Barrick is also subject to reassessment for income and mining taxes for certain years. The results of pending or threatened proceedings related to any potential tax assessments or other matters cannot be predicted with certainty.

RISK FACTORS

The risks described below are not the only ones facing Barrick. Additional risks not currently known to Barrick, or that Barrick currently deems immaterial, may also impair Barrick’s operations.

Metal price volatility

Barrick’s business is strongly affected by the world market price of gold and copper. If the world market price of gold or copper was to drop and the prices realized by Barrick on gold or copper sales were to decrease significantly and remain at such a level for any substantial period, Barrick’s profitability and cash flow would be negatively affected.

Gold and copper prices have fluctuated widely in recent years. These fluctuations can be material and can occur over short periods of time and are affected by numerous factors, all of which are beyond Barrick’s control. Future production from Barrick’s mining properties is dependent on gold and copper prices that are adequate to make these properties economically viable. During 2017, the gold price ranged from $1,146 per ounce to $1,358 per ounce. The average market price of gold in 2017 was $1,257 per ounce, an increase of 0.5% compared to the 2016 average. Based on current estimates of Barrick’s 2018 gold production and sales, a $100 per ounce increase or decrease in the market gold price will result in an approximately $468 million increase or decrease in the Company’s revenue, net of royalties, excluding the impact of Barrick’s hedging strategies. Factors tending to affect the price of gold include:

• industrial and jewelry demand;

• the level of demand for gold as an investment;

• central bank lending, sales and purchases of gold;

• the volume of recycled material available in the market;

• speculative trading; and

• costs and levels of global gold production by producers of gold.

Gold prices may also be affected by macroeconomic factors, including:

• expectations of the future rate of inflation;

- 110 -

• the strength of, and confidence in, the U.S. dollar, the currency in which the price of gold is generally quoted, and other currencies;

• the value of alternative investments, including global equity prices;

• interest rates; and

• global or regional, political or economic uncertainties.

Based on current estimates of Barrick’s 2018 copper production and sales, a $0.50 per pound increase or decrease in the market copper price will result in an approximately $205 million increase or $180 million decrease in the Company’s revenue, net of royalties, excluding the impact of Barrick’s hedging strategies. Factors tending to affect the price of copper include:

• the worldwide balance of copper demand and supply;

• rates of global economic growth, trends in industrial production and conditions in the housing and automotive industries, all of which correlate with demand for copper;

• economic growth and political conditions in China, which has become the largest consumer of refined copper in the world, and other major developing economies;

• speculative investment positions in copper and copper futures;

• the availability of secondary material for smelting;

• expectations of the future rate of inflation;

• the price of input costs, including fuel;

• the availability and cost of substitute materials; and

• currency exchange fluctuations, including the relative strength of the U.S. dollar.

Barrick’s gold production is sold into the spot market. The sales price for Barrick’s copper production is determined provisionally at the date of sale with the final price determined based on market copper prices at a future date set by the customer, generally one to three months after the initial date of sale. Market prices for copper may fluctuate during this extended settlement period. The prices of Barrick’s copper sales are marked-to-market at the balance sheet date based on the forward copper price for the relevant quotational period. All such mark-to-market adjustments are recorded in copper sale revenues. If the market price for copper declines, the final sale price realized by the Company at settlement may be lower than the provisional sale price initially recognized by the Company, requiring negative adjustments to Barrick’s average realized copper price for the relevant period.

In addition, certain of Barrick’s mineral projects include other minerals (principally silver), each of which is subject to price volatility based on factors beyond Barrick’s control.

Depending on the market price of the relevant metal, Barrick may determine that it is not economically feasible to continue commercial production at some or all of its operations or the development of some or all of its current projects, as applicable, which could have an adverse impact on Barrick’s financial performance and results of operations. In such a circumstance, Barrick may also curtail or suspend some or all of its exploration activities, with the result that depleted reserves are not replaced. In addition, the market value of Barrick’s gold or copper inventory may be reduced and existing reserves may be reduced to the extent that ore cannot be mined and processed economically at the prevailing prices.

- 111 -

Foreign investments and operations

Barrick conducts or participates in mining, development and exploration and other activities through subsidiaries and/or joint ventures in many foreign countries, including the United States, Australia, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Zambia. Mining investments are subject to the risks normally associated with any conduct of business in foreign countries including:

• renegotiation, cancellation or forced modification of existing contracts;

• expropriation or nationalization of property;

• changes in laws or policies or increasing legal and regulatory requirements of particular countries, including those relating to taxation, royalties, imports, exports, duties, currency, or other claims by government entities, including retroactive claims and/or changes in the administration of laws, policies and practices (see “Legal Matters – Government Controls and Regulations”);

• uncertain political and economic environments, war, terrorism, sabotage and civil disturbances;

• lack of certainty with respect to foreign legal systems, corruption and other factors that are inconsistent with the rule of law;

• delays in obtaining or the inability to obtain or maintain necessary governmental permits or to operate in accordance with such permits or regulatory requirements;

• currency fluctuations;

• restrictions on the ability of local operating companies to sell gold, copper or other minerals offshore for U.S. dollars, and on the ability of such companies to hold U.S. dollars or other foreign currencies in offshore bank accounts;

• import and export regulations, including restrictions on the export of gold, copper or other minerals;

• limitations on the repatriation of earnings;

• reliance on advisors and consultants in foreign jurisdictions in connection with regulatory, permitting or other governmental requirements; and

• increased financing costs.

Operating in emerging markets can increase the risk that contractual and/or mineral rights may be disregarded or unilaterally altered. A special lease agreement between the Dominican State and PVDC governs the development and operation of the Pueblo Viejo mine, including applicable tax rates. Barrick has a 60% equity interest in PVDC. Following the achievement of commercial production at Pueblo Viejo mine in January 2013, the Dominican State engaged PVDC in discussions to amend the SLA. These amendments became effective on October 5, 2013 and resulted in additional and accelerated tax revenues to the Dominican State.

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Ministry of Energy and Minerals imposed the Ban, a ban on exports of gold/copper concentrate following a directive made by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. Despite efforts to have this ban lifted, it continues to remain in force at the date hereof. In addition to such ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017 which, among other things, increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and imposed a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. The Tanzanian Government has also alleged that Acacia failed to declare revenue in tax years 2000-2017 and has re-assessed Acacia for approximately $190 billion for that period which Acacia considers to be implausible. See “– Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and

- 112 -

Related Disputes” and “– Acacia Mining plc – Tanzanian Revenue Authority” in “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings”.

In addition to potentially affecting the price of gold, copper and silver, general inflationary pressures may also affect Barrick’s labor, commodity and other input costs at operations in emerging markets, which could have a materially adverse effect on Barrick’s financial condition, results of operations and capital expenditures for the development of its projects. For example, operating and capital costs at Barrick’s Veladero mine and Pascua-Lama project in Argentina have been impacted in recent years by sustained inflationary pressures in that country and currency fluctuations.

There can be a greater level of political, social and economic risk in emerging markets compared to some other countries in which Barrick operates. Operations in emerging markets may be subject to more frequent civil disturbances and criminal activities such as trespass, illegal mining, sabotage, theft and vandalism. These disturbances and criminal activities have caused disruptions at certain of Barrick’s operations or joint ventures, including the Porgera joint venture in Papua New Guinea (in which Barrick has a 47.5% interest), the Lagunas Norte and Pierina (now in closure) mines in Peru, the Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic (in which Barrick has a 60% interest) and certain of Acacia’s operations in Tanzania, occasionally resulting in the suspension of operations. Affected sites have taken certain measures to protect their employees, property and production facilities from these risks, including entering into arrangements with law enforcement agencies to provide policing and law and order in the areas surrounding the applicable site. The measures that have been implemented by Barrick or Acacia will not guarantee that such incidents will not continue to occur and such incidents may halt or delay production, increase operating costs, result in harm to employees or trespassers, cause damage to production facilities or otherwise decrease operational efficiency, increase community tensions or result in criminal and/or civil liability for Barrick, Acacia or their respective employees and/or financial damages or penalties.

Similarly, different economic and social issues exist in emerging markets which may affect Barrick’s operating and financial results. For example, infectious diseases (including malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis) are major health care issues in African countries. In Zambia, Barrick has continued workforce training and health programs at its Lumwana mine to maximize prevention awareness and minimize the impact of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and malaria. Similarly, in Tanzania, Acacia, in which Barrick has a 63.9% equity interest, has implemented infectious disease programs, including malaria control programs and HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programs.

The foregoing risks may limit or disrupt operating mines or projects, restrict the movement of funds, cause Barrick to have to expend more funds than previously expected, or result in the deprivation of contract rights or the taking of property by nationalization or expropriation without fair compensation, and may materially adversely affect Barrick’s financial position or results of operations. Certain of these risks have increased in recent years. Furthermore, in the event of disputes arising from Barrick’s activities in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Zambia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Barrick has been and may continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of courts outside North America and Australia, which could adversely affect the outcome of the dispute.

Environmental, health and safety regulations

Barrick’s mining and processing operations and development and exploration activities are subject to extensive laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment, waste disposal, worker safety, mine development, water management and protection of endangered and other special status species. Failure to comply with applicable environmental and health and safety laws and regulations could result in injunctions, fines, suspension or revocation of permits and other penalties. While Barrick

- 113 -

strives to achieve full compliance with all such laws and regulations and with its environmental and health and safety permits, there can be no assurance that Barrick will at all times be in full compliance with such requirements. Activities required to achieve full compliance can be costly and involve extended timelines. Failure to comply with such laws, regulations and permits can have serious consequences, including damage to Barrick’s reputation; stopping Barrick from proceeding with the development of a project; negatively impacting the operation or further development of a mine; increasing the costs of development or production and litigation or regulatory action against Barrick, and may materially adversely affect Barrick’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

Future changes in applicable environmental and health and safety laws and regulations could substantially increase costs and burdens to achieve compliance or otherwise have an adverse impact on Barrick’s business, results of operations or financial condition (see “– Government regulation and changes in legislation”).

Barrick may also be held responsible for the costs of addressing contamination at the site of current or former activities or at third party sites. Barrick could also be held liable to third parties for exposure to hazardous substances. The costs associated with such responsibilities and liabilities may be significant. While Barrick has implemented extensive health and safety initiatives at its sites to protect the health and safety of its employees, contractors and members of the communities affected by its operations, there is no guarantee that such measures will eliminate the occurrence of accidents or other incidents which may result in personal injuries or damage to property, and in certain instances such occurrences could give rise to regulatory fines and/or civil liability.

In certain of the countries in which Barrick has operations, it is required to submit, for government approval, a reclamation plan for each of its mining sites that establishes Barrick’s obligation to reclaim property after minerals have been mined from the site. In some jurisdictions, bonds or other forms of financial assurances are required security for these reclamation activities. Barrick may incur significant costs in connection with these reclamation activities, which may materially exceed the provisions Barrick has made for such reclamation. In addition, the unknown nature of possible future additional regulatory requirements and the potential for additional reclamation activities create further uncertainties related to future reclamation costs, which may have a material adverse effect on Barrick’s financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Barrick is involved in various investigative and remedial actions. There can be no assurance that the costs of such actions would not be material. When a previously unrecognized reclamation liability becomes known or a previously estimated cost is increased, the amount of that liability or additional cost is expensed, which may materially reduce net income in that period.

In addition, Barrick’s activities and ownership interests could expose the Company to liability in the U.S. under CERCLA and its state law equivalents. Under CERCLA and its state law equivalents, present or past owners of a property may be held jointly and severally liable for cleanup costs or forced to undertake remedial actions in response to unpermitted releases of hazardous substances at such property, in addition to, among other potential consequences, potential liability to governmental entities for the cost of damages to natural resources, which may be substantial. These subject properties are referred to as “superfund” sites. There is a chance that our current or legacy operations in the U.S. could be designated as a superfund site in the future, exposing Barrick to potential liability under CERCLA.

Permits

Barrick’s mining and processing operations and development and exploration activities are subject to extensive permitting requirements. Failure to obtain required permits and/or to maintain compliance with permits once obtained could result in injunctions, fines, suspension or revocation of permits and other penalties. While Barrick strives to obtain and comply with all of its required permits, there can be no

- 114 -

assurance that Barrick will obtain all such permits and/or achieve or maintain full compliance with such permits at all times. Activities required to obtain and/or achieve or maintain full compliance with such permits can be costly and involve extended timelines. Previously issued permits may be suspended or revoked for a variety of reasons, including through government or court action (see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions” for information regarding the status of the Chilean environmental approval for the Pascua-Lama project). Failure to obtain and/or comply with required permits can have serious consequences, including damage to Barrick’s reputation; stopping Barrick from proceeding with the development of a project; negatively impacting the operation or further development of a mine; increasing the costs of development or production and litigation or regulatory action against Barrick, and may materially adversely affect Barrick’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

Barrick’s ability to successfully obtain and maintain key permits and approvals will be impacted by its ability to develop, operate and close mines in a manner that is consistent with the creation of social and economic benefits in the surrounding communities and may be adversely impacted by real or perceived detrimental events associated with Barrick’s activities or those of other mining companies affecting the environment, human health and safety or the surrounding communities. Barrick has made, and expects to make in the future, significant expenditures to comply with permitting requirements and, to the extent reasonably practicable, create social and economic benefit in the surrounding communities.

Climate change risks

Barrick’s mining and processing operations are energy intensive, resulting in a significant carbon footprint. Barrick acknowledges climate change as an international and community concern. A number of governments or governmental bodies have introduced or are contemplating regulatory changes in response to the potential impacts of climate change. Where legislation already exists, regulation relating to emission levels and energy efficiency is becoming more stringent. Some of the costs associated with reducing emissions can be offset by increased energy efficiency and technological innovation. However, if the current regulatory trend continues, this may result in increased costs at some of its operations. In addition, the physical risks of climate change may also have an adverse effect at some of Barrick’s operations. These may include extreme weather events, resource shortages, changes in rainfall and storm patterns and intensities, water shortages, changing sea levels and changing temperatures.

Replacement of depleted reserves

Barrick’s mineral reserves must be replaced to maintain production levels over the long-term. Reserves can be replaced by expanding known orebodies, locating new deposits or making acquisitions. Exploration is highly speculative in nature. Barrick’s exploration projects involve many risks and are frequently unsuccessful. Once a site with mineralization is discovered, it may take several years from the initial phases of drilling until production is possible, during which time the economic feasibility of production may change. Substantial expenditures are required to establish proven and probable reserves and to construct mining and processing facilities. As a result, there is no assurance that current or future exploration programs will be successful. Depletion of reserves may not be offset by discoveries or acquisitions and divestitures of assets could lead to a lower reserve base. In 2017, as part of meeting its debt reduction target and focusing on high-quality assets, Barrick disposed of 50% of its interest in the Veladero mine and 25% of its interest in the Cerro Casale project, resulting in a decrease in its reserve base. Barrick may continue to dispose of additional assets in 2018 or future years as part of its ongoing debt reduction strategy and other strategic initiatives, which may further deplete Barrick’s reserves. Reserves estimated in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 may also decrease due to economic factors such as the use of a lower metal price assumption. However, such a decline would not be a reduction in the actual mineral base of the Company, as the ounces removed from Barrick’s reserves due

- 115 -

to the use of a lower gold price assumption would be transferred to resources, preserving the option to access them in the future at higher gold prices. The mineral base of Barrick will decline if reserves are mined without adequate replacement and Barrick may not be able to sustain production to or beyond the currently contemplated mine lives, based on current production rates.

On February 6, 2018, following the decision of the SMA to order the closure of the existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project (see “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings – Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions”), the Company announced that approximately 14 million ounces of Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable reserves were reclassified as measured and indicated resources. Barrick continues to evaluate an underground, block-caving operation at Pascua-Lama which may result in the reclassification of some or all of these resources back to reserves. However, there can be no assurance that these resources will ever be upgraded to reserves with the use of an underground, block-caving operation or any other mining method.

Projects

Barrick’s ability to sustain or increase its present levels of gold and copper production is dependent in part on the success of its projects. There are many risks and unknowns inherent in all projects. For example, the economic feasibility of projects is based upon many factors, including:

• the accuracy of reserve estimates;

• metallurgical recoveries with respect to gold, copper and by-products;

• capital and operating costs of such projects;

• the timetables for the construction, commissioning and ramp-up of such projects and any delays or interruptions;

• the accuracy of engineering and changes in scope;

• the ability to manage large-scale construction;

• the future prices of the relevant minerals; and

• the ability to secure appropriate financing to develop such projects.

The Company’s ability to maintain its license to operate in all of the jurisdictions in which Barrick has projects is also important to the success of those projects (see “ – Community relations and license to operate”).

Projects also require the successful completion of feasibility studies, the resolution of various fiscal, tax and royalty matters, the issuance of, and compliance with, necessary governmental permits and the acquisition of satisfactory surface or other land rights. It may also be necessary for Barrick to, among other things, find or generate suitable sources of water and power for a project, ensure that appropriate community infrastructure is developed by third parties to support the project and to secure appropriate financing to fund these expenditures (see “– Global financial conditions” and “– Liquidity and level of indebtedness”). It is also not unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations to experience unexpected problems during the start-up phase, resulting in delays and requiring the investment of more capital than anticipated.

Projects have no operating history upon which to base estimates of future financial and operating performance, including future cash flow. The capital expenditures and time required to develop new mines or other projects are considerable and changes in costs or construction schedules can affect project economics. Thus, it is possible that actual costs may increase significantly and economic returns may differ materially from Barrick’s estimates or that metal prices may decrease significantly or that Barrick

- 116 -

could fail to obtain the satisfactory resolution of fiscal and tax matters or the governmental approvals necessary for the operation of a project or obtain project financing on acceptable terms and conditions or at all, in which case, the project may not proceed either on its original timing or at all. In fact, Barrick’s Pascua-Lama project has experienced a significant increase in its capital cost estimate and length of construction schedule since the feasibility study on the project. The project has been suspended since 2013 and a decision to proceed with development of an underground mine will depend on improved economics and more certainty relating to legal and permitting matters (for more information, see “Exploration and Evaluations – Pascua-Lama”).

If Barrick declines to advance a project on a particular timetable or at all, the rights associated with the project could be negatively affected.

Liquidity and level of indebtedness

As of December 31, 2017, Barrick had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $2.2 billion and capital leases and total debt of approximately $6.4 billion. Although Barrick has been successful in repaying debt in the past and issuing new debt securities in capital markets transactions, there can be no assurance that it can continue to do so. In addition, Barrick may assume additional debt in future periods or reduce its holdings of cash and cash equivalents in connection with funding future acquisitions, existing operations, capital expenditures, dividends or in pursuing other business opportunities. Barrick’s level of indebtedness could have important consequences for its operations, including:

• Barrick may need to use a large portion of its cash flow to repay principal and pay interest on its debt, which will reduce the amount of funds available to finance its operations and other business activities; and

• Barrick’s debt level may limit its ability to pursue other business opportunities, borrow money for operations or capital expenditures in the future or implement its business strategy.

As of December 31, 2017, Barrick had approximately $32 million in debt maturing by the end of 2018. This amount excludes $27 million in capital lease payments in 2018 and includes $28 million in project financing payments at Acacia (100% basis). Currently, $3.977 billion of the Company’s $4.0 billion revolving credit facility terminates in January 2023, while the remaining $23 million terminates in January 2020.

Barrick is targeting reducing its total debt to approximately $5 billion by the end of 2018. The Company expects to achieve this primarily by using cash flow from operations and cash on hand, and potentially through further portfolio optimization. Barrick intends to continue to pursue debt reduction with discipline, taking only those actions that are sensible for the Company, on terms favourable to shareholders. There can be no assurance that these initiatives will be successfully completed or, if completed, that they will be sufficient to achieve the stated debt reduction objectives.

In addition to future cash flow from operations, potential divestments and the creation of new joint ventures and partnerships, Barrick’s potential other sources of liquidity for the payment of its expenses and principal and interest payable on its debt in 2018 include issuing additional equity or unsecured debt and borrowing under the Company’s $4.0 billion revolving credit facility (subject to compliance with covenants and the making of certain representations and warranties). The key financial covenant in Barrick’s $4.0 billion revolving credit facility, as amended in the fourth quarter of 2015, requires Barrick to maintain a net debt to total capitalization ratio of less than 0.60:1 (as of December 31, 2017, this ratio was approximately 0.27:1). Barrick’s ability to reduce its indebtedness and meet its payment obligations will depend on its future financial performance, which will be impacted by financial, business, economic

- 117 -

and other factors. Barrick will not be able to control many of these factors, such as economic conditions in the markets in which it operates. Barrick cannot be certain that its existing capital resources and future cash flow from operations will be sufficient to allow it to pay principal and interest on Barrick’s debt and meet its other obligations. If these amounts are insufficient or if there is a contravention of its debt covenants, Barrick may be required to refinance all or part of its existing debt, sell assets, borrow more money or issue additional equity. The ability of Barrick to access the bank, public debt or equity capital markets on an efficient basis may be constrained by a dislocation in the credit markets and/or capital and/or liquidity constraints in the banking, debt and/or equity markets at the time of issuance. See “– Global financial conditions”. If Barrick is unable to maintain its indebtedness and financial ratios at levels acceptable to its credit rating agencies, or should Barrick’s business prospects deteriorate, the ratings currently assigned to Barrick by Moody’s Investor Services, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services or DBRS could be downgraded, which could adversely affect the value of Barrick’s outstanding securities and existing debt and its ability to obtain new financing on favourable terms, and increase Barrick’s borrowing costs.

Barrick is also exposed to liquidity and various counterparty risks including, but not limited to: (i) Barrick’s lenders and other banking counterparties; (ii) Barrick’s insurance providers; (iii) financial institutions that hold Barrick’s cash; (iv) companies that have payables to Barrick, including concentrate customers; and (v) companies that have received deposits from Barrick for the future delivery of equipment.

Global financial conditions

Following the onset of the credit crisis in 2008, global financial conditions were characterized by extreme volatility and several major financial institutions either went into bankruptcy or were rescued by governmental authorities. While global financial conditions subsequently stabilized, there remains considerable risk in the system given the extraordinary measures adopted by government authorities to achieve that stability. Global financial conditions could suddenly and rapidly destabilize in response to future economic shocks, as government authorities may have limited resources to respond to future crises. Future economic shocks may be precipitated by a number of causes, including a rise in the price of oil, geopolitical instability and natural disasters. Any sudden or rapid destabilization of global economic conditions could impact Barrick’s ability to obtain equity or debt financing in the future on terms favourable to Barrick. Additionally, any such occurrence could cause decreases in asset values that are deemed to be other than temporary, which may result in impairment losses. Further, in such an event, Barrick’s operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted.

Inflation

In addition to potentially affecting the price of gold, copper and silver, general inflationary pressures may also affect Barrick’s labor, commodity and other input costs, which could have a materially adverse effect on Barrick’s financial condition, results of operations and capital expenditures for the development of its projects. In particular, operating and capital costs at Barrick’s Veladero mine and Pascua-Lama project in Argentina have been impacted by sustained inflationary pressures in that country. See “ – Metal price volatility”, “– Projects”, “– Price volatility and availability of other commodities”, “ – Production and cost estimates” and “– Availability and increased cost of critical parts, equipment and skilled labor”.

Mineral reserves and resources

Barrick’s mineral reserves and mineral resources are estimates, and no assurance can be given that the estimated reserves and resources are accurate or that the indicated level of gold, copper or any other

- 118 -

mineral will be produced. Such estimates are, in large part, based on interpretations of geological data obtained from drill holes and other sampling techniques. Actual mineralization or formations may be different from those predicted. Further, it may take many years from the initial phase of drilling before production is possible, and during that time the economic feasibility of exploiting a discovery may change.

The SEC does not permit mining companies in their filings with the SEC to disclose estimates other than mineral reserves. However, because Barrick prepares this Annual Information Form in accordance with the disclosure requirements of Canadian securities laws, it contains resource estimates, which are required by National Instrument 43-101. Mineral resource estimates for properties that have not commenced production are based, in many instances, on limited and widely spaced drill hole information, which is not necessarily indicative of the conditions between and around drill holes. Accordingly, such mineral resource estimates may require revision as more drilling information becomes available, as actual production experience is gained or as the Company’s mining methods are changed. For example, if the Company ultimately decides to proceed with a phased underground development at Pascua-Lama, the amount of resources ultimately reclassified back to reserves may be less than the amount of reserves originally contemplated under the original open pit plan for Pascua-Lama. No assurance can be given that any part or all of Barrick’s mineral resources constitute or will be converted into reserves.

Market price fluctuations of gold, copper, silver and certain other metals, as well as increased production and capital costs or reduced recovery rates, may render Barrick’s proven and probable reserves uneconomic to develop at a particular site or sites for periods of time or may render mineral reserves containing relatively lower grade mineralization uneconomic. Moreover, short-term operating factors relating to the mineral reserves, such as the need for the orderly development of orebodies, the processing of new or different ore grades, the technical complexity of ore bodies, unusual or unexpected ore body formations, ore dilution or varying metallurgical and other ore characteristics may cause mineral reserves to be reduced or Barrick to be unprofitable in any particular accounting period. Estimated reserves may have to be recalculated based on actual production experience, fluctuations in the price of metals, or changes in other assumptions on which they are based. Any of these factors may require Barrick to reduce its mineral reserves and resources, which could have a negative impact on Barrick’s financial results.

Failure to obtain or maintain necessary permits or government approvals or changes to applicable legislation could also cause Barrick to reduce its reserves. In addition, changes to mine plans due to capital allocation decisions could cause Barrick to reduce its reserves. There is also no assurance that Barrick will achieve indicated levels of gold or copper recovery or obtain the prices assumed in determining such reserves.

Joint ventures

Barrick holds an indirect interest in a number of joint venture properties, including the Veladero mine in Argentina (50%), the Zaldívar copper mine in Chile (50%), the Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic (60%), the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea (47.5%), the Kalgoorlie mine in Australia (50%), the Turquoise Ridge mine in Nevada (75%), the Jabal Sayid copper mine in Saudi Arabia (50%) and the Norte Abierto (formerly known as Cerro Casale) project in Chile (50%), the remaining interests in which are held by third parties. Barrick’s interests in these properties are subject to the risks customarily associated with the conduct of joint ventures, including (i) disagreement with joint venture partners on how to develop and operate the mine efficiently or, in the case of exploration projects, on the exploration plan and related expenditures, (ii) inability to exert influence over certain strategic decisions, (iii) inability of joint venture partners to meet their obligations, and (iv) litigation regarding joint venture matters. Each of these risks could have a material adverse impact on Barrick’s profitability or the viability of its

- 119 -

interests held through joint ventures, which could have a material adverse impact on Barrick’s future cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, Barrick is not always the operator of its joint venture projects. To the extent Barrick is not the operator, the success of any operations will be dependent on third party operators and Barrick may be unable to have any significant influence on the direction or control of the activities of the operators. Barrick will be subject to the decisions made by the operators of the joint venture properties and will rely on the operators for accurate information about the properties.

Price volatility and availability of other commodities

The profitability of Barrick’s business is affected by the market prices of commodities produced as by-products at Barrick’s mines, such as silver, as well as the cost and availability of commodities and critical parts and equipment which are consumed or otherwise used in connection with Barrick’s operations and projects, including, but not limited to, diesel fuel, natural gas, electricity, acid, steel, concrete and cyanide. Prices of such commodities can be subject to volatility, which can be material and can occur over short periods of time, and are affected by factors that are beyond Barrick’s control. An increase in the cost, or decrease in the availability, of construction materials such as steel and concrete may affect the timing and cost of Barrick’s projects. If Barrick’s proceeds from the sale of by-products were to decrease significantly, or the costs of certain commodities consumed or otherwise used in connection with Barrick’s operations and projects were to increase, or their availability to decrease, significantly, and remain at such levels for a substantial period of time, Barrick may determine that it is not economically feasible to continue commercial production at some or all of Barrick’s operations, or the development of some or all of Barrick’s current projects, which could have an adverse impact on Barrick as described under “– Metal price volatility” above.

Geotechnical challenges could impact profitability

Barrick and the mining industry are facing continued geotechnical challenges associated with the aging of certain mines and the need to mine deeper pits and more complex deposits. This leads to higher pit walls, more complex underground operations and increased exposure to geotechnical instability. As Barrick’s operations mature, the open pits and underground operations at certain sites are getting deeper. Barrick has experienced geotechnical failures at some open pit operations and seismic events at some underground operations. Seismic events may also affect mining operations in other ways. For example, on February 26, 2018, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake struck Papua New Guinea, causing significant damage to the Hides natural gas power plant that supplies electricity to the Porgera mine. No assurances can be given that unanticipated adverse geotechnical conditions, such as pit wall failures, underground cave-ins and other ground-related instability, will not occur in the future or that such events will be detected in advance. Geotechnical instabilities can be difficult to predict and are often affected by risks beyond Barrick’s control, such as severe weather, higher than average rainfall and seismic events. Geotechnical failures can result in limited access to minesites, suspension of operations, production delays, government investigations, increased costs, as well as injuries and deaths in the most extreme cases. All of these could adversely impact Barrick’s results of operations and financial position.

Infrastructure and information technology systems

Barrick’s mining, processing, development and exploration activities depend on adequate infrastructure and dependable information technology systems. Reliable power sources, water supply, roads and other infrastructure are important for Barrick’s operations. Water shortages, power outages, sabotage, community, government or other interference in the maintenance or provision of such infrastructure could adversely affect Barrick’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

- 120 -

Barrick is also dependent upon information technology systems in the conduct of its operations. The Company could be adversely affected by network disruptions from a variety of sources, including, without limitation, computer viruses, security breaches, cyber-attacks, natural disasters and defects in design. Barrick’s operations also depend on the timely maintenance, upgrade and replacement of networks, equipment information technology systems and software, as well as pre-emptive expenses to mitigate the risk of failure. Any of these or other events could result in information system failures, delays and/or increases in capital expenditures. Given the unpredictability of the timing, nature and scope of information technology disruptions, Barrick could potentially be subject to production downtimes, operational delays, destruction or corruption of data, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s cash flows, competitive position, financial condition or results of operations.

Best-in-Class initiatives and digitization

Through its Best-in-Class approach, Barrick pursues initiatives to improve the productivity and efficiency of existing systems and operations, including through investments in digital technologies. There can be no certainty that some or any of Barrick’s Best-in-Class initiatives and targeted investments will meet the Company’s capital allocation objectives. In addition, certain Best-in-Class initiatives are still in the early stages of evaluation, and additional engineering and other analysis is required to fully assess their impact. Further, there can be no certainty as to the time required for Barrick to extract value from its digital transformation initiative, or that Barrick will achieve the expected savings or efficiency improvements from this or other Best-in-Class initiatives.

Reputational risk

As a result of the increased usage and the speed and global reach of social media and other web-based tools used to generate, publish and discuss user-generated content and to connect with other users, companies today are at much greater risk of losing control over how they are perceived in the marketplace. Damage to Barrick’s reputation can be the result of the actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, and could include any negative publicity (for example, with respect to Barrick’s handling of environmental matters or the Company’s dealings with community groups), whether true or not. Barrick places a great emphasis on protecting its image and reputation, but the Company does not ultimately have direct control over how it is perceived by others. Reputation loss may lead to increased challenges in developing and maintaining community relations, decreased investor confidence and an impediment to Barrick’s overall ability to advance its projects, thereby having a material adverse impact on financial performance, cash flows and growth prospects.

Mining risks and insurance risks

The mining industry is subject to significant risks and hazards, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected geological conditions, labor force disruptions, civil strife, unavailability of materials and equipment, weather conditions, pit wall failures, rock bursts, cave-ins, flooding, seismic activity and water conditions, most of which are beyond Barrick’s control. Barrick is also exposed to theft or loss of gold bullion, copper cathode or gold/copper concentrate. These risks and hazards could result in: damage to, or destruction of, mineral properties or producing facilities; personal injury or death; environmental damage; delays in mining; and monetary losses and possible legal liability. As a result, production may fall below historic or estimated levels and Barrick may incur significant costs or experience significant delays that could have a material adverse effect on Barrick’s financial performance, liquidity and results of operations.

Barrick maintains insurance to cover some of these risks and hazards. The insurance is maintained in amounts that are believed to be reasonable depending on the circumstances surrounding the identified

- 121 -

risk. No assurance can be given that such insurance will continue to be available, or that it will be available at economically feasible premiums, or that Barrick will obtain or maintain such insurance. Barrick’s property, liability and other insurance may not provide sufficient coverage for losses related to these or other risks or hazards. In addition, Barrick does not have coverage for certain environmental losses and other risks, as such coverage cannot be purchased at a commercially reasonable cost. The lack of, or insufficiency of, insurance coverage could adversely affect Barrick’s cash flow and overall profitability.

Production and cost estimates

Barrick prepares estimates of future production, cash costs and capital costs of production for particular operations. No assurance can be given that such estimates will be achieved. Failure to achieve production or cost estimates or material increases in costs could have an adverse impact on Barrick’s future cash flows, profitability, results of operations and financial condition.

Barrick’s actual production and costs may vary from estimates for a variety of reasons, including: actual ore mined varying from estimates of grade, tonnage, dilution and metallurgical and other characteristics; short-term operating factors relating to ore reserves, such as the need for sequential development of orebodies and the processing of new or different ore grades; revisions to mine plans; unusual or unexpected orebody formations; risks and hazards associated with mining; natural phenomena, such as inclement weather conditions, water availability, floods, and earthquakes; and unexpected labor shortages or strikes. Costs of production may also be affected by a variety of factors, including: changing waste-to-ore ratios, ore grade metallurgy, labor costs, the cost of commodities, general inflationary pressures and currency exchange rates.

Security and human rights

Civil disturbances and criminal activities, such as trespass, illegal mining, sabotage, theft and vandalism, have caused disruptions at certain of Barrick’s operations, including the Porgera joint venture in Papua New Guinea operated by BNL, the Lagunas Norte and Pierina (now in closure) mines in Peru and the Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic and certain of Acacia’s operations in Tanzania, occasionally resulting in the suspension of operations. Affected sites have taken certain measures to protect their employees, property and production facilities from these risks. Certain sites have engaged armed and unarmed security personnel and installed perimeter fencing, walls and cameras in sensitive areas, such as main entrances and processing plants. Some sites have entered into arrangements with law enforcement agencies to provide policing and law and order in the areas surrounding the applicable site. Incidents of criminal activity, trespass, illegal mining, theft and vandalism have occasionally led to conflict with security personnel and/or police, which in some cases resulted in injuries and/or fatalities. The measures that have been implemented by the Company or Acacia cannot guarantee that such incidents will not continue to occur and such incidents may halt or delay production, increase operating costs, result in harm to employees or trespassers, decrease operational efficiency, increase community tensions or result in criminal and/or civil liability for the Company or its employees and/or financial damages or penalties.

The manner in which the Company’s or Acacia’s personnel respond to civil disturbances and criminal activities can give rise to additional risks where those responses are not conducted in a manner that is consistent with international standards relating to the use of force and respect for human rights (see “Narrative Description of the Business – Corporate Social Responsiblity”). Barrick and Acacia have implemented a number of measures and safeguards which are designed to assist their personnel in understanding and upholding these standards. The implementation of these measures will not guarantee that the Company’s or Acacia’s personnel will uphold these standards in every instance. The failure to

- 122 -

conduct security operations in accordance with these standards can result in harm to employees or community members, increase community tensions, reputational harm to Barrick and its partners or result in litigation, criminal and/or civil liability for the Company, Acacia or their respective employees and/or financial damages or penalties.

Illegal mining, which involves trespass into the operating area of the mine, is both a security and safety issue at the Porgera joint venture operated by BNL and at certain of Acacia’s operations in Tanzania. The illegal miners from time to time have clashed with mine security staff and law enforcement personnel who have attempted to move them away from the facilities. The presence of the illegal miners, given the nature of the mines’ operations, creates a safety issue for the illegal miners as well as Barrick’s and Acacia’s employees and can cause disruptions to mine operations.

It is not possible to determine with certainty the future costs that Barrick may incur in dealing with the issues described above at its operations. However, if the number of incidents increases, costs associated with security, in the case of civil disturbances and illegal mining, may also increase, affecting profitability.

Community relations and license to operate

The Company’s relationships with the communities in which it operates are critical to the future success of its existing operations and the construction and development of its projects. There is an increasing level of public concern relating to the perceived effect of mining activities on the environment and on communities impacted by such activities. Certain non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), some of which oppose globalization and resource development, are often vocal critics of the mining industry and its practices, including the use of cyanide and other hazardous substances in processing activities. Adverse publicity generated by such NGOs or others related to extractive industries generally, or Barrick’s operations specifically, could have an adverse effect on the Company’s reputation or financial condition and may impact its relationship with the communities in which it operates. While Barrick is committed to operating in a socially responsible manner, there is no guarantee that the Company’s efforts in this respect will mitigate this potential risk.

Government regulation and changes in legislation

The Company’s business is subject to various levels of government controls and regulations, which are supplemented and revised from time to time. Barrick is unable to predict what legislation or revisions may be proposed that might affect its business or when any such proposals, if enacted, might become effective. Such changes, however, could require increased capital and operating expenditures and could prevent or delay certain operations by the Company. To the extent that Barrick fails to or is alleged to fail to comply with any applicable regulation, whether in the future or in the past, the Company may be unable to continue to operate successfully at a particular location. See “Legal Matters – Government Controls and Regulations”.

Exchange and Capital Controls

From time to time emerging market countries in which the Company operates or has interests have adopted measures to restrict the availability of the local currency or the repatriation of capital across borders. These measures are typically imposed by governments and/or central banks during times of local economic instability to prevent the removal of capital or the sudden devaluation of local currencies or to maintain in-country foreign currency reserves. In addition, many emerging markets require supplementary consents or reporting processes before local currency earnings can be converted into U.S. dollars or other currencies and/or such earnings can be repatriated or otherwise transferred outside of the

- 123 -

operating jurisdiction. Furthermore, some jurisdictions regulate the amount of earnings that can be maintained by operating entities in off-shore bank accounts and require additional earnings to be held by banks located in the country of operation.

These measures can have a number of negative effects on the Company’s operations. For example, exchange and capital controls reduce the quantum of immediately available capital that the Company could otherwise deploy for investment opportunities or the payment of expenses. As a result, the Company may be required to use other sources of funds for these objectives which may result in increased financing costs. In addition, measures that restrict the availability of the local currency or impose a requirement to operate in the local currency may create practical difficulties for the Company.

Currency fluctuations

Currency fluctuations may affect the costs Barrick incurs at its operations and may affect Barrick’s operating results and cash flows. Gold and copper are each sold throughout the world based principally on the U.S. dollar price, but a portion of Barrick’s operating expenses are incurred in local currencies, such as the Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, Chilean peso, Argentine peso, Dominican peso, Peruvian sol, Papua New Guinea kina, Tanzanian shilling and Zambian kwacha. Appreciation of certain non-U.S. dollar currencies against the U.S. dollar would increase the costs of production at Barrick’s mines, making such mines less profitable. From time to time, Barrick enters into currency hedging contracts to mitigate the impact on operating costs of the appreciation of certain non-U.S. dollar currencies against the U.S. dollar. Barrick may incur an opportunity loss if the U.S. dollar appreciates in value relative to non-U.S. dollar currencies. As of December 31, 2017, Barrick had no foreign currency derivative contracts beyond spot requirements. There can be no assurance that Barrick will enter into foreign currency hedging activities in the future. See “– Use of derivatives”.

U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (United States) and the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (Canada) and anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or other commercial advantage. Barrick’s policies mandate compliance with these anti-bribery laws, which often carry substantial penalties. Barrick operates in jurisdictions that have experienced governmental and private sector corruption to some degree and, in certain circumstances, strict compliance with anti-bribery laws may conflict with certain local customs and practices. There can be no assurance that Barrick’s internal control policies and procedures will always protect it from reckless or other inappropriate acts committed by the Company’s affiliates, employees or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could have a material adverse effect on Barrick’s reputation, as well as business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of Barrick’s common shares to decline.

Interest rates

A significant, prolonged decrease in interest rates could have a material adverse impact on the interest earned on Barrick’s cash balances ($2.2 billion at December 31, 2017). The Company’s interest rate exposure mainly relates to the mark-to-market value of derivative instruments, the fair value of and ongoing payments under U.S. dollar interest rate swaps, the carrying value of certain long lived assets and liabilities, and to the interest payments on its variable-rate debt ($0.1 billion at December 31, 2017). There can be no assurance that Barrick will continue the hedging activities that it currently undertakes. See “– Use of derivatives”.

- 124 -

Use of derivatives

From time to time, Barrick may use certain derivative products to manage the risks associated with gold, copper and silver price volatility, changes in other commodity input prices, interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and energy prices. The use of derivative instruments involves certain inherent risks including: (i) credit risk – the risk that the creditworthiness of a counterparty may adversely affect its ability to perform its payment and other obligations under its agreement with Barrick or adversely affect the financial and other terms the counterparty is able to offer Barrick; (ii) market liquidity risk – the risk that Barrick has entered into a derivative position that cannot be closed out quickly, by either liquidating such derivative instrument or by establishing an offsetting position; and (iii) unrealized mark-to-market risk – the risk that, in respect of certain derivative products, an adverse change in market prices for commodities, currencies or interest rates will result in Barrick incurring an unrealized mark-to-market loss in respect of such derivative products. For a summary of the derivative instruments used in the Company’s currency, interest rate and commodity hedge programs, see page 49 of the MD&A and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. See also “– Global financial conditions”.

Litigation

Barrick is currently subject to litigation and may be involved in disputes with other parties in the future which may result in litigation. The results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty. The costs of defending or settling such litigation can be significant. If Barrick is unable to resolve these disputes favourably, it may have a material adverse impact on Barrick’s financial performance, cash flow and results of operations. See “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings”.

Holding of Acacia

On March 24, 2010, Acacia began operating as a separate, publicly traded company that holds all of Barrick’s former African gold mines, gold projects and gold exploration properties. Barrick retained an equity interest of 73.9% in Acacia. This holding was reduced to 63.9% following a partial divestment of shares completed on March 11, 2014. Barrick and Acacia are parties to a relationship agreement that regulates various aspects of the ongoing relationship between the two companies, the principal purpose of which is to ensure that Acacia is capable of carrying on its business independently of Barrick and that any transactions and relationships with Barrick occur at arm’s length and under normal commercial terms. Accordingly, the board of directors and/or executive management team of Acacia may determine to undertake actions that are different than those that the board of directors and/or executive management team of Barrick would have taken. In addition, the minority shareholders of Acacia represent an important stakeholder group that is required to be considered in Acacia’s corporate governance and decision-making. Given the potential divergence in stakeholder interests, there is a risk that actions undertaken by Acacia could differ from actions that would have been taken by Barrick and in certain circumstances could adversely affect Barrick’s reputation and/or result in potential civil or criminal liability for the Company. In addition, holding a controlling equity interest in a London Stock Exchange-listed company such as Acacia places certain practical and regulatory constraints on the manner in which Barrick could dispose of its interest in Acacia, should it determine it wishes to do so. Furthermore, market fluctuations could adversely affect the market price of Acacia and the value which Barrick could realize on this investment.

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Ministry of Energy and Minerals imposed the Ban, a ban on exports of gold/copper concentrate, following a directive made by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. This includes gold/copper concentrate exported by Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Despite efforts to have the Ban lifted, it continues to remain in force at the date hereof. In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various

- 125 -

amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. In January 2018, new Mining Regulations were announced by the Tanzanian Government introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations, the scope and effect of which remain under review by Acacia.

The Tanzanian Government has also alleged that Acacia failed to declare revenue in tax years 2000-2017 and has re-assessed Acacia for approximately $190 billion for that period which Acacia considers to be implausible. See “– Acacia Mining plc – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” and “– Acacia Mining plc – Tanzanian Revenue Authority” in “Legal Matters – Legal Proceedings”.

There can be no assurance that Barrick and/or Acacia will come to an agreement to resolve the Ban or the tax re-assessment described above, or that the Government of Tanzania will not impose other measures that may negatively impact Acacia’s performance or operations. Failure to reach a satisfactory settlement with, or the imposition of other measures by, the Government of Tanzania may have a material adverse impact on Barrick’s cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial position.

Title to properties

The validity of mining claims, which constitute most of Barrick’s property holdings, can be uncertain and may be contested. Although Barrick has attempted to acquire satisfactory title to its properties, some risk exists that some titles, particularly title to undeveloped properties, may be defective. Any disputes about Barrick’s property holdings or title may have a material adverse impact on Barrick’s financial performance, cash flow and results of operations.

Acquisitions and integration

From time to time, Barrick examines opportunities to acquire additional mining assets and businesses. Any acquisition that Barrick may choose to complete may be of a significant size, may change the scale of Barrick’s business and operations, and may expose Barrick to new or greater geographic, political, operating, financial, legal and geological risks. Barrick’s success in its acquisition activities depends on its ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, negotiate acceptable terms for any such acquisition and integrate the acquired operations successfully with those of Barrick. Any acquisitions would be accompanied by risks. For example, there may be a significant change in commodity prices after Barrick has committed to complete the transaction and established the purchase price or exchange ratio; a material orebody may prove to be below expectations; Barrick may have difficulty integrating and assimilating the operations and personnel of any acquired companies, realizing anticipated synergies and maximizing the financial and strategic position of the combined enterprise, and maintaining uniform standards, policies and controls across the organization; the integration of the acquired business or assets may disrupt Barrick’s ongoing business and its relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and contractors; and the acquired business or assets may have unknown liabilities which may be significant. In the event that Barrick chooses to raise debt capital to finance any such acquisition, Barrick’s leverage will be increased. If Barrick chooses to use equity as consideration for any such acquisition, existing shareholders may suffer dilution. In addition, many companies in the mining industry have recently seen substantial downward pressure on their equity values after announcing significant acquisitions. There is a risk that if Barrick was to announce a significant acquisition, the value of Barrick’s common shares could decrease over the short-, medium- and/or long-term. Barrick cannot assure that it can complete any acquisition or business arrangement that it pursues, or is pursuing, on favourable terms, or that any acquisitions or business arrangements completed will ultimately benefit Barrick’s business. There can be

- 126 -

no assurance that Barrick would be successful in overcoming the risks noted above or any other problems encountered in connection with such acquisitions.

Divestitures

Barrick has recently sold or reduced its interest in certain assets. In connection with these dispositions, Barrick has given representations and warranties and indemnities customary for transactions of this type and may have also, in certain cases, agreed to retain responsibility for certain liabilities related to the period prior to the sale. As a result, Barrick may incur liability in the future associated with assets it no longer owns or in which it has a reduced interest.

Employee relations

Barrick’s ability to achieve its future goals and objectives is dependent, in part, on maintaining good relations with its employees and minimizing employee turnover. Work stoppages or other industrial relations events at Barrick’s major capital projects could lead to project delays or increased costs. A prolonged labor disruption at any of its material properties could have a material adverse impact on its operations as a whole.

Availability and increased cost of critical parts, equipment and skilled labor

An increase in worldwide demand for critical resources such as input commodities, drilling equipment, tires and skilled labor may cause unanticipated cost increases and delays in delivery times, thereby impacting the Company’s operating costs, capital expenditures and production schedules.

Internal control environment

Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in reports filed with securities regulatory agencies is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis and is accumulated and communicated to a company’s management, including its President and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Barrick has invested resources to document and analyze its system of disclosure controls and its internal control over financial reporting. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance with respect to the reliability of financial reporting and financial statement preparation. See “Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures”.

Competition

Barrick competes with other mining companies and individuals for mining claims and leases on exploration properties, the acquisition of mining assets and access to water, power and other required infrastructure. This competition may increase Barrick’s cost of acquiring suitable claims, properties and assets, should they become available to Barrick. Barrick also competes with other mining companies to attract and retain key executives and employees. There can be no assurance that Barrick will continue to be able to compete successfully with its competitors in acquiring properties, assets or access to infrastructure or in attracting and retaining skilled and experienced employees.

- 127 -

Ability to support the carrying value of goodwill and non-current assets

As of December 31, 2017, the carrying value of Barrick’s goodwill was approximately $1.3 billion or 5% of Barrick’s total assets. Goodwill is allocated to each cash generating unit (“CGU”), where CGUs generally represent individual mineral properties. Goodwill is tested annually for impairment at the beginning of the fourth quarter. In addition, at each reporting period, Barrick assesses whether there is an indication that goodwill is impaired and, if there is such an indication, Barrick tests for goodwill impairment at that time. The test for goodwill impairment involves a comparison of the recoverable amount of an operating segment to its carrying value. A goodwill impairment charge is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of the operating segment over its recoverable amount.

Non-current assets are tested for impairment when events or changes in circumstances suggest that the carrying amount of these assets may not be recoverable. The impairment test is carried out using the same approach that is used for goodwill.

Barrick recorded net impairment reversals of $7 million (after-tax and our share) on non-current assets for the year ended December 31, 2017. This includes impairments taken at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine related to the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania and net impairments taken at Pascua-Lama, mainly attributable to the reclassification of open-pit reserves to resources after receiving a closure order from the Chilean regulators. The assessment for goodwill and non-current asset impairment is subjective and requires management to make estimates and assumptions for a number of factors that market participants would make about the recoverable amount of the CGU, including estimates of production levels, operating costs and capital expenditures and permitting assumptions reflected in Barrick’s life of mine plans, as well as economic factors beyond management’s control, such as gold and copper prices, discount rates and observable net asset value multiples. Should management’s estimate of the future not reflect actual events, further goodwill or non-current asset impairment charges may materialize and the timing and amount of such impairment charges are difficult to predict.

Market price of Barrick’s shares

Securities of mining companies have experienced volatility in the past, at times unrelated to the financial performance or prospects of the companies involved. These factors include macroeconomic developments in North America and internationally, currency fluctuations and market perceptions of the attractiveness of particular industries. The price of Barrick’s common shares is also likely to be affected by short-term changes in gold and copper prices. As a result of these changes, the market price of Barrick’s common shares at any given point in time may not accurately reflect Barrick’s long-term value. Securities class action litigation is also becoming more prevalent and is often brought against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their securities. Barrick may in the future be the target of similar litigation which could result in substantial defense costs and divert management’s attention and resources.

Foreign Subsidiaries

A significant portion of Barrick’s business is carried on through subsidiaries, including foreign subsidiaries. Accordingly, any limitation on the transfer of cash or other assets between the parent corporation and such entities, or among such entities, could restrict Barrick’s ability to fund its operations efficiently. Any such limitations, or the perception that such limitations may exist now or in the future, could have an adverse impact on Barrick’s valuation and stock price.

- 128 -

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Reference is made to the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial and Operating Results of the Company (IFRS) for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov as an exhibit to Barrick’s Form 40-F.

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Reference is made to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements as at and for the year ended December 31, 2017 (IFRS), which are available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov as an exhibit to Barrick’s Form 40-F.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE

Set forth below is a description of Barrick’s share capital. The following statements are brief summaries of, and are subject to the provisions of, the articles of amalgamation and by-laws of Barrick and the relevant provisions of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario).

General

Barrick’s authorized share capital consists of an unlimited number of Barrick common shares, an unlimited number of first preferred shares issuable in series (the “First Preferred Shares”) and an unlimited number of second preferred shares issuable in series (the “Second Preferred Shares”).

Common Shares

The holders of Barrick common shares are entitled to one vote for each share on all matters submitted to a vote of shareholders and do not have cumulative voting rights. The holders of Barrick common shares are entitled to receive dividends if, as and when declared by the Board of Directors of Barrick in respect of the Barrick common shares. Subject to the prior rights of the holders, if any, of the First Preferred Shares and Second Preferred Shares then outstanding and of the shares then outstanding of any other class ranking senior to the Barrick common shares, the holders of Barrick common shares are entitled to share ratably in any distribution of the assets of Barrick upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, after satisfaction of all debts and other liabilities. As of March 19, 2018, there were 1,166,892,835 Barrick common shares issued and outstanding.

The rights, preferences and privileges of holders of Barrick common shares are subject to the rights of the holders of shares of any series of First Preferred Shares or Second Preferred Shares or any other class ranking senior to the Barrick common shares that Barrick may issue in the future.

There are no limitations contained in the articles or by-laws of Barrick or in the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) on the ability of a person who is not a Canadian resident to hold Barrick common shares or exercise the voting rights associated with Barrick common shares. The Barrick common shares are not subject to any exchange, conversion, exercise, redemption, retraction, surrender or similar rights or restrictions.

- 129 -

Preferred Shares

First Preferred Shares and Second Preferred Shares may be issued from time to time in series. The Board of Directors of the Company determines by resolution the designation, rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions to be attached to each such series.

The Company is entitled to redeem all or any part of the First Preferred Shares or Second Preferred Shares of any series on payment for each share of the amount equal to the result obtained when the stated capital account for the series is divided by the number of issued and outstanding shares of such series together with such premium, if any, as may be determined by the Board of Directors in connection with its determination of the designation, rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions to be attached to the applicable series, and all declared and unpaid dividends thereon. The Company is also entitled to purchase for cancellation all or any part of the First Preferred Shares of any series.

The First Preferred Shares and the Second Preferred Shares of each series are entitled to a preference over the common shares of the Company and any other shares ranking junior to the First Preferred Shares or Second Preferred Shares, as the case may be, with respect to the payment of dividends and the distribution of assets in the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company. Any series of First Preferred Shares or Second Preferred Shares may also be given such other preferences over the common shares and any other shares ranking junior to the First Preferred Shares or Second Preferred Shares, as the case may be, as may be determined. In the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company, the holders of the First Preferred Shares are entitled to receive, in the aggregate, the amount of the stated capital account of the First Preferred Shares plus all declared and unpaid dividends plus, if the liquidation, dissolution or winding-up is voluntary, any premium to which the shares would be entitled on a redemption, before any amount is paid or property or assets are distributed to the holders of common shares or any other shares ranking junior to the First Preferred Shares. After payment of such amount, the holders of the First Preferred Shares are not entitled to share in any further distribution of the property or assets of the Company. In the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company, the holders of the Second Preferred Shares are entitled to receive, in the aggregate, the amount of the stated capital account of the Second Preferred Shares plus all declared and unpaid dividends plus, if the liquidation, dissolution or winding-up is voluntary, any premium to which the shares would be entitled on a redemption, before any amount is paid or property or assets are distributed to the holders of common shares or any other shares ranking junior to the Second Preferred Shares. After payment of such amount, the holders of the Second Preferred Shares are not entitled to share in any further distribution of the property or assets of the Company.

The holders of First Preferred Shares and Second Preferred Shares are entitled to receive fixed, non-cumulative preferential quarterly cash dividends at such rate and on such dates as may be determined by the Board of Directors in connection with its determination of the designation, rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions to be attached to the applicable series.

The approval of the holders of the First Preferred Shares or the Second Preferred Shares is required to delete or vary any right, privilege, restriction or condition attaching to the First Preferred Shares or Second Preferred Shares, as the case may be, as a class and any other matter requiring the approval or consent of the holders of the First Preferred Shares or the Second Preferred Shares, as the case may be, as a class.

The first series of First Preferred Shares is designated as “$0.114 Non-cumulative Redeemable Convertible First Preferred Shares, Series A” (the “First Preferred Shares, Series A”), consisting of 10,000,000 First Preferred Shares. In addition to the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attached to the First Preferred Shares as a class, the First Preferred Shares, Series A are entitled to fixed

- 130 -

non-cumulative preferential cash dividends of C$0.114 per year, payable quarterly and can be converted into common shares on a one for one basis (subject to adjustment) if called for redemption. The redemption price for the First Preferred Shares, Series A is initially C$1.90 per share, but it may change if the Company gives notice that it has determined that the market price of the First Preferred Shares, Series A is a stipulated price. On or after the day that is 30 days after such notice is given, a holder of First Preferred Shares, Series A can require the Company to redeem his or her First Preferred Shares, Series A. The approval of the holders of the First Preferred Shares, Series A is required in respect of certain changes to the provisions relating to the First Preferred Shares or the First Preferred Shares, Series A. As of March 19, 2018, there were no First Preferred Shares, Series A issued and outstanding.

The second series of First Preferred Shares is designated as “$0.126 Non-cumulative Redeemable Convertible First Preferred Shares, Series B” (the “First Preferred Shares, Series B”), consisting of 10,000,000 First Preferred Shares. In addition to the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attached to the First Preferred Shares as a class, the First Preferred Shares, Series B are entitled to fixed non-cumulative preferential cash dividends of C$0.126 per year, payable quarterly and can be converted into common shares on a one for one basis (subject to adjustment) if called for redemption. The redemption price for each First Preferred Share, Series B is its stated capital (being C$2.10 per share) plus a premium of C$0.2625 per share, together with all declared and unpaid dividends. The approval of the holders of the First Preferred Shares, Series B is required in respect of certain changes to the provisions relating to the First Preferred Shares or the First Preferred Shares, Series B. No class of shares may be created or issued ranking as to capital or dividends prior to or on parity with the First Preferred Shares except with the prior approval of the holders of the First Preferred Shares, Series B. As of March 19, 2018, there were no First Preferred Shares, Series B issued and outstanding.

The third series of First Preferred Shares is designated as “First Preferred Shares, Series C Special Voting Share” (the “Special Voting Share”), consisting of one Special Voting Share. The Special Voting Share was issued to effect the assumption by Barrick of the BGI exchangeable share structure in connection with the acquisition of Homestake. In addition to the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attached to the First Preferred Shares as a class, except as otherwise required by applicable law, the holder of record of the Special Voting Share has a number of votes equal to the number of BGI exchangeable shares outstanding from time to time, which are not owned by Barrick or its subsidiaries or affiliates, multiplied by 0.53. The holder of the Special Voting Share will vote together with the holders of Barrick common shares as a single class on all matters submitted to a vote of the holders of the Barrick common shares, except as may be required by applicable law. The holder of the Special Voting Share is entitled to receive, in any distribution of property or assets of Barrick upon any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Barrick, an amount equal to the stated capital of the share plus all declared and unpaid dividends on the share, before any amount is paid or distributed in respect of the Barrick common shares or any other Barrick shares ranking junior to the Special Voting Share. The holder of the Special Voting Share is entitled to receive a dividend of C$0.04 per year. All outstanding BGI exchangeable shares (other than BGI exchangeable shares owned by Barrick or any subsidiary or affiliate of Barrick) were redeemed by Barrick on February 27, 2009. The Special Voting Share was redeemed and cancelled by Barrick in March 2009.

The first series of Second Preferred Shares is designated as “$0.222 Non-cumulative Redeemable Convertible Second Preferred Shares, Series A” (the “Second Preferred Shares, Series A”), consisting of 15,000,000 Second Preferred Shares. In addition to the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attached to the Second Preferred Shares as a class, the Second Preferred Shares, Series A are entitled to fixed non-cumulative preferential cash dividends of C$0.222 per year, payable quarterly and can be converted into common shares on a one for one basis (subject to adjustment) if called for redemption. The redemption price for each Second Preferred Share, Series A is C$2.43 per share, together with all declared and unpaid dividends. A holder of Second Preferred Shares, Series A can require the Company

- 131 -

to redeem his or her Second Preferred Shares, Series A at the redemption price. The approval of the holders of the Second Preferred Shares, Series A is required in respect of certain changes to the provisions relating to the Second Preferred Shares or the Second Preferred Shares, Series A. No class of shares may be created or issued ranking as to capital or dividends prior to or on parity with the Second Preferred Shares (with the exception of the First Preferred Shares) except with the prior approval of the holders of the Second Preferred Shares, Series A. As of March 19, 2018, there were no Second Preferred Shares, Series A issued and outstanding.

RATINGS

The following table sets out the ratings of Barrick’s corporate debt by the rating agencies indicated as at March 22, 2018:

	Rating Agency
	Moody’s Investors Service	Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services	DBRS
Senior Unsecured Debt	Baa2	BBB	BBB (low)

The DBRS credit rating is current to January 23, 2018, the Moody’s credit rating is current to March 1, 2018 and the S&P credit rating is current to March 22, 2018.

Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) credit ratings for long-term debt are on a rating scale that ranges from Aaa to C, which represents the range from highest to lowest quality of such securities rated. According to Moody’s, a rating of Baa is the fourth highest of nine major categories. Moody’s appends numerical modifiers 1, 2 and 3 to each generic rating classification from Aa through Caa in its corporate bond rating system. The modifier 1 indicates that the obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of that generic rating category. A Moody’s rating outlook is an opinion regarding the likely rating direction over the medium-term. Ratings outlooks fall into four categories: positive, negative, stable, and developing. A stable outlook indicates a low likelihood of a rating change over the medium term. A negative, positive or developing outlook indicates a higher likelihood of a rating change over the medium term. The time between the assignment of a new rating outlook and a subsequent rating action has historically varied widely. On average, the next rating action has followed within about a year. The next rating action subsequent to the assignment of a negative rating outlook has historically been a downgrade or review for possible downgrade. In August 2015, Moody’s lowered its rating on the Company’s senior unsecured debt from Baa2 to Baa3 and assigned a stable outlook. In January 2016, Moody’s placed the Company’s senior unsecured debt rating on review for downgrade. In March 2016, Moody’s affirmed the Company’s Baa3 rating and assigned a negative outlook. In August 2016, Moody’s affirmed the Company’s Baa3 rating and revised its outlook to stable from negative. In September 2017, Moody’s affirmed the Company’s Baa3 rating with a stable outlook. On March 1, 2018, Moody’s upgraded the rating on Barrick’s senior unsecured debt to Baa2 with a stable outlook. According to the Moody’s rating system, long-term obligations rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and, as such, may possess certain speculative characteristics.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) credit ratings for long-term debt are on a rating scale that ranges from AAA to D, which represents the range from highest to lowest quality of such securities rated. The BBB rating is the fourth highest of ten major categories. The ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by the addition of a plus (+) or minus (-) sign to show relative standing within the major rating

- 132 -

categories. If S&P anticipates that a credit rating may change in the next six to 24 months, it may issue an updated ratings outlook indicating whether the possible change is likely to be “positive”, “negative”, “stable” or “developing”. However, a rating outlook does not mean that a rating change is inevitable. In March 2015, S&P lowered the Company’s long-term corporate credit rating to BBB- and also placed a stable outlook on the rating, noting the Company’s liquidity position as strong and that the downgrade reflects its revised estimates for the Company following the release of its year-end 2014 results. In March 2016, S&P affirmed the Company’s BBB- rating with a stable outlook. In August 2016, S&P affirmed the Company’s BBB- rating and raised its outlook to positive from stable. On March 22, 2018, S&P upgraded the rating on Barrick’s senior unsecured debt to BBB with a stable outlook. According to the S&P rating system, an obligor rated BBB has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments, but adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.

DBRS Limited (“DBRS”) uses a long-term debt rating scale that ranges from AAA to D, which represents the range from highest to lowest quality of such securities rated, and, with the exception of the AAA and D categories, also contains the subcategories “high” and “low”. The absence of either a “high” or “low” designation indicates the rating is in the “middle” of the category. In August 2015, DBRS downgraded its rating on the Company’s senior unsecured debt to BBB (low) from BBB and assigned a stable trend. In November 2016, DBRS affirmed the Company’s BBB (low) rating with a stable trend. In January 2018, DBRS affirmed the Company’s BBB (low) rating and raised its trend to positive from stable. According to DBRS, a rating of BBB is in the fourth highest of ten major categories and is of adequate credit quality. The capacity for the payment of financial obligations is considered acceptable. Entities in this category are considered to be vulnerable to future events, but qualifying negative factors are considered manageable.

Barrick understands that the ratings are based on, among other things, information furnished to the above ratings agencies by Barrick and information obtained by the ratings agencies from publicly available sources. The credit ratings given to Barrick’s debt instruments by the rating agencies are not recommendations to buy, hold or sell such debt instruments since such ratings do not comment as to market price or suitability for a particular investor. There is no assurance that any rating will remain in effect for any given period of time or that any rating will not be revised or withdrawn entirely by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. Credit ratings are intended to provide investors with (i) an independent measure of the credit quality of an issue of securities; (ii) an indication of the likelihood of repayment for an issue of securities; and (iii) an indication of the capacity and willingness of the issuer to meet its financial obligations in accordance with the terms of those securities. Credit ratings accorded to Barrick’s debt instruments may not reflect the potential impact of all risks on the value of such instruments, including risks related to market or other factors discussed in this Annual Information Form (see also “Risk Factors”).

Barrick has paid each of Moody’s and S&P its customary fees in connection with the provision of the above credit ratings. The Company has not made any payments to DBRS and no payments have been made to Moody’s and S&P unrelated to the provision of their rating services for the last two years.

MARKET FOR SECURITIES

Barrick’s common shares are listed and posted for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol ABX. The following table outlines the closing share price trading range and volume of shares traded by month in 2017, and for the period from January 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018, based on trading information published by each exchange.

- 133 -

	Toronto Stock Exchange						New York Stock Exchange
	Share Price Trading Range				Share Volume		Share Price Trading Range				Share Volume
	High		Low				High		Low
2017	(C$ per share)				(millions)		($ per share)				(millions)
January		24.16		21.31		90		18.60		15.87		374
February		27.19		23.62		73		20.78		18.07		311
March		26.48		23.34		81		19.77		17.35		307
April		27.03		22.56		83		20.36		16.57		286
May		23.66		21.77		69		17.38		15.86		274
June		22.92		20.43		64		17.04		15.51		240
July		21.37		19.25		47		17.12		15.26		232
August		22.70		20.74		49		18.09		16.35		224
September		22.70		19.95		51		18.35		16.06		180
October		21.03		18.57		44		16.83		14.41		201
November		18.80		17.32		49		14.56		13.46		199
December		18.59		17.07		51		14.67		13.28		198
2018
January		19.49		17.44		62		15.52		14.16		250
February		17.87		14.78		65		14.52		11.51		288
March 1 to 19		16.21		14.26		41		12.40		11.07		194

Acacia’s common shares are listed and posted for trading on the LSE under the symbol ACA. The following table outlines the closing share price trading range and volume of shares traded by month in 2017, and for the period from January 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018, based on trading information provided by the LSE.

	London Stock Exchange
	Share Price Trading Range		Total Share Volume
	High	Low
2017	(GBp+ per share)		(millions)
January	435	369.7	23
February	541	420.3	24
March	540	414.9	34
April	493.4	391	19
May	438.1	265.9	41
June	308	261	58
July	287.3	157.8	61
August	215.4	175.4	43
September	207.1	174.8	31

- 134 -

	London Stock Exchange
	Share Price Trading Range				Total Share Volume
	High		Low
October		212		180.3		45
November		197.7		171.6		34
December		198.5		161.5		23
2018
January		185.5		202.9		21
February		186.0		139.0		33
March 1 to 19		150.2		133.5		20

MATERIAL CONTRACTS

Set out below is a description of Barrick’s material contracts as at December 31, 2017.

On March 6, 2003, Placer Dome entered into an Indenture (the “2003 Indenture”) with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas in connection with the issuance of senior debt securities.

On March 6, 2003, Placer Dome entered into a First Supplemental Indenture with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas in connection with the issuance and sale by Placer Dome of $200 million principal amount of 6.375% debentures on March 6, 2003. This First Supplemental Indenture, together with the original 2003 Indenture, sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the $200 million principal amount 6.375% debentures.

On October 10, 2003, Placer Dome entered into a Second Supplemental Indenture with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas in connection with the issuance and sale by Placer Dome of $300 million principal amount of 6.45% debentures on October 10, 2003. This Second Supplemental Indenture, together with the original 2003 Indenture, sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the $300 million principal amount 6.45% debentures.

On November 12, 2004, Barrick entered into an Indenture with Barrick Gold Inc., Barrick Gold Finance Company and JPMorgan Chase Bank (the “2004 Indenture”). Pursuant to the 2004 Indenture, (a) Barrick issued $200 million principal amount of 5.80% notes due 2034 (the “Barrick 2034 Notes”), (b) Barrick Gold Finance Company issued $200 million principal amount of 5.80% notes due 2034 (the “BGFC 2034 Notes”), and (c) Barrick Gold Finance Company issued $350 million principal amount of 4.875% notes due 2014 (the “BGFC 2014 Notes”), all on November 12, 2004. On December 16, 2013, the entire balance of the BGFC 2014 Notes was repaid in full. The 2004 Indenture sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the Barrick 2034 Notes and the BGFC 2034 Notes. The BGFC 2034 Notes are unconditionally guaranteed by Barrick.

On October 12, 2006, Barrick International (Barbados) Corp., formerly Barrick International Bank Corp. (“BIBC”) issued an aggregate of $1 billion of notes (the “BIBC Notes”) comprised of $400 million of 5.75% notes due 2016 and $600 million of 6.35% notes due 2036 pursuant to an Indenture dated as of the same date among BIBC, as issuer, Barrick (HMC) Mining Company (“Barrick (HMC)”), as initial joint obligor, Barrick, as parent guarantor and The Bank of New York, as trustee (the “2006 Indenture”). The 2006 Indenture sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the BIBC Notes, which include an unconditional guarantee by Barrick.

- 135 -

On the same date, and as part of the same transaction, ABX Financing Company (“ABXFC”), a company incorporated for the purpose of acquiring the BIBC Notes, issued an aggregate of $1 billion of notes (the “ABXFC Notes”) comprised of $400 million of 5.75% notes due 2016 and $600 million of 6.35% notes due 2036 pursuant to an Indenture dated as of the same date among ABXFC, as issuer, BIBC, Barrick (HMC) and Barrick, as guarantors, and The Bank of New York, as trustee (the “ABXFC Indenture”). On October 15, 2015, the outstanding principal amount of the 5.75% notes due 2016 was repaid in full. The ABXFC Indenture sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the ABXFC Notes, which include an unconditional guarantee by Barrick, BIBC and Barrick (HMC).

On September 11, 2008, Barrick entered into an Indenture with Barrick Gold Financeco LLC, Barrick North America Finance LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon (“2008 Indenture”). Pursuant to the 2008 Indenture, (i) Barrick Gold Financeco LLC issued $500 million principal amount 6.125% notes due 2013 (the “BGFC 2013 Notes”), and (ii) Barrick North America Finance LLC issued $500 million principal amount 6.80% notes due 2018 (the “BNAF 2018 Notes”) and $250 million principal amount 7.50% notes due 2038 (the “BNAF 2038 Notes”), all on September 11, 2008. On March 19, 2009, Barrick issued an aggregate of $750 million principal amount 6.95% notes due 2019 (the “BGC 2019 Notes”) pursuant to the 2008 Indenture. During 2013, upon maturity, the outstanding principal amount of the BGFC 2013 Notes was repaid in full. On October 28, 2015, pursuant to a cash tender offer, $275 million of the principal amount of the BGC 2019 Notes was repaid. On March 21, 2016, pursuant to a cash tender offer, approximately $227 million of the principal amount of the BNAF 2018 Notes and approximately $196 million of the principal amount of the BGC 2019 Notes was repaid. On September 26, 2016, the outstanding principal amount of the BNAF 2018 Notes was repaid in full. On June 20, 2017, the outstanding principal amount of the BGC 2019 Notes was repaid in full. The 2008 Indenture sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the BNAF 2018 Notes, the BNAF 2038 Notes and the BGC 2019 Notes. The BNAF 2038 Notes are unconditionally guaranteed by Barrick.

On October 16, 2009, Barrick entered into an Indenture with Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. and the Bank of New York Mellon (the “2009 Indenture”). Pursuant to the 2009 Indenture, Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. issued $400 million principal amount 4.950% notes due 2020 (the “BPDAF 2020 Notes”) and $850 million principal amount 5.950% notes due 2039 (the “BPDAF 2039 Notes”), all on October 16, 2009. On March 21, 2016, pursuant to a cash tender offer, approximately $152 million of the principal amount of the BPDAF 2020 Notes was repaid. The 2009 Indenture sets out the terms and conditions pertaining to the BPDAF 2020 Notes and the BPDAF 2039 Notes. Each of the BPDAF 2020 Notes and the BPDAF 2039 Notes are unconditionally guaranteed by Barrick.

On June 1, 2011, Barrick entered into an Indenture with Barrick North America Finance LLC (“BNAF”), Citibank N.A. and Wilmington Trust Company (the “2011 Indenture”). Pursuant to the 2011 Indenture, Barrick and BNAF issued an aggregate of $4.0 billion in debt securities comprised of: $700 million of 1.75% notes due 2014 (the “Barrick 2014 Notes”) and $1.1 billion of 2.90% notes due 2016 (the “Barrick 2016 Notes”), each issued by Barrick, as well as $1.35 billion of 4.40% notes due 2021 (the “BNAF 2021 Notes”) and $850 million of 5.70% notes due 2041 (the “BNAF 2041 Notes”), each issued by BNAF. On December 16, 2013, the outstanding principal amount of the Barrick 2014 Notes was repaid in full. On September 9, 2015, the outstanding principal amount of the Barrick 2016 Notes was repaid in full. In 2016, approximately $721 million of the principal amount of the BNAF 2021 Notes was repaid pursuant to cash tender offers. The BNAF 2021 Notes and the BNAF 2041 Notes are unconditionally guaranteed by Barrick.

On April 3, 2012, Barrick issued an aggregate of $2 billion in debt securities pursuant to the 2011 Indenture, comprised of $1.25 billion of 3.85% notes due 2022 and $750 million of 5.25% notes due 2042. In 2015, approximately $913 million of the principal amount of the 3.85% notes due 2022 was repaid pursuant to cash tender offers.

- 136 -

On May 2, 2013, Barrick and BNAF issued an aggregate of $3 billion in debt securities pursuant to the 2011 Indenture, comprised of $650 million of 2.50% notes due 2018 and $1.5 billion of 4.10% notes due 2023 issued by Barrick as well as $850 million of 5.75% notes due 2043 issued by BNAF (the “BNAF Notes”). The BNAF Notes are unconditionally guaranteed by Barrick. On December 3, 2013, pursuant to a cash tender offer, approximately $398 million of the principal amount of the 2.50% notes due 2018 was repaid. In 2015, approximately $129 million of the principal amount of the 2.50% notes due 2018 and approximately $769 million of the principal amount of the 4.10% notes due 2023 was repaid pursuant to cash tender offers. On March 21, 2016, pursuant to a cash tender offer, approximately $18 million of the principal amount of the 2.50% notes due 2018 was repaid. On June 24, 2016, the outstanding principal amount of the 2.50% notes due 2018 was repaid in full. On September 21, 2017, the outstanding principal amount of the 4.10% notes due 2023 was repaid in full.

TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS

Barrick’s transfer agent and registrar for its common shares is AST Trust Company (Canada) in Canada at its principal office in Toronto, Ontario and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC in the United States at its principal office in Brooklyn, New York.

DIVIDEND POLICY

On August 5, 2015, Barrick announced that its Board of Directors reduced the quarterly dividend on its common shares by 60% from $0.05 to $0.02 per quarter to increase financial flexibility in light of market conditions. The reduction in the quarterly dividend became effective starting with the dividend payable in mid-September 2015. In 2015, Barrick paid an aggregate cash dividend of $0.14 per common share: $0.05 in mid-March, $0.05 in mid-June, $0.02 in mid-September and $0.02 in mid-December. In 2016, Barrick paid an aggregate cash dividend of $0.08 per common share: $0.02 in mid-March, $0.02 in mid-June, $0.02 in mid-September and $0.02 in mid-December. On February 15, 2017, Barrick announced that its Board of Directors increased its quarterly dividend from $0.02 per share to $0.03 per share beginning with the dividend payable in mid-March 2017. In 2017, Barrick paid an aggregate cash dividend of $0.12 per common share: $0.03 in mid-March, $0.03 in mid-June, $0.03 in mid-September and $0.03 in mid-December. On February 14, 2017, Barrick announced that its Board of Directors had declared a dividend of $0.03, payable on March 15, 2018. The amount and timing of dividends are within the discretion of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors reviews the dividend quarterly based on, among other things, the Company’s current and projected liquidity profile.

Also on August 5, 2015, the Board of Directors approved a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “DRIP”), which was made available to eligible shareholders beginning with the mid-September 2015 dividend. The DRIP allows registered or beneficial holders of Barrick’s common shares who reside in Canada or the United States to reinvest cash dividends paid on their common shares in additional common shares issued from treasury at a discount to the average market price (as defined in the DRIP), currently set at 3% and subject to change at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY

As of March 19, 2018, directors and executive officers of Barrick as a group beneficially own, directly or indirectly, or exercise control or direction over 3,099,209 common shares representing approximately 0.27% of the outstanding common shares of Barrick.

- 137 -

Directors of the Company

Gary A. Doer and Dambisa F. Moyo will not stand for re-election as directors at the Company’s upcoming annual meeting of shareholders to be held on April 24, 2018 (the “AGM”). The Board of Directors has nominated two new independent directors to stand for election at the AGM: María I. Benítez and Patricia A. Hatter.

The present term of each director will expire at the next annual meeting of shareholders or upon such director’s successor being elected or appointed. The following are the directors of the Company as at March 19, 2018:

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Principal occupations during past 5 years
Gustavo A. Cisneros (72) Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic	Mr. Cisneros is the Chairman of Cisneros, a privately-held media, entertainment, technology, and consumer products organization. Mr. Cisneros is a member of Barrick’s International Advisory Board. He is also a senior advisor to RRE Ventures LLC, a venture capital firm. Mr. Cisneros is a member of the advisory boards of a number of organizations and universities, including the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Task Force, Haiti Presidential International Advisory Board, The Americas Society, and Harvard University. Mr. Cisneros holds an undergraduate degree from Babson College. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since September 9, 2003
Graham G. Clow (67) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Mr. Clow is the Chairman and Principal Mining Engineer of Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA), a consulting firm providing reserves and resources services to the mining industry at all stages of project development. He has more than 40 years of experience in all aspects of mining, including acquisitions, exploration, feasibility, finance, development, construction, operations, and closure. Prior to joining RPA in 2001, Mr. Clow spent more than 20 years in senior executive and operating positions, including with publicly listed mining companies. For a number of years, Mr. Clow served as an Adjunct Professor at the Lassonde Mineral Institute, University of Toronto, where he lectured in resource and reserve estimation. He was formerly the Chairman of the Metal Mining Division of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum (CIM) and was a member of the committee on ore reserve definitions that established the requirements for the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Mr. Clow is a Fellow of the CIM and has been awarded the Vale Medal and the CIM Metal Mining Award for his contributions to the industry. He holds degrees in geology and mining engineering from Queen’s University.

- 138 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Principal occupations during past 5 years
	Barrick Board Details: •  Director since April 26, 2016
Gary A. Doer (69) Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada	Mr. Doer has been a Senior Business Advisor to the law firm Dentons Canada LLP since August 2016. From October 2009 until January 2016, Mr. Doer was Canada’s ambassador to the United States, a jurisdiction that represents a very significant portion of Barrick’s business. Prior to that, he was Premier of Manitoba for 10 years. Mr. Doer is a volunteer Co-Chair of the Wilson Centre’s Canada Institute, a non-partisan public policy forum focused on Canada-U.S. relations. In 2010, he became a Member of the Order of Manitoba and, in 2011, he received a distinguished diplomatic service award from the World Affairs Council. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since April 26, 2016
Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky (54) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Mr. Dushnisky joined Barrick in 2002 as Director of Regulatory Affairs and was appointed President of Barrick on August 17, 2015. He has 30 years of international mining industry experience. As President of Barrick, he has overall responsibility for execution of the Company’s strategic priorities. Mr. Dushnisky is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of Acacia Mining plc and represents Barrick at the World Gold Council, the International Council on Mining and Metals, and the Business Council of Canada. Prior to joining Barrick, he held management positions at EuroZinc Mining Corporation, Sutton Resources, and Rescan Consultants. Mr. Dushnisky holds an Honours Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Manitoba, in addition to a Master of Science degree and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of British Columbia. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since February 17, 2016
J. Michael Evans (60) New York, New York USA	Mr. Evans is the President of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., a position he has held since August 2015. Prior to becoming President, Mr. Evans was an independent director and member of the audit committee of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. with responsibility, among other things, for the oversight and evaluation of operating and financial risk and internal controls. He served as Vice Chairman of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. from February 2008 until his retirement in December 2013. Mr. Evans was Chairman of Goldman Sachs’ Asia operations from 2004 to 2013 and held various leadership positions within the firm’s securities business, including global head of equity

- 139 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Principal occupations during past 5 years
	capital markets. As the co-head of Goldman Sachs’ securities division for seven years, Mr. Evans was responsible, with the other division co-heads, among other things, for the continuous review of risk including operating and financial risk. He is a board member of City Harvest. He is also a trustee of the Asia Society and a member of the Advisory Council for the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University. Mr. Evans holds an undergraduate degree from Princeton University. Mr. Evans won a gold medal for Canada at the 1984 summer Olympics in men’s eight rowing. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since July 30, 2014
Brian L. Greenspun (71) Henderson, Nevada USA	Mr. Greenspun is the Publisher and Editor of the Las Vegas Sun. He is also Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Greenspun Media Group. Mr. Greenspun has been appointed to two U.S. Presidential Commissions. In the early 1990s, he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the White House Commission on Small Business. In December 2014, he was appointed by President Barack Obama to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. He is a Trustee of The Brookings Institution, the University of Nevada Las Vegas Foundation and the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance. He is active in numerous civic and charitable organizations in the Las Vegas community. Mr. Greenspun holds a law degree and an undergraduate degree from Georgetown University. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since July 30, 2014
J. Brett Harvey (67) Mesquite, Nevada USA	Mr. Harvey was Chairman Emeritus of CONSOL Energy Inc., a coal, gas, and energy services company from May 2016 to May 2017. He was CONSOL Energy Inc.’s Chairman from January 2015 to May 2016, Executive Chairman from May 2014 to January 2015, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from June 2010 to May 2014, and Chief Executive Officer from January 1998 to June 2010. From January 2009 to May 2014, he was also the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CNX Gas Corporation, a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc. He began his business career in mining, joining the Kaiser Steel Company in 1979 at the Sunnyside Mine in Utah, and, in 1984, he was appointed as Vice President and General Manager of Kaiser Coal of New Mexico. Mr. Harvey also served as Vice President, Mining for PacifiCorp. In 2016, he received the Charles F. Rand Memorial Gold Medal, awarded by the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration for distinguished achievement in mining administration.

- 140 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Principal occupations during past 5 years
	Mr. Harvey is the former chair of the National Mining Association and of the Coal Industry Advisory Board to the International Energy Agency. He is a member of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America and a director and past chairman of the Laurel Highlands Council of the Boy Scouts. Mr. Harvey holds an undergraduate degree in mining engineering from the University of Utah. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since December 15, 2005
Nancy H.O. Lockhart (63) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Ms. Lockhart is a Corporate Director. She was the Chief Administrative Officer of Frum Development Group, a property development and management company, from 1995 to September 2013. She is also a member of the Sotheby’s Canada Advisory Board. Ms. Lockhart is a director of the Royal Conservatory of Music and the Chair of Crow’s Theatre Company. She is a past director of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since April 30, 2014
Pablo Marcet (54) Buenos Aires, Argentina	Mr. Marcet is a Corporate Director. He is a seasoned mining professional with nearly 30 years of experience in the exploration, development, and operation of mines across Latin America and in East Africa. During his career, Mr. Marcet has held senior management positions in geology, mining operations, and business development, including 15 years at BHP. He also served as President of Northern Orion Resources’ South American operations before the company’s acquisition by Yamana Gold, and later as Chief Executive Officer of Waymar Resources, until its acquisition by Orosur Mining. Mr. Marcet holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California, a Master’s degree in Economic Geology from Harvard University, and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Phoenix. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since December 6, 2016
Dambisa F. Moyo (49) New York, New York USA	Dr. Moyo is an international economist and author on the global economy. Dr. Moyo worked at the World Bank from 1993 to 1995 and at Goldman Sachs from 2001 to 2008, where she worked in debt capital markets, hedge fund coverage, and as an economist in the global macroeconomics team. Dr. Moyo holds an undergraduate degree and a Master’s degree in

- 141 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Principal occupations during past 5 years
	Business Administration from American University, a Master’s degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and a Doctorate in Economics from Oxford University. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since April 27, 2011
Anthony Munk (57) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Mr. Munk has been a Senior Managing Director of Onex Corporation, a leading North American private equity firm, since 2013. Prior to 2013 he was a Managing Director of Onex Corporation. In his capacity with Onex Corporation, Mr. Munk has worked on numerous private equity transactions and served on the boards of a number of portfolio companies. Mr. Munk currently serves on the boards of JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., Jack’s Family Restaurants, Inc., Save-A-Lot and Claravate Analytics. Mr. Munk holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) degree from Queen’s University. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since December 10, 1996
J. Robert S. Prichard (69) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Mr. Prichard is Chairman of the Board of Bank of Montreal, a Canadian financial institution, a position he has held since March 2012. Since September 2010, Mr. Prichard has served as non-executive Chairman of Torys LLP, a Canadian law firm. He also serves as Chairman of Metrolinx, the regional transportation agency and operator for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area. Mr. Prichard was formerly President and Chief Executive Officer of Metrolinx, President and Chief Executive Officer of Torstar Corporation, and President of the University of Toronto. Mr. Prichard is a trustee of The Hospital for Sick Children. Mr. Prichard holds a Master’s degree in Business Administration from the University of Chicago and law degrees from the University of Toronto and Yale University. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada, a Member of the Order of Ontario, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and a Fellow of Canada’s Institute of Corporate Directors. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since December 3, 2015
Steven J. Shapiro (66) Silverthorne, Colorado USA	Mr. Shapiro is a Corporate Director with more than 35 years of experience in the energy and mining business. He spent nine years in the coal and minerals business at ARCO, a producer of copper, molybdenum, uranium, and coal, with byproducts including gold and silver. Mr. Shapiro was President of ARCO Coal Australia, overseeing four operating mines with 1,100 employees. He was also Manager of Acquisitions for the

- 142 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Principal occupations during past 5 years
	Anaconda Company (a subsidiary of ARCO at the time) and the Vice President, Finance for ARCO’s coal and minerals division. Mr. Shapiro was formerly Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development and a director of Burlington Resources, Inc., an oil and gas exploration and production company. He was also formerly Senior Vice President and a director of Vastar Resources, an oil and gas exploration and production company. Mr. Shapiro holds an undergraduate degree from Union College and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from Harvard University. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since September 1, 2004
John L. Thornton (64) Palm Beach, Florida USA	Mr. Thornton was appointed Executive Chairman of Barrick on April 30, 2014. From June 5, 2012 to April 29, 2014, Mr. Thornton was Co-Chairman of Barrick. He is also Chairman of Silk Road Finance Corporation, an Asian investment firm, and Non-Executive Chairman of PineBridge Investments, a global asset manager. He is a Professor, Director of the Global Leadership Program, and a Member of the Advisory Board of the Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management in Beijing. He is also Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He retired in 2003 as President and a member of the board of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Mr. Thornton is Co-Chair of the Asia Society, and is also a trustee, advisory board member or member of, the China Investment Corporation (CIC), McKinsey Advisory Council, Morehouse College, and the African Leadership Academy. Mr. Thornton holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard College, a degree in jurisprudence from Oxford University, and a Master’s degree from the Yale School of Management. Barrick Board Details: •  Executive Chairman since 2014 and Director since February 15, 2012
Ernie L. Thrasher (62) Latrobe, Pennsylvania USA	Mr. Thrasher is a seasoned veteran of the mining and resources industry with a career spanning five decades. He is the founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Marketing Officer of Xcoal Energy & Resources, a global coal products supplier and the largest exporter of U.S. origin coal to Asia, whose activities also include the financing and development of mining and related infrastructure projects in West Virginia and in the anthracite coalfield in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Thrasher’s career in mining dates back to 1971, working for his family’s mining company for 10 years as a manual labourer, equipment operator, pit superintendent, and ultimately

- 143 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence

Principal occupations during past 5 years

in operations and mine planning. From 1981 to 1991, Mr. Thrasher worked at Primary Coal, Inc., where his responsibilities included coal procurement, inland transport, and logistics. Over the next 12 years, prior to founding Xcoal, Mr. Thrasher served as President of AMCI Export Corporation and Executive Vice-President, Marketing of AMCI International (both coal products suppliers) where, in addition to his role overseeing the commercial operations of the business, he was involved in mine planning and the development of AMCI’s mining operations in Australia and Mozambique. Mr. Thrasher is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (USA) and a director on the National Committee on United States-China Relations. Barrick Board Details: •  Director since April 30, 2014

Mr. Clow, a director of the Company, was a director of Campbell Resources Inc. (“Campbell Resources”) in 2005 when that company filed for protection under the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”). Mr. Clow ceased to be a director of Campbell Resources on November 14, 2008, prior to Campbell Resources filing for protection from its creditors under the CCAA for a second time, on January 28, 2009.

Mr. Greenspun, a director of the Company, was a director of the Tribune Company, a privately-held company, when it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2008. Mr. Greenspun ceased to be a director of the Tribune Company on December 31, 2012.

Mr. Shapiro, a director of the Company, was a director of Asia Resource Minerals plc (formerly Bumi plc) from 2011 to 2014. Trading on the LSE of the voting ordinary shares of Bumi plc (which changed its name to Asia Resource Minerals plc on December 17, 2013) was suspended by the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) from April 22, 2013 to July 22, 2013. Bumi plc voluntarily requested this temporary trading suspension pending clarification of the company’s financial position on the publication of its audited full year results for the year ended December 31, 2012. Trading in the voting ordinary shares of Bumi plc resumed on July 22, 2013, following the publication of its audited full year results for 2012 and discussions with the FCA. Mr. Shapiro ceased to be a director of Asia Resource Minerals plc on June 5, 2014.

Corporate Governance and Committees of the Board

Barrick’s current corporate governance policies and practices are consistent with the requirements of Canadian securities laws. Barrick’s policies and practices also take into account the rules of the Toronto Stock Exchange and the corporate governance standards adopted by the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE Standards”), even though the majority of the NYSE Standards do not directly apply to Barrick as a Canadian company. The one significant difference between Barrick’s corporate governance practices and the NYSE Standards which are applicable to U.S. companies is summarized below:

- 144 -

Section 303A.08 of the NYSE Standards requires shareholder approval of all “equity compensation plans” and material revisions. The definition of equity compensation plans under the NYSE Standards covers plans that provide for the delivery of newly issued securities, as well as plans that rely on securities reacquired on the market by the issuing company for the purpose of redistribution to employees and directors. In comparison, the Toronto Stock Exchange rules require shareholder approval of security-based compensation arrangements only in respect of arrangements which involve the delivery of newly issued securities or specified amendments thereto. Therefore, Barrick does not seek shareholder approval for equity compensation plans and amendments unless they involve newly issued securities or constitute specified amendments under the Toronto Stock Exchange rules.

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is comprised of G.A. Cisneros, B.L. Greenspun, N.H.O. Lockhart and D.F. Moyo.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is comprised of P. Marcet, D.F. Moyo, S.J. Shapiro and E.L. Thrasher.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is comprised of G.A. Cisneros, J.B. Harvey, J.R.S. Prichard, S.J. Shapiro and E.L. Thrasher.

Corporate Responsibility Committee

The Corporate Responsibility Committee is comprised of G.A. Doer, B.L. Greenspun, N.H.O. Lockhart, P. Marcet and E.L. Thrasher.

Risk Committee

The Risk Committee is comprised of G.G. Clow, J.M. Evans, D.F. Moyo, A. Munk and J.R.S. Prichard.

International Advisory Board

The only member of the Board of Directors that also sits on the International Advisory Board is G.A. Cisneros.

Executive Officers of the Company

In addition to John L. Thornton and Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky, as set out above, the following are the executive officers of the Company as at March 19, 2018.

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Office	Principal occupations during past 5 years
Mark Hill (53) Oakville, Ontario Canada	Chief Investment Officer	Chief Investment Officer; prior to September 2016, Partner and Head of Mining at Waterton Global Resource Management.

- 145 -

Name (age) and municipality of residence	Office	Principal occupations during past 5 years
Robert Krcmarov (53) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Executive Vice President, Exploration and Growth	Executive Vice President, Exploration and Growth; prior to March 2016, Senior Vice President, Global Exploration.
Catherine Raw (36) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer; prior to March 2016, Executive Vice President, Business Performance; prior to May 2015, Member of the Natural Resources Team and Manager of gold, mining and natural resource funds including Co-Manager of BlackRock World Mining Trust and BGF World Mining Fund at BlackRock Inc.
Darian Rich (57) Mississauga, Ontario Canada	Executive Vice President, Talent Management	Executive Vice President, Talent Management; prior to July 2014, Senior Vice President, Human Resources; prior to July 2013, Vice President, Human Resources.
Kathy Sipos (49) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Chief of Staff	Chief of Staff; prior to September 2015, Senior Vice President, Business Process Integration; prior to January 2015, Vice President of Investor and Stakeholder Relations at Teranga Gold Corporation.
Kevin Thomson (61) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Senior Executive Vice President, Strategic Matters	Senior Executive Vice President, Strategic Matters; prior to October 2014, Senior Partner at Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP.
Greg Walker (57) Toronto, Ontario Canada	Senior Vice President, Operational and Technical Excellence	Senior Vice President, Operational and Technical Excellence; prior to December 2017, Executive General Manager, Pueblo Viejo Mine; prior to September 2016, Executive Managing Director, Barrick Niugini Ltd; prior to October 2015, Executive General Manager, Porgera Mine

- 146 -

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Audit Committee Mandate

A copy of the Audit Committee’s mandate is attached hereto as Schedule “A”.

Composition of the Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is comprised entirely of independent directors (P. Marcet, D. Moyo, S.J. Shapiro and E.L. Thrasher). There were five meetings of the Audit Committee in 2017. All of the members of the Committee attended all of the meetings held in 2017 while they were members.

Relevant Education and Experience

All of the members of the Audit Committee are financially literate and at least one member has accounting or related financial management expertise. Barrick’s Board of Directors has determined that D.F. Moyo, S.J. Shapiro and E.L. Thrasher are each an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by SEC rules and is independent, as that term is defined by the New York Stock Exchange’s corporate governance standards applicable to Barrick.

The rules adopted by the SEC indicate that the designation of Dr. Moyo and Messrs. Shapiro and Thrasher as audit committee financial experts will not deem any of them to be an “expert” for any purpose or impose any duties, obligations or liability on them that are greater than those imposed on members of the Audit Committee and Barrick’s Board of Directors who do not carry this designation. Mr. Marcet is also an experienced audit committee member; however, the Board of Directors has not designated him as an audit committee financial expert.

Set out below is a description of the education and experience of each Audit Committee member that is relevant to the performance of his or her responsibilities in that capacity. For more information about the members of Barrick’s Audit Committee, see “Directors and Officers of the Company – Directors of the Company”.

Pablo Marcet Mr. Marcet holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California, a Master’s degree in Economic Geology from Harvard University and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Phoenix. During his career, Mr. Marcet has held senior management positions, including serving as President of Northern Orion Resources’ South American operations before the Company’s acquisition by Yamana Gold, and later as Chief Executive Officer of Waymar Resources until its acquisition by Orosur Mining. Mr. Marcet has been a member of the Audit Committee of Esrey Resources Ltd since 2017 and was a member of the Audit Committee of U3O8 Corp. from 2012 to 2017. Mr. Marcet brings extensive management experience to the Board of Directors, as well as experience with internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.

- 147 -

Dambisa F. Moyo	Dr. Moyo holds an undergraduate degree and a master’s degree in business administration from American University, a master’s degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a doctorate in economics from Oxford University. She has been a member of the audit committee of Chevron Corporation since 2016 and was formerly a member of the audit committee of Seagate Technology and Barclays Bank. Dr. Moyo brings extensive management experience to the Board of Directors as well as experience with internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.
Steven J. Shapiro	Mr. Shapiro holds an undergraduate degree from Union College and a master’s degree in business administration from Harvard University. Mr. Shapiro was Chief Financial Officer of Burlington Resources, Inc. from 2000 to 2006 and Chief Financial Officer of Vastar Resources from 1994 to 2000. He was a member of the audit committee of Asia Resource Minerals plc from 2011 to 2014 and was a member of the audit committee of El Paso Corporation from 2006 to 2012. The Board of Directors benefits from Mr. Shapiro’s financial and accounting experience.
Ernie L. Thrasher	Mr. Thrasher is the founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Marketing Officer of Xcoal Energy & Resources, a global coal products supplier. He is the former President of AMCI Export Corporation and Executive Vice-President, Marketing of AMCI International (both coal products suppliers). Mr. Thrasher brings extensive management experience to the Board of Directors as well as experience with financial reporting.

Participation on Other Audit Committees

Members of the Audit Committee may not serve on more than two other public company audit committees without approval of the Board of Directors. No member of the Audit Committee currently serves on the audit committee of more than three publicly-traded companies, including Barrick.

Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

Barrick’s Audit Committee has adopted a Policy on Pre-Approval of Audit, Audit-Related and Non-Audit Services (the “Pre-Approval Policy”) for the pre-approval of services performed by Barrick’s auditors. The objective of the Pre-Approval Policy is to specify the scope of services permitted to be performed by the Company’s auditor and to ensure that the independence of the Company’s auditor is not compromised through their engagement for other services. All services provided by the Company’s auditor are pre-approved by the Audit Committee as they arise or through an annual pre-approval of services and related fees for specific services. All services performed by Barrick’s auditor comply with the Pre-Approval Policy, and professional standards and securities regulations governing auditor independence.

External Auditor Service Fees

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are the auditors of Barrick’s Consolidated Financial Statements. The following PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP fees were incurred by Barrick in each of the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 for professional services rendered to Barrick:

- 148 -

Fees1 (amount in millions)	2017		2016
Audit Fees2	$	9.5	$	9.5
Audit-related Fees3		0.4		0.5
Tax Fees4		0.7		0.8
All Other Fees		Nil		Nil
Total	$	10.6	$	10.8

1 The classification of fees is based on applicable Canadian securities laws and SEC definitions.

2 Audit fees include fees for services rendered by the external auditor in relation to the audit and review of Barrick’s financial statements and in connection with the Company’s statutory and regulatory filings, including out-of-pocket expenses of $0.6 million. Audit fees for 2016 have been adjusted to include out-of-pocket expenses of $0.6 million.

3 In 2017, audit-related fees primarily related to a number of projects, including services related to the Company’s 2016 Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act Report and translation services. In 2016, audit-related fees primarily related to a number of projects, including pre-implementation procedures on changes in Information Technology systems.

4 Tax fees mainly related to tax compliance services and audit support for various jurisdictions.

INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Internal control over financial reporting is a framework designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting framework includes those policies and procedures that pertain to the preparation of financial information, including information contained in Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report and this Annual Information Form.

Disclosure controls and procedures form a broader framework designed to provide reasonable assurance that other financial and non-financial information disclosed publicly fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the periods presented in the MD&A and Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report. Barrick’s disclosure controls and procedures framework includes processes designed to ensure that material information relating to Barrick, and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to management, including Barrick’s President and Chief Financial Officer, by others within those entities to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Disclosure controls and procedures apply to various disclosures, including reports filed with securities regulatory agencies.

The management of Barrick, at the direction of the Company’s President and Chief Financial Officer, have evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in rules adopted by the SEC) and disclosure controls and procedures as at December 31, 2017, based on the framework and criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (“COSO”) of the Treadway Commission. Based on management’s evaluation, Barrick’s President and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures were effective as at December 31, 2017. There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. For additional information as regards the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, see “Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting” in Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report.

- 149 -

Together, the internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures frameworks provide internal control over financial reporting and disclosure. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance with respect to the reliability of financial statement preparation and financial reporting. Accordingly, Barrick’s management, including Barrick’s President and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting and disclosure will prevent or detect all misstatements or fraud. Further, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control to future periods is subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may change.

Barrick will continue to monitor the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting and disclosure and may make modifications from time to time as considered necessary or desirable.

Barrick’s annual management report on internal control over financial reporting and the integrated audit report of Barrick’s auditors for the year ended December 31, 2017 are included in Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report and its 2017 Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per pound and C1 cash costs per pound

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce are non-GAAP financial measures which are calculated based on the definition published by the World Gold Council (“WGC”) (a market development organization for the gold industry comprised of and funded by 23 gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick). The WGC is not a regulatory organization. Management uses these measures to monitor the performance of Barrick’s gold mining operations and its ability to generate positive cash flow, both on an individual site basis and an overall company basis.

Cash costs start with Barrick’s cost of sales related to gold production and removes depreciation, the non-controlling interest of cost of sales and includes by-product credits. All-in sustaining costs start with cash costs and include sustaining capital expenditures, general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs and reclamation cost accretion and amortization. These additional costs reflect the expenditures made to maintain current production levels.

All-in costs starts with all-in sustaining costs and adds additional costs that reflect the varying costs of producing gold over the life-cycle of a mine, including: project capital expenditures (capital expenditures at new projects and discrete projects at existing operations intended to increase production capacity and will not benefit production for at least 12 months) and other non-sustaining costs (primarily exploration and evaluation costs, community relations costs and general and administrative costs that are not associated with current operations). These definitions recognize that there are different costs associated with the life-cycle of a mine, and that it is therefore appropriate to distinguish between sustaining and non-sustaining costs.

We believe that Barrick’s use of cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and all-in costs will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in understanding the costs associated with producing gold, understanding the economics of gold mining, assessing Barrick’s operating performance and also its ability to generate free cash flow from current operations and to generate free cash flow on an overall company basis. Due to the capital-intensive nature of the industry and the long useful lives over which these items are depreciated, there can be a significant timing difference between net earnings calculated in

- 150 -

accordance with IFRS and the amount of free cash flow that is being generated by a mine and therefore Barrick believes these measures are useful non-GAAP operating metrics and supplement its IFRS disclosures. These measures are not representative of all of Barrick’s cash expenditures as they do not include income tax payments, interest costs or dividend payments. These measures do not include depreciation or amortization.

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs and all-in costs are intended to provide additional information only and do not have standardized definitions under IFRS, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. These measures are not equivalent to net income or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Although the WGC has published a standardized definition, other companies may calculate these measures differently.

In addition to presenting these metrics on a by-product basis, Barrick has calculated these metrics on a co-product basis. Barrick’s co-product metrics remove the impact of other metal sales that are produced as a by-product of its gold production from cost per ounce calculations, but does not reflect a reduction in costs for costs associated with other metal sales.

C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound are non-GAAP financial measures related to Barrick’s copper mine operations. Barrick believes that C1 cash costs per pound enables investors to better understand the performance of its copper operations in comparison to other copper producers who present results on a similar basis. C1 cash costs per pound excludes royalties and non-routine charges as they are not direct production costs. All-in sustaining costs per pound is similar to the gold all-in sustaining costs metric and management uses this to better evaluate the costs of copper production. Barrick believes that this measure enables investors to better understand the operating performance of its copper mines as this measure reflects all of the sustaining expenditures incurred in order to produce copper. All-in sustaining costs per pound includes C1 cash costs, corporate general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs, royalties, environmental rehabilitation costs and write-downs taken on inventory to net realizable value.

- 151 -

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)		For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	Footnote	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Cost of sales related to gold production		$	4,836		$	4,980		$	5,906		$	1,292		$	1,347
Depreciation			(1,529	)		(1,504	)		(1,615	)		(404	)		(396	)
By-product credits	1		(135	)		(184	)		(214	)		(30	)		(41	)
Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives	2		23			89			128			4			18
Non-recurring items	3		—			24			(210	)		—			—
Other	4		(106	)		(44	)		25			(35	)		(20	)
Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)	5		(299	)		(358	)		(394	)		(81	)		(91	)
Cash costs		$	2,790		$	3,003		$	3,626		$	746		$	817
General & administrative costs			248			256			233			62			39
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	6		47			44			47			8			18
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	7		1,109			944			1,359			279			298
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)	8		64			59			145			13			18
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other	9		(273	)		(287	)		(362	)		(74	)		(78	)
All-in sustaining costs		$	3,985		$	4,019		$	5,048		$	1,034		$	1,112
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	6		307			193			308			90			64
Community relations costs not related to current operations			4			8			12			1			2
Project capital expenditures	7		273			175			133			81			51
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (non-operating sites)	8		20			11			12			4			4
Non-controlling interest and copper operations	9		(21	)		(42	)		(43	)		(9	)		(4	)
All-in costs		$	4,568		$	4,364		$	5,470		$	1,201		$	1,229
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces)	10		5,302			5,503			6,083			1,372			1,519
Cost of sales per ounce	11,12	$	794		$	798		$	859		$	801		$	784
Cash costs per ounce	12	$	526		$	546		$	596		$	545		$	540
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	12,13	$	544		$	569		$	619		$	561		$	557
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	12	$	750		$	730		$	831		$	756		$	732
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	12,13	$	768		$	753		$	854		$	772		$	749
All-in costs per ounce	12	$	860		$	792		$	900		$	882		$	809
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	12,13	$	878		$	815		$	923		$	898		$	826

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for Barrick’s gold and copper mines for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $30 million (2016: $41 million) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $135 million (2016: $151 million; 2015: $140 million) and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at Barrick’s Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives

Includes realized hedge losses of $5 million and $27 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $14 million and $73 million, respectively; 2015: $106 million), and realized non-hedge gains of $1 million and $4 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $4 million and $16 million losses, respectively; 2015: $22 million losses). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

- 152 -

3 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of Barrick’s cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

4 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $nil and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $4 million and $16 million, respectively; 2015: $14 million). 2016 and 2017 includes the removal of cash costs associated with Barrick’s Pierina mine, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure, of $35 million and $108 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $24 million and $66 million, respectively).

5 Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)

Non-controlling interests include non-controlling interests related to gold production of $137 million and $454 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $127 million and $508 million, respectively; 2015: $681 million). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

6 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects.

7 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to Barrick’s gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush.

8 Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of Barrick’s gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of its gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

9 Non-controlling interest and copper operations

Removes general & administrative costs related to non-controlling interests and copper based on a percentage allocation of revenue. Also removes exploration, evaluation and project costs, rehabilitation costs and capital expenditures incurred by Barrick’s copper sites and the non-controlling interest of its Acacia and Pueblo Viejo operating segment and South Arturo. In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. The impact is summarized as the following:

	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
($ millions)	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other
General & administrative costs	($	21	)	($	36	)	($	53	)	($	8	)	($	5	)
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		(12	)		(9	)		(8	)		1			(3	)
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)		(10	)		(9	)		(13	)		(2	)		(4	)
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		(230	)		(233	)		(288	)		(65	)		(66	)
All-in sustaining costs total	($	273	)	($	287	)	($	362	)	($	74	)	($	78	)
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		(17	)		(12	)		(11	)		(8	)		(4	)
Project capital expenditures		(4	)		(30	)		(32	)		(1	)		—
All-in costs total	($	21	)	($	42	)	($	43	)	($	9	)	($	4	)

10 Ounces sold – equity basis

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

11 Cost of sales per ounce

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the cost of sales impact of Pierina of $55 million and $174 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $30 million and $82 million, respectively), which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. Cost of sales per ounce excludes non-controlling interest related to gold production. Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on

- 153 -

an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

12 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

13 Co-product costs per ounce

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce presented on a co-product basis remove the impact of by-product credits of Barrick’s gold production (net of non-controlling interest) calculated as:

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
By-product credits	$	135		$	184		$	214		$	30		$	41
Non-controlling interest		(30	)		(53	)		(62	)		(6	)		(13	)
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	105		$	131		$	152		$	24		$	28

- 154 -

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis, by operating segment

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)											For the three months ended December 31, 2017
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight		Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production		$	428		$	241		$	75		$	108		$	55		$	114		$	53		$	14	$	69		$	79
Depreciation			(155	)		(107	)		(18	)		(33	)		(10	)		(25	)		(8	)		—		(12	)		(16	)
By-product credits	1		(1	)		(14	)		(4	)		(5	)		—			—			—			—		(1	)		—
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Other	3		—			—			—			—			—			1			—			—		—			—
Non-controlling interests			(1	)		(49	)		—			—			—			(31	)		—			—		—			—
Cash costs		$	271		$	71		$	53		$	70		$	45		$	59		$	45		$	14	$	56		$	63
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			9			—			—		—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		4			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		1			3
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		94			30			8			39			8			18			10			—		16			8
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		4			3			1			—			—			1			1			—		(1	)		—
Non-controlling interests			—			(13	)		—			—			—			(12	)		—			—		—			—
All-in sustaining costs		$	373		$	91		$	62		$	109		$	53		$	75		$	56		$	14	$	72		$	74
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		4			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		63			—			—			—			4			3			—			—		—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			(1	)		—			—		—			—
All-in costs		$	440		$	91		$	62		$	109		$	57		$	77		$	56		$	14	$	72		$	74
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces)			539			182			114			114			81			94			64			11		80			93
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8	$	794		$	795		$	659		$	953		$	672		$	774		$	831			1,221		864			850
Cash costs per ounce	8	$	506		$	388		$	461		$	609		$	550		$	581		$	690		$	1,218	$	705		$	675
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	507		$	490		$	508		$	618		$	550		$	587		$	695		$	1,228	$	715		$	680
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8	$	696		$	498		$	547		$	950		$	638		$	779		$	864		$	1,262	$	897		$	796
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	697		$	600		$	594		$	959		$	638		$	785		$	869		$	1,272	$	907		$	801
All-in costs per ounce	8	$	818		$	498		$	553		$	950		$	692		$	803		$	878		$	1,267	$	897		$	796
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	819		$	600		$	600		$	959		$	692		$	809		$	883		$	1,277	$	907		$	801

- 155 -

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)											For the three months ended December 31, 2016
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production		$	504		$	144		$	60		$	173		$	41		$	195		$	53		$	17		$	54		$	76
Depreciation			(224	)		(21	)		(19	)		(42	)		(8	)		(44	)		(7	)		(2	)		(9	)		(15	)
By-product credits	1		(1	)		(17	)		(4	)		(7	)		—			(10	)		—			—			—			—
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			1			—			—			—			1			—			—			—			2
Non-controlling interests			—			(39	)		—			—			—			(52	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs		$	279		$	68		$	37		$	124		$	33		$	90		$	46		$	15		$	45		$	63
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			(1	)		—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		8			—			—			1			—			1			—			—			1			2
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		74			32			3			49			9			56			14			1			13			6
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		9			2			2			1			—			2			—			—			—			1
Non-controlling interests			(4	)		(13	)		—			—			—			(21	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs		$	366		$	89		$	42		$	175		$	42		$	127		$	60		$	16		$	59		$	72
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		6			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		34			—			1			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs		$	406		$	89		$	43		$	175		$	42		$	127		$	60		$	16		$	59		$	72
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces)			582			198			98			194			69			134			74			13			59			99
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8	$	864		$	450		$	612		$	892		$	595		$	935		$	728		$	1,264		$	912		$	772
Cash costs per ounce	8	$	478		$	341		$	379		$	642		$	484		$	679		$	625		$	1,162		$	765		$	638
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	479		$	471		$	418		$	716		$	484		$	713		$	630		$	1,173		$	775		$	631
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8	$	630		$	443		$	436		$	905		$	610		$	952		$	822		$	1,245		$	981		$	731
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	631		$	573		$	475		$	979		$	610		$	986		$	827		$	1,256		$	991		$	724
All-in costs per ounce	8	$	696		$	443		$	447		$	905		$	610		$	953		$	822		$	1,245		$	981		$	731
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	697		$	573		$	486		$	979		$	610		$	987		$	827		$	1,256		$	991		$	724

- 156 -

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)											For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production		$	1,869		$	730		$	245		$	410		$	159		$	469		$	193		$	55		$	239		$	292
Depreciation			(793	)		(229	)		(68	)		(119	)		(28	)		(107	)		(27	)		(3	)		(39	)		(58	)
By-product credits	1		(3	)		(72	)		(16	)		(17	)		—			(7	)		(1	)		—			(3	)		(2	)
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			—			—			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(1	)		(171	)		—			—			—			(127	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs		$	1,072		$	258		$	161		$	274		$	131		$	229		$	165		$	52		$	197		$	232
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			21			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		16			—			4			3			—			—			—			—			1			9
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		360			114			20			173			32			137			44			—			55			20
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		25			13			7			2			1			6			5			2			(2	)		3
Non-controlling interests			(3	)		(51	)		—			—			—			(61	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs		$	1,470		$	334		$	192		$	452		$	164		$	332		$	214		$	54		$	251		$	264
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		8			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		224			—			5			—			4			11			5			1			—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			(4	)		—			—			—			—
All-in costs		$	1,702		$	334		$	197		$	452		$	168		$	339		$	219		$	55		$	251		$	264
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces)			2,357			637			397			458			222			379			196			41			253			362
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8	$	792		$	699		$	617		$	897		$	715		$	791		$	986		$	1,334		$	944		$	806
Cash costs per ounce	8	$	455		$	405		$	405		$	598		$	589		$	587		$	841		$	1,265		$	781		$	642
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	456		$	475			446		$	636		$	589		$	598		$	846		$	1,270		$	791		$	647
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8	$	624		$	525		$	483		$	987		$	733		$	875		$	1,092		$	1,329		$	993		$	729
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	625		$	595		$	524		$	1,025		$	733		$	886		$	1,097		$	1,334		$	1,003		$	734
All-in costs per ounce	8	$	722		$	525		$	497		$	987		$	753		$	894		$	1,119		$	1,349		$	993		$	729
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	723		$	595		$	538		$	1,025		$	753		$	905		$	1,124		$	1,354		$	1,003		$	734

- 157 -

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)											For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production		$	1,896		$	644		$	276		$	464		$	155		$	719		$	188		$	54		$	203		$	289
Depreciation			(807	)		(147	)		(96	)		(118	)		(27	)		(166	)		(26	)		(5	)		(34	)		(56	)
By-product credits	1		(2	)		(90	)		(17	)		(27	)		—			(39	)		(1	)		—			(2	)		(2	)
Non-recurring items	2		—			34			—			(10	)		—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			5			—			—			—			8			—			—			—			7
Non-controlling interests			—			(170	)		—			—			—			(188	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs		$	1,087		$	276		$	163		$	309		$	128		$	334		$	161		$	49		$	167		$	238
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			55			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		10			—			2			1			—			3			—			—			1			5
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		217			101			51			95			32			190			37			2			43			21
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		26			10			8			4			1			6			1			2			(2	)		4
Non-controlling interests			(4	)		(44	)		—			—			—			(88	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs		$	1,336		$	343		$	224		$	409		$	161		$	500		$	199		$	53		$	209		$	268
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		19			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		141			—			5			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(30	)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs		$	1,466		$	343		$	229		$	409		$	161		$	501		$	199		$	53		$	209		$	268
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces)			2,162			700			425			532			257			522			237			36			243			380
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8	$	876		$	564		$	651		$	872		$	603		$	880		$	795		$	1,512		$	836		$	762
Cash costs per ounce	8	$	502		$	395		$	383		$	582		$	498		$	640		$	679		$	1,376		$	689		$	627
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	503		$	473		$	423		$	632		$	498		$	677		$	683		$	1,385		$	697		$	615
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8	$	618		$	490		$	529		$	769		$	625		$	958		$	839		$	1,493		$	858		$	706
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	619		$	568		$	569		$	819		$	625		$	995		$	843		$	1,502		$	866		$	694
All-in costs per ounce	8	$	678		$	490		$	540		$	769		$	625		$	960		$	839		$	1,493		$	858		$	706
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	679		$	568		$	580		$	819		$	625		$	997		$	843		$	1,502		$	866		$	694

- 158 -

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)								For the year ended December 31, 2015
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production		$	1,551		$	904		$	378		$	499		$	141		$	837		$	192		$	134		$	375		$	306
Depreciation			(537	)		(277	)		(169	)		(108	)		(23	)		(143	)		(38	)		(38	)		(37	)		(74	)
By-product credits	1		(2	)		(120	)		(18	)		(22	)		—			(36	)		(1	)		(2	)		(1	)		(1
Non-recurring items	2		(12	)		(47	)		(5	)		(21	)		(1	)		(109	)		—			(11	)		—			—
Other	3		—			13			—			—			—			8			—			—			—			6
Non-controlling interests			—			(194	)		—			—			—			(200	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs		$	1,000		$	279		$	186		$	348		$	117		$	357		$	153		$	83		$	337		$	237
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			42			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		12			1			3			2			—			2			1			2			2			2
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		211			102			67			242			32			178			38			7			93			34
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		27			25			32			4			1			9			1			13			2			7
Non-controlling interests			—			(51	)		—			—			—			(75	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs		$	1,250		$	356		$	288		$	596		$	150		$	513		$	193		$	105		$	434		$	280
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		40			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		159			—			—			—			—			(1	)		39			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(31	)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs		$	1,418		$	356		$	288		$	596		$	150		$	512		$	232		$	105		$	434		$	280
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces)			1,981			597			565			629			202			461			216			76			426			315
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8	$	782		$	881		$	669		$	792		$	697		$	1,161		$	887		$	1,768		$	881		$	973
Cash costs per ounce	8	$	504		$	467		$	329		$	552		$	581		$	772		$	708		$	1,098		$	791		$	752
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	505		$	595		$	361		$	587		$	581		$	810		$	711		$	1,121		$	794		$	738
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8	$	631		$	597		$	509		$	946		$	742		$	1,112		$	895		$	1,379		$	1,018		$	886
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	632		$	725		$	541		$	981		$	742		$	1,150		$	898		$	1,402		$	1,021		$	872
All-in costs per ounce	8	$	715		$	597		$	509		$	946		$	742		$	1,111		$	1,075		$	1,379		$	1,018		$	886
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9	$	716		$	725		$	541		$	981		$	742		$	1,149		$	1,078		$	1,402		$	1,021		$	872

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for Barrick’s gold mines and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at its Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of Barrick’s cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

3 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $1 million and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $2 million and $9 million, respectively; 2015: $8 million).

4 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects.

- 159 -

5 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to Barrick’s gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush.

6 Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of Barrick’s gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of its gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

7 Cost of sales per ounce

Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

8 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

9 Co-product costs per ounce

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

- 160 -

($ millions)	For the three months ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick Nevada		Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte		Veladero		Turquoise Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Golden Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	1	$	14		$	4	$	5	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
Non-controlling interest		—		(6	)		—		—		—		—			—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	1	$	8		$	4	$	5	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
	For the three months ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick Nevada		Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte		Veladero		Turquoise Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Golden Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	1	$	17		$	4	$	7	$	—	$	10		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Non-controlling interest		—		(9	)		—		—		—		(4	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	1	$	8		$	4	$	7	$	—	$	6		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
	For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick Nevada		Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte		Veladero		Turquoise Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Golden Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	3	$	72		$	16	$	17	$	—	$	7		$	1	$	—	$	3	$	2
Non-controlling interest		—		(28	)		—		—		—		(3	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	3	$	44		$	16	$	17	$	—	$	4		$	1	$	—	$	3	$	2
	For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick Nevada		Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte		Veladero		Turquoise Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Golden Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	2	$	90		$	17	$	27	$	—	$	39		$	1	$	—	$	2	$	2
Non-controlling interest		—		(39	)		—		—		—		(14	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	2	$	51		$	17	$	27	$	—	$	25		$	1	$	—	$	2	$	2
	For the year ended December 31, 2015
	Barrick Nevada		Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte		Veladero		Turquoise Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Golden Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	2	$	120		$	18	$	22	$	—	$	36		$	1	$	2	$	1	$	1
Non-controlling interest		—		(49	)		—		—		—		(13	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	2	$	71		$	18	$	22	$	—	$	23		$	1	$	2	$	1	$	1

- 161 -

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Cost of sales	$	399		$	319		$	814		$	107		$	84
Depreciation/amortization		(83	)		(45	)		(104	)		(24	)		(15	)
Treatment and refinement charges		157			167			178			41			43
Cash cost of sales applicable to equity method investments		245			203			23			75			53
Less: royalties		(38	)		(41	)		(101	)		(11	)		(9	)
By-product credits		(5	)		—			(1	)		(1	)		—
Other		—			—			72			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales	$	675		$	603		$	881		$	187		$	156
General & administrative costs		12			14			21			3			3
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization		12			7			6			3			2
Royalties		38			41			101			11			9
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6			—			—			1			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		204			169			177			67			48
All-in sustaining costs	$	947		$	834		$	1,186		$	272		$	218
Pounds sold – consolidated basis (millions pounds)		405			405			510			107			107
Cost of sales per pound1,2	$	1.77		$	1.41		$	1.65		$	1.79		$	1.43
C1 cash cost per pound1	$	1.66		$	1.49		$	1.73		$	1.72		$	1.47
All-in sustaining costs per pound1	$	2.34		$	2.05		$	2.33		$	2.51		$	2.04

1 Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

2 Cost of sales per pound related to copper is calculated using cost of sales including Barrick’s proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including Barrick’s proportionate share of copper pounds from its equity method investments).

- 162 -

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis, by operating site

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)	For the three months ended December 31
	2017									2016
	Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid
Cost of sales		73			104			23			59			84			11
Depreciation/amortization		(16	)		(24	)		(5	)		(13	)		(15	)		(3	)
Treatment and refinement charges		—			37			4			—			41			2
Less: royalties		—			(11	)		—			—			(9	)		—
By-product credits		—			—			—			—			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales		57			106			22			46			101			10
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization		—			3			—			—			3			—
Royalties		—			11			—			—			9			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		1			—			—			—			—			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		21			43			3			16			27			6
All-in sustaining costs		79			163			25			62			140			16
Pounds sold – consolidated basis (millions pounds)		32			65			10			31			70			6
Cost of sales per pound1,2		2.29			1.60			2.15			1.87			1.20			1.89
C1 cash cost per pound1		1.78			1.63			2.05			1.46			1.45			1.79
All-in sustaining costs per pound1		2.45			2.52			2.41			1.97			1.99			2.73

- 163 -

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)													For the years ended December 31
	2017									2016									2015
	Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid
Cost of sales	$	243		$	396		$	75		$	221		$	319		$	33		$	424		$	418		$	—
Depreciation/amortization		(55	)		(83	)		(17	)		(44	)		(45	)		(6	)		(50	)		(59	)		—
Treatment and refinement charges		—			144			14			—			161			6			—			178			—
Less: royalties		—			(38	)		—			—			(41	)		—			—			(101	)		—
By-product credits		—			—			(5	)		—			—			—			(1	)		—			—
Other		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			72			—
C1 cash cost of sales	$	188		$	419		$	67		$	177		$	394		$	33		$	373		$	508		$	—
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization		—			12			—			—			7			—			1			5			—
Royalties		—			38			—			—			41			—			—			101			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		4			2			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		58			123			23			56			96			17			78			99			—
All-in sustaining costs	$	250		$	594		$	90		$	233		$	538		$	50		$	452		$	713		$	—
Pounds sold – consolidated basis (millions pounds)		113			253			39			114			274			17			215			295			—
Cost of sales per pound1,2	$	2.15		$	1.57		$	1.90		$	1.93		$	1.16		$	1.98		$	1.97		$	1.42		$	—
C1 cash cost per pound1	$	1.66		$	1.66		$	1.70		$	1.55		$	1.44		$	1.97		$	1.74		$	1.72		$	—
All-in sustaining costs per pound1	$	2.21		$	2.35		$	2.30		$	2.05		$	1.97		$	2.98		$	2.11		$	2.42		$	—

1 Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

2 Cost of sales per pound applicable to copper is calculated using cost of sales including Barrick’s proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including Barrick’s proportionate share of copper pounds from its equity method investments).

Realized Prices

Realized price is a non-GAAP financial measure which excludes from sales:

• Unrealized gains and losses on non-hedge derivative contracts;

• Unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses on provisional pricing from copper and gold sales contracts;

• Sales attributable to ore purchase arrangements;

• Treatment and refining charges; and

• Export duties.

This measure is intended to enable Management to better understand the price realized in each reporting period for gold and copper sales because unrealized mark-to-market values of non-hedge gold and copper derivatives are subject to change each period due to changes in market factors such as market and forward gold and copper prices, so that prices ultimately realized may differ from those recorded. The exclusion of such unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses from the presentation of this performance measure enables investors to understand performance based on the realized proceeds of selling gold and copper production.

- 164 -

The gains and losses on non-hedge derivatives and receivable balances relate to instruments/balances that mature in future periods, at which time the gains and losses will become realized. The amounts of these gains and losses reflect fair values based on market valuation assumptions at the end of each period and do not necessarily represent the amounts that will become realized on maturity. Barrick also excludes export duties that are paid upon sale and netted against revenues as well as treatment and refining charges that are paid to the refiner on gold and copper concentrate sales that are netted against revenues. Barrick believes this provides investors and analysts with a more accurate measure with which to compare to market gold prices and to assess its gold sales performance. For those reasons, management believes that this measure provides a more accurate reflection of the Company’s past performance and is a better indicator of its expected performance in future periods.

The realized price measure is intended to provide additional information, and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measure is not necessarily indicative of sales as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate this measure differently. The following table reconciles realized prices to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

- 165 -

Reconciliation of Sales to Realized Price per ounce/pound

	For the years ended December 31
($ millions, except per ounce/pound information in dollars)	Gold									Copper
	2017			2016			2015			2017		2016		2015
Sales	$	7,631		$	7,908		$	7,813		$	608	$	466	$	1,002
Sales applicable to non-controlling interests		(810	)		(948	)		(826	)		—		—		—
Sales applicable to equity method investments1,2		—			—			—			427		293		26
Realized non-hedge gold/copper derivative (losses) gains		3			(2	)		—			—		—		—
Sales applicable to Pierina3		(153	)		(112	)		—			—		—		—
Treatment and refinement charges		1			16			14			157		167		178
Export duties		—			2			34			—		—		—
Revenues – as adjusted	$	6,672		$	6,864		$	7,035		$	1,192	$	926	$	1,206
Ounces/pounds sold (000s ounces/millions pounds)3		5,302			5,503			6,083			405		405		510
Realized gold/copper price per ounce/pound4	$	1,258		$	1,248		$	1,157		$	2.95	$	2.29	$	2.37

1 Represents sales of $325 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $259 million; 2015: $26 million) applicable to Barrick’s 50% equity method investment in Zaldívar and $116 million (2016: $40 million; 2015: $nil) applicable to its 50% equity method investment in Jabal Sayid.

2 Sales applicable to equity method investments are net of treatment and refinement charges.

3 Figures exclude Pierina from the calculation of realized price per ounce, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

4 Realized price per ounce/pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

Adjusted net earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure which excludes the following from net earnings:

• Impairment charges (reversals) related to intangibles, goodwill, property, plant and equipment, and investments;

• Acquisition/disposition gains/losses;

• Foreign currency translation gains/losses;

• Significant tax adjustments;

• Unrealized gains/losses on non-hedge derivative instruments; and

• Tax effect and non-controlling interest of the above items.

Management uses this measure internally to evaluate the Company’s underlying operating performance for the reporting periods presented and to assist with the planning and forecasting of future operating results. Management believes that adjusted net earnings is a useful measure of the Company’s performance because impairment charges, acquisition/disposition gains/losses and significant tax adjustments do not reflect the underlying operating performance of its core mining business and are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. Furthermore, foreign currency translation gains/losses and unrealized gains/losses from non-hedge derivatives are not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the reporting periods presented. The tax effect and non-controlling interest of the adjusting items are also excluded to reconcile the amounts to Barrick’s share on a post-tax basis, consistent with net earnings.

As noted, Barrick uses this measure for internal purposes. Management’s internal budgets and forecasts and public guidance do not reflect the types of items that the Company adjusts for.

- 166 -

Consequently, the presentation of adjusted net earnings enables investors and analysts to better understand the underlying operating performance of Barrick’s core mining business through the eyes of management. Management periodically evaluates the components of adjusted net earnings based on an internal assessment of performance measures that are useful for evaluating the operating performance of Barrick’s business segments and a review of the non-GAAP measures used by mining industry analysts and other mining companies.

Adjusted net earnings is intended to provide additional information only and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measures are not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate these measures differently. The following table reconciles these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

Reconciliation of Net Earnings to Net Earnings per Share, Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

($ millions, except per share amounts in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss) attributable to equity holders of the Company	$	1,438		$	655			($2,838	)		($314	)	$	425
Impairment charges (reversals) related to long-lived assets1		(212	)		(250	)		3,897			916			(304	)
Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses2		(911	)		42			(187	)		(29	)		7
Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses		72			199			120			12			18
Significant tax adjustments3		244			43			134			61			(16	)
Other expense adjustments4		178			114			135			17			39
Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments		(1	)		(32	)		11			5			(9	)
Tax effect and non-controlling interest5		68			47			(928	)		(415	)		95
Adjusted net earnings	$	876		$	818		$	344		$	253		$	255
Net earnings (loss) per share6		1.23			0.56			(2.44	)		(0.27	)		0.36
Adjusted net earnings per share6		0.75			0.70			0.30			0.22			0.22

1 Net impairment reversals for the current year primarily relate to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017 and impairment reversals at Lumwana during the fourth quarter of 2017, partially offset by net impairments at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project during the fourth quarter of 2017.

2 Disposition gains for the current year primarily relate to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project.

3 Significant tax adjustments for the current year primarily relate to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform.

4 Other expense adjustments for the current year primarily relate to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine.

5 Tax effect and non-controlling interest for the current year primarily relates to the impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project, tax provision at Acacia and Pueblo Viejo depreciation adjustment discussed above.

6 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share.

INTERESTS OF EXPERTS

The Company’s independent auditors are PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, who have issued an independent auditor’s report dated February 14, 2018 in respect of the Company’s consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 and for each of the years then ended and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has advised that they are independent with respect to the

- 167 -

Company within the meaning of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario CPA Code of Professional Conduct and the rules of the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Additional information, including directors’ and officers’ remuneration and indebtedness, principal holders of the Company’s securities and options to purchase securities is contained in the Company’s Management Information Circular and Proxy Statement dated March 16, 2018. As well, additional financial information is provided in the Company’s 2017 Annual Report, in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements (as prepared under IFRS) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial and Operating Results for the year ended December 31, 2017 (as prepared under IFRS), each of which is available electronically from SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and from EDGAR (www.sec.gov). Additional Information relating to Barrick is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

- 168 -

SCHEDULE “A” AUDIT COMMITTEE MANDATE

Purpose

1. The purpose of the Audit Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) is to assist the Board in its oversight of: (i) the financial reporting process and the quality, transparency and integrity of the Company’s financial statements and other related public disclosures; (ii) the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements relevant to the financial statements and financial reporting; (v) the external auditor’s qualifications and independence; and (vi) the performance of the internal audit function and the external auditor.

2. The function of the Committee is oversight. The members of the Committee are not full-time employees of the Company. The Company’s management is responsible for the preparation of the Company’s financial statements in accordance with applicable accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. The Company’s external auditor is responsible for the audit or review, as applicable, of the Company’s financial statements in accordance with applicable auditing standards and laws and regulations.

Committee Responsibilities

3. The Committee’s responsibilities shall include:

External Auditors

(a) retaining and terminating, and/or making recommendations to the Board of Directors and the shareholders with respect to the retention or termination of an external auditing firm to conduct review engagements on a quarterly basis and an annual audit of the Company’s financial statements;

(b) communicating to the external auditor that it is ultimately accountable to the Board and the Committee as representatives of the shareholders;

(c) obtaining and reviewing an annual report prepared by the external auditor describing: the firm’s internal quality control procedures; any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, or peer review, of the firm, or by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities, within the preceding five years, respecting one or more independent audits carried out by the firm, and any steps taken to deal with any such issues;

(d) evaluating the independence of the external auditor and any potential conflicts of interest and (to assess the auditor’s independence) all relationships between the external auditor and the Company, including obtaining and reviewing an annual report prepared by the external auditor describing all relationships between the external auditor and the Company;

(e) approving, or recommending to the Board of Directors for approval, all audit engagement fees and terms, as well as all non-audit engagements of the external auditor prior to the commencement of the engagement;

A -1-

(f) reviewing with the external auditor the plan and scope of the quarterly review and annual audit engagements;

(g) setting hiring policies with respect to the employment of current or former employees of the external auditor;

Financial Reporting

(h) reviewing, discussing and recommending to the Board for approval the annual audited financial statements and related management’s discussion and analysis of financial and operating results prior to filing with securities regulatory authorities and delivery to shareholders;

(i) reviewing and discussing with the external auditor the results of its reviews and audit, any issues arising and management’s response, including any restrictions on the scope of the external auditor’s activities or requested information and any significant disagreements with management, and resolving any disputes;

(j) reviewing, discussing and approving, or recommending to the Board for approval, the quarterly financial statements and quarterly management’s discussion and analysis of financial and operating results prior to filing with securities regulatory authorities and delivery to shareholders;

(k) reviewing and discussing with management and the external auditor the Company’s critical accounting policies and practices, material alternative accounting treatments, significant accounting and reporting judgments, material written communications between the external auditor and management (including management representation letters and any schedule of unadjusted differences) and significant adjustments resulting from the audit or review;

(l) reviewing and discussing with management the Company’s earnings press releases, as well as types of financial information and earnings guidance (if any) provided to analysts and ratings agencies;

(m) reviewing and discussing such other relevant public disclosures containing financial information as the Committee may consider necessary or appropriate;

(n) reviewing and discussing with management the disclosure controls relating to the Company’s public disclosure of financial information, including information extracted or derived from the financial statements, and periodically assessing the adequacy of such procedures;

Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting

(o) reviewing and discussing with management, the external auditor and the head of internal audit the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting, including reviewing and discussing any significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls, and any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting;

A -2-

(p) discussing the Company’s process with respect to risk assessment (including fraud risk), risk management and the Company’s major financial risks and financial reporting exposures, all as they relate to internal controls over financial reporting, and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such risks;

(q) reviewing and discussing with management the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and anti-fraud program and the actions taken to monitor and enforce compliance;

(r) establishing procedures for:

(i) the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints regarding accounting, internal controls or auditing matters; and

(ii) the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the Company of concerns regarding questionable accounting, internal controls or auditing matters;

Internal Audit

(s) reviewing and discussing with management, the external auditor and the head of internal audit the responsibilities and effectiveness of the Company’s internal audit function, including reviewing the internal audit mandate, independence, organizational structure, internal audit plans and adequacy of resources, receiving periodic internal audit reports and meeting privately with the head of internal audit on a periodic basis;

(t) approving in advance the retention and dismissal of the head of internal audit;

Other

(u) meeting separately, periodically, with each of management, the head of internal audit and the external auditor;

(v) reporting regularly to the Board and, where appropriate, making recommendations to management of the Company and/or to the Board;

(w) liaising with the Risk Committee of the Board, as appropriate, on matters relevant to the Company’s management of enterprise risks;

(x) reviewing and assessing its mandate and recommending any proposed changes to the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee of the Board on an annual basis; and

(y) evaluating the functioning of the Committee on an annual basis, including with reference to the discharge of its mandate.

A -3-

Responsibilities of the Committee Chair

4. The fundamental responsibility of the Committee Chair is to be responsible for the management and effective performance of the Committee and provide leadership to the Committee in fulfilling its mandate and any other matters delegated to it by the Board. To that end, the Committee Chair’s responsibilities include:

(a) working with the Executive Chairman and the Secretary to establish the frequency of Committee meetings and the agendas for meetings;

(b) providing leadership to the Committee and presiding over Committee meetings;

(c) facilitating the flow of information to and from the Committee and fostering an environment in which Committee members may ask questions and express their viewpoints;

(d) reporting to the Board with respect to the significant activities of the Committee and any recommendations of the Committee;

(e) liaising with the Chair of the Risk Committee of the Board, as appropriate, on matters relevant to the Company’s management of enterprise risks;

(f) leading the Committee in annually reviewing and assessing the adequacy of its mandate and evaluating its effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate; and

(g) taking such other steps as are reasonably required to ensure that the Committee carries out its mandate.

Powers

5. The Committee shall have the authority, including approval of fees and other retention terms, to obtain advice and assistance from outside legal, accounting or other advisors in its sole discretion, at the expense of the Company, which shall provide adequate funding for such purposes. The Company shall also provide the Committee with adequate funding for the ordinary administrative expenses of the Committee. The Committee shall have unrestricted access to information, management, the external auditor and the head of internal audit, including private meetings, as it considers necessary or appropriate to discharge its duties and responsibilities. The Committee may, in its discretion, delegate all or a portion of its duties and responsibilities to a subcommittee of the Committee.

Composition

6. The Committee shall be appointed by the Board annually and shall be comprised of a minimum of three directors. If an appointment of members of the Committee is not made as prescribed, the members shall continue as such until their successors are appointed.

7. All of the members of the Committee shall be directors whom the Board has determined are independent, taking into account the applicable rules and regulations of securities regulatory authorities and/or stock exchanges.

A -4-

8. Each member of the Committee shall be “financially literate” and at least one member of the Committee shall have “accounting or related financial management expertise”¹. At least one member of the Committee shall be an “audit committee financial expert”, as defined in the applicable rules and authorities and/or stock exchanges.

9. If a Committee member simultaneously serves on the audit committee of more than two other public companies, the Board shall make a determination as to whether such service impairs the ability of such member to serve effectively on the Committee and disclose such determination in the Company’s annual proxy statement.

Meetings

10. The Committee shall have a minimum of four meetings per year, to coincide with the Company’s financial reporting cycle. Additional meetings will be scheduled as considered necessary or appropriate, including to consider specific matters at the request of the external auditor or the head of internal audit.

11. The time and place of the meetings of the Committee, the calling of meetings and the procedure at such meetings shall be determined by the Chair of the Committee unless otherwise determined by the by-laws of the Company or by resolution of the Board, provided that all matters put forward for approval by the Committee shall be determined by majority vote.

¹  For purposes of this mandate, “financially literate” means the ability to read and understand a balance sheet, an income statement, a cash flow statement and the related notes that present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the Company’s financial statements, and “accounting or related financial management expertise” means the ability to analyze and interpret a full set of financial statements, including the related notes that present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the Company’s financial statements.

A -5-

EX-99.2

Exhibit 99.2

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Barrick’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting.

Barrick’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017. Barrick’s Management used the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) to evaluate the effectiveness of Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting. Based on management’s assessment, Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2017.

The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, as stated in their report which is located on pages 95 - 96 of Barrick’s 2017 Annual Financial Statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 94

EX-99.3

Exhibit 99.3

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY

Management’s Responsibility for Financial Statements

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared by and are the responsibility of the Board of Directors and Management of the Company.

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board and reflect Management’s best estimates and judgments based on currently available information. The Company has developed and maintains a system of internal controls in order to ensure, on a reasonable and cost effective basis, the reliability of its financial information.

The consolidated financial statements have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants. Their report outlines the scope of their examination and opinion on the consolidated financial statements.

Catherine Raw

Executive Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer

Toronto, Canada

February 14, 2018

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 93

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Barrick’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting.

Barrick’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017. Barrick’s Management used the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) to evaluate the effectiveness of Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting. Based on management’s assessment, Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2017.

The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, as stated in their report which is located on pages 95 - 96 of Barrick’s 2017 Annual Financial Statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 94

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Barrick Gold Corporation

Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Barrick Gold Corporation and its subsidiaries, (together, the company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flow and changes in equity for the years then ended, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the consolidated financial statements). We also have audited the company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IFRS). Also in our opinion, the company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

Basis for Opinions

The company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on the company’s consolidated financial statements and on the company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud,

      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

      PwC Tower, 18 York Street, Suite 2600, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J oB2

      T: +1 416 863 1133, F: +1 416 365 8215, www.pwc.com/ca

         “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.

and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

(Signed) “PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP”

Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

February 14, 2018

We have served as the company’s auditor since at least 1982. We have not determined the specific year we began serving as auditor of the company.

2

Consolidated Statements of Income

Barrick Gold Corporation
For the years ended December 31 (in millions of United States dollars, except per share data)	2017		2016
Revenue (notes 5 and 6)	$8,374		$8,558
Costs and expenses
Cost of sales (notes 5 and 7)	5,300		5,405
General and administrative expenses (note 11)	248		256
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses (notes 5 and 8)	354		237
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212	)	(250	)
Loss on currency translation (note 9b)	72		199
Closed mine rehabilitation (note 27b)	55		130
Income from equity investees (note 16)	(76	)	(20	)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)	(6	)	(12	)
Other expense (income) (note 9a)	(799	)	60
Income before finance items and income taxes	3,438		2,553
Finance costs, net (note 14)	(691	)	(775	)
Income before income taxes	2,747		1,778
Income tax expense (note 12)	(1,231	)	(917	)
Net income	$1,516		$861
Attributable to:
Equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$1,438		$655
Non-controlling interests (note 32)	$78		$206
Earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation (note 13)
Net income
Basic	$1.23		$0.56
Diluted	$1.23		$0.56

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 97 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

Barrick Gold Corporation  For the years ended December 31 (in millions of United States dollars)	2017		2016
Net income	$1,516		$861
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of taxes
Items that may be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss:
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	(16	)	16
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	23		64
Currency translation adjustments, net of tax $nil and $nil	9		95
Items that will not be reclassified to profit or loss:
Actuarial gain (loss) on post-employment benefit obligations, net of tax ($6) and ($4)	18		7
Net change on equity investments, net of tax $nil and $nil	4		6
Total other comprehensive income	38		188
Total comprehensive income	$1,554		$1,049
Attributable to:
Equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$1,476		$843
Non-controlling interests	$78		$206

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 98 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow

Barrick Gold Corporation  For the years ended December 31 (in millions of United States dollars)	2017		2016
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$1,516		$861
Adjustments for the following items:
Depreciation	1,647		1,574
Finance costs (note 14)	705		788
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212	)	(250	)
Income tax expense (note 12)	1,231		917
Currency translation losses (note 9b)	72		199
Loss (gain) on sale of non-current assets/investments (note 9a)	(911	)	42
Change in working capital (note 15)	(728	)	(428	)
Other operating activities (note 15)	(181	)	(63	)
Operating cash flows before interest and income taxes	3,139		3,640
Interest paid	(425	)	(513	)
Income taxes paid	(649	)	(487	)
Net cash provided by operating activities	2,065		2,640
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Property, plant and equipment
Capital expenditures (note 5)	(1,396	)	(1,126	)
Sales proceeds	28		135
Divestitures (note 4)	990		588
Investment purchases	(7	)	—
Net funds (invested) received from equity method investments	48		(9	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	(337	)	(412	)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Debt (note 25b)
Proceeds	—		5
Repayments	(1,533	)	(2,062	)
Dividends (note 31)	(125	)	(86	)
Funding from non-controlling interests (note 32)	13		70
Disbursements to non-controlling interests (note 32)	(139	)	(95	)
Debt extinguishment costs	(102	)	(129	)
Net cash used in financing activities	(1,886	)	(2,297	)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and equivalents	3		3
Net decrease in cash and equivalents	(155	)	(66	)
Cash and equivalents at beginning of year (note 25a)	2,389		2,455
Cash and equivalents at the end of year	$2,234		$2,389

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 99 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Balance Sheets

Barrick Gold Corporation  (in millions of United States dollars)	As at December 31, 2017			As at   December 31,   2016
ASSETS
Current assets
Cash and equivalents (note 25a)		$2,234		$2,389
Accounts receivable (note 18)		239		249
Inventories (note 17)		1,890		1,930
Other current assets (note 18)		321		306
Total current assets		4,684		4,874
Non-current assets
Non-current portion of inventory (note 17)		1,681		1,536
Equity in investees (note 16)		1,213		1,185
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)		13,806		14,103
Intangible assets (note 20a)		255		272
Goodwill (note 20b)		1,330		1,371
Deferred income tax assets (note 30)		1,069		977
Other assets (note 22)		1,270		946
Total assets		$25,308		$25,264
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current liabilities
Accounts payable (note 23)		$1,059		$1,084
Debt (note 25b)		59		143
Current income tax liabilities		298		283
Other current liabilities (note 24)		331		309
Total current liabilities		1,747		1,819
Non-current liabilities
Debt (note 25b)		6,364		7,788
Provisions (note 27)		3,141		2,363
Deferred income tax liabilities (note 30)		1,245		1,520
Other liabilities (note 29)		1,744		1,461
Total liabilities		14,241		14,951
Equity
Capital stock (note 31)		20,893		20,877
Deficit		(11,759	)	(13,074)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(169	)	(189)
Other		321		321
Total equity attributable to Barrick Gold Corporation shareholders		9,286		7,935
Non-controlling interests (note 32)		1,781		2,378
Total equity		11,067		10,313
Contingencies and commitments (notes 2, 17, 19 and 36)
Total liabilities and equity		$25,308		$25,264

 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Signed on behalf of the Board,
John L. Thornton, Chairman	Steven J. Shapiro, Director

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 100 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity

Barrick Gold Corporation			Attributable to equity holders of the Company
(in millions of United States dollars)	Common Shares (in thousands)		Capital stock		Retained earnings (deficit)			Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)1			Other2		Total equity attributable to shareholders			Non- controlling interests			Total equity
At January 1, 2017		1,165,574		$20,877		($13,074	)		($189	)		$321		$7,935			$2,378			$10,313
Net income		—		—		1,438			—			—		1,438			78			1,516
Total other comprehensive income		—		—		18			20			—		38			—			38
Total comprehensive income		—		$—		$1,456			$20			$—		$1,476			$78			$1,554
Transactions with owners
Dividends		—		—		(125	)		—			—		(125	)		—			(125	)
Dividend reinvestment plan		1,003		16		(16	)		—			—		—			—			—
Decrease in non-controlling interest (note 4b)		—		—		—			—			—		—			(493	)		(493	)
Funding from non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			13			13
Other decrease in non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			(195	)		(195	)
Total transactions with owners		1,003		$16		($141	)		$—			$—		($125	)		($675	)		($800	)
At December 31, 2017		1,166,577		$20,893		($11,759	)		($169	)		$321		$9,286			$1,781			$11,067
At January 1, 2016		1,165,081		$20,869		($13,642	)		($370	)		$321		$7,178			$2,277			$9,455
Net Income		—		—		655			—			—		655			206			861
Total other comprehensive income		—		—		7			181			—		188			—			188
Total comprehensive income		—		$—		$662			$181			$—		$843			$206			$1,049
Transactions with owners
Dividends		—		—		(86	)		—			—		(86	)		—			(86	)
Dividend reinvestment plan		493		8		(8	)		—			—		—			—			—
Funding from non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			70			70
Other decrease in non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			(175	)		(175	)
Total transactions with owners		493		$8		($94	)		$—			$—		($86	)		($105	)		($191	)
At December 31, 2016		1,165,574		$20,877		($13,074	)		($189	)		$321		$7,935			$2,378			$10,313

¹ Includes cumulative translation adjustments as at December 31, 2017: $73 million loss (2016: $82 million).

² Includes additional paid-in capital as at December 31, 2017: $283 million (December 31, 2016: $283 million) and convertible borrowings - equity component as at December 31, 2017: $38 million (December 31, 2016: $38 million).

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 101 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Barrick Gold Corporation.    Tabular dollar amounts in millions of United States dollars, unless otherwise shown. References to A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, GBP, PGK, SAR, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW are to Australian dollars, Argentinean pesos, Canadian dollars, Chilean pesos, Dominican pesos, Euros, British pound sterling, Papua New Guinea kina, Saudi riyal, Tanzanian shillings, South African rand, and Zambian kwacha, respectively.

1 > CORPORATE INFORMATION

Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick” or the “Company”) is a corporation governed by the Business Corporations Act (Ontario). The Company’s head and registered office is located at Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower, 161 Bay Street, Suite 3700, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S1. We are principally engaged in the production and sale of gold and copper, as well as related activities such as exploration and mine development. Our producing gold mines are located in Canada, the United States, Peru, and the Dominican Republic and our producing copper mine is in Zambia. Following the sale of 50% of our Veladero gold mine located in Argentina (noted in note 4a), we hold a 50% interest in the Veladero mine. We hold a 50% interest in KCGM, a gold mine located in Australia and hold a 50% equity interest in Barrick Niugini Limited (“BNL”), which owns a 95% interest in Porgera, a gold mine located in Papua New Guinea. We also hold a 63.9% equity interest in Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”), a company listed on the London Stock Exchange that owns gold mines and exploration properties in Africa. We have a 50% interest in Zaldívar, a copper mine located in Chile and a 50% interest in Jabal Sayid, a copper mine located in Saudi Arabia. We also have various gold projects located in South America and North America. We sell our gold and copper production into the world market.

2 > SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

a)    Statement of Compliance

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) under the historical cost convention, as modified by revaluation of derivative contracts and certain financial assets. Accounting policies are consistently applied to all years presented, unless otherwise stated. These consolidated financial statements were approved for issuance by the Board of Directors on February 14, 2018.

b)    Basis of Preparation

Subsidiaries

These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Barrick and its subsidiaries. All intercompany balances, transactions, income and expenses, and profits or losses have been eliminated on consolidation. We consolidate subsidiaries where we have the ability to exercise control. Control of an investee is defined to exist when we are exposed to variable returns from our involvement with the investee and have the ability to affect those returns through our power over the investee. Specifically, we control an investee if, and only if, we have all of the following: power over the investee (i.e., existing rights that give us the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the investee); exposure, or rights, to variable returns from our involvement with the investee; and the ability to use our power over the investee to affect its returns. For non wholly-owned, controlled subsidiaries, the net assets attributable to outside equity shareholders are presented as “non-controlling interests” in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet. Profit or loss for the period that is attributable to non-controlling interests is calculated based on the ownership of the minority shareholders in the subsidiary.

Joint Arrangements

A joint arrangement is defined as one over which two or more parties have joint control, which is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an arrangement. This exists only when the decisions about the relevant activities (being those that significantly affect the returns of the arrangement) require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control. There are two types of joint arrangements: joint operations (“JO”) and joint ventures (“JV”).

A JO is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities, relating to the arrangement. In relation to our interests in joint operations, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

A JV is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the net assets of the joint venture. Our investments in JVs are accounted for using the equity method.

On acquisition, an equity method investment is initially recognized at cost. The carrying amount of equity method investments includes goodwill identified on acquisition, net of any accumulated impairment losses. The carrying amount is adjusted by our share of post-acquisition net income or loss; depreciation, amortization or impairment of the fair value adjustments made on the underlying balance sheet at the date of acquisition; dividends; cash contributions; and our share of post-acquisition movements in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 102 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017:

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹ Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

² For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³ We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴ We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵ We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶ We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷ Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸ These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

c)    Business Combinations

On the acquisition of a business, the acquisition method of accounting is used, whereby the purchase consideration is allocated to the identifiable assets and liabilities on the basis of fair value at the date of acquisition. Provisional fair values allocated at a reporting date are finalized as soon as the relevant information is available, within a period not to exceed 12 months from the acquisition date with retroactive restatement of the impact of adjustments to those provisional fair values effective as at the acquisition date. Incremental costs related to acquisitions are expensed as incurred.

When the cost of the acquisition exceeds the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired, the difference is recorded as goodwill. If the fair value attributable to Barrick’s share of the identifiable net assets exceeds the cost of acquisition, the difference is recognized as a gain in the consolidated statement of income.

Non-controlling interests represent the fair value of net assets in subsidiaries, as at the date of acquisition, that are not held by Barrick and are presented in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet.

d)    Non-current Assets and Disposal Groups Held- for-Sale and Discontinued Operations

Non-current assets and disposal groups are classified as assets held-for-sale (“HFS”) if it is highly probable that the value of these assets will be recovered primarily through sale rather than through continuing use. They are recorded at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less cost of disposal. Impairment losses on initial classification as HFS and subsequent gains and losses on remeasurement are recognized in the income statement. Once classified as HFS, property, plant and equipment are no longer amortized. The assets and liabilities are presented as HFS in the consolidated balance sheet when the sale is highly probable, the asset or disposal group is available for immediate sale in its present condition and management is committed to the sale, which should be expected to be completed within one year from the date of classification.

A discontinued operation is a component of the Company that can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the Company and represents a major line of business or geographic area, and the value of this component is expected to be recovered primarily through sale rather than continuing use.

Results of operations and any gain or loss from disposal are excluded from income before finance items and income taxes and are reported separately as income/loss from discontinued operations.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 103 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e)    Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of the Company, for each subsidiary of the Company, and for joint arrangements and associates, is the currency of the primary economic environment in which it operates. The functional currency of all of our operations is the US dollar. We translate non-US dollar balances for these operations into US dollars as follows:

· Property, plant and equipment (“PP&E”), intangible assets and equity method investments using the rates at the time of acquisition;

· Fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) equity investments using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses permanently recorded in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”);

· Deferred tax assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in income tax expense;

· Other assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in other income/expense; and

· Income and expenses using the average exchange rate for the period, except for expenses that relate to non-monetary assets and liabilities measured at historical rates, which are translated using the same historical rate as the associated non-monetary assets and liabilities.

f)    Revenue Recognition

We record revenue when evidence exists that all of the following criteria are met:

· The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the product have been transferred to the buyer;

· Neither continuing managerial involvement to the degree usually associated with ownership, nor effective control over the goods sold, has been retained;

· The amount of revenue can be reliably measured;

· It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the sale will flow to us; and

· The costs incurred or to be incurred in respect of the sale can be reliably measured.

These conditions are generally satisfied when title passes to the customer.

Gold Bullion Sales

Gold bullion is sold primarily in the London spot market. The sales price is fixed on the date of sale based on the gold spot price. Generally, we record revenue from gold bullion sales at the time of physical delivery, which is also the date that title to the gold passes.

Concentrate Sales

Under the terms of concentrate sales contracts with independent smelting companies, gold and copper sales prices are provisionally set on a specified future date after shipment based on market prices. We record revenues under these contracts at the time of shipment, which is also when the risk and rewards of ownership pass to the smelting companies, using forward market gold and copper prices on the expected date that final sales prices will be determined. Variations between the price recorded at the shipment date and the actual final price set under the smelting contracts are caused by changes in market gold and copper prices, which result in the existence of an embedded derivative in accounts receivable. The embedded derivative is recorded at fair value each period until final settlement occurs, with changes in fair value classified as provisional price adjustments and included in revenue in the consolidated statement of income.

g)    Exploration and Evaluation (“E&E”)

Exploration expenditures are the costs incurred in the initial search for mineral deposits with economic potential or in the process of obtaining more information about existing mineral deposits. Exploration expenditures typically include costs associated with prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

Evaluation expenditures are the costs incurred to establish the technical and commercial viability of developing mineral deposits identified through exploration activities or by acquisition. Evaluation expenditures include the cost of (i) establishing the volume and grade of deposits through drilling of core samples, trenching and sampling activities in an ore body that is classified as either a mineral resource or a proven and probable reserve; (ii) determining the optimal methods of extraction and metallurgical and treatment processes; (iii) studies related to surveying, transportation and infrastructure requirements; (iv) permitting activities; and (v) economic evaluations to determine whether development of the mineralized material is commercially justified, including scoping, prefeasibility and final feasibility studies.

Exploration and evaluation expenditures are expensed as incurred unless management determines that probable future economic benefits will be generated as a result of the expenditures. Once the technical feasibility and commercial viability of a program or project has been demonstrated with a prefeasibility study, and we have recognized reserves in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101, we account for future expenditures incurred in the development of that program or project in accordance with our policy for Property, Plant and Equipment, as described in note 2n.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 104 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

h)    Production Stage

A mine that is under construction is determined to enter the production stage when the project is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. We use the following factors to assess whether these criteria have been met: (1) the level of capital expenditures compared to construction cost estimates; (2) the completion of a reasonable period of testing of mine plant and equipment; (3) the ability to produce minerals in saleable form (within specifications); and (4) the ability to sustain ongoing production of minerals.

When a mine construction project moves into the production stage, the capitalization of certain mine construction costs ceases and costs are either capitalized to inventory or expensed, except for capitalizable costs related to property, plant and equipment additions or improvements, open pit stripping activities that provide a future benefit, underground mine development or expenditures that meet the criteria for capitalization in accordance with IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.

i)    Earnings per Share

Earnings per share as computed by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share reflects the potential dilution that could occur if additional common shares are assumed to be issued under securities that entitle their holders to obtain common shares in the future. For stock options, the number of additional shares for inclusion in diluted earnings per share calculations is determined using the treasury stock method. Under this method, stock options that have an exercise price less than the average market price of our common shares are assumed to be exercised and the proceeds are used to repurchase common shares at the average market price for the period. The incremental number of common shares issued under stock options and repurchased from proceeds is included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share.

j)    Taxation

Current tax for each taxable entity is based on the local taxable income at the local statutory tax rate enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date and includes adjustments to tax payable or recoverable in respect of previous periods.

Deferred tax is recognized using the balance sheet method in respect of all temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities, and their carrying amounts for financial reporting purposes, except as indicated below.

Deferred income tax liabilities are recognized for all taxable temporary differences, except:

· Where the deferred income tax liability arises from the initial recognition of goodwill, or the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

· In respect of taxable temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, where the timing of the reversal of the temporary differences can be controlled and it is probable that the temporary differences will not reverse in the foreseeable future.

Deferred income tax assets are recognized for all deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses, to the extent that it is probable that taxable profit will be available against which the deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses can be utilized, except:

· Where the deferred income tax asset relating to the deductible temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

· In respect of deductible temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is probable that the temporary differences will reverse in the foreseeable future and taxable profit will be available against which the temporary differences can be utilized.

The carrying amount of deferred income tax assets is reviewed at each balance sheet date and reduced to the extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profit will be available to allow all or part of the deferred income tax asset to be utilized. To the extent that an asset not previously recognized fulfills the criteria for recognition, a deferred income tax asset is recorded.

Deferred tax is measured on an undiscounted basis at the tax rates that are expected to apply in the periods in which the asset is realized or the liability is settled, based on tax rates and tax laws enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date.

Current and deferred tax relating to items recognized directly in equity are recognized in equity and not in the income statement.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 105 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Royalties and Special Mining Taxes

Income tax expense includes the cost of royalties and special mining taxes payable to governments that are calculated based on a percentage of taxable profit whereby taxable profit represents net income adjusted for certain items defined in the applicable legislation.

Indirect Taxes

Indirect tax recoverable is recorded at its undiscounted amount, and is disclosed as non-current if not expected to be recovered within twelve months.

k)    Other Investments

Investments in publicly quoted equity securities that are neither subsidiaries nor associates are categorized as fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) pursuant to the irrevocable election available in IFRS 9 for these instruments. FVOCI equity investments (referred to as “other investments”) are recorded at fair value with all realized and unrealized gains and losses recorded permanently in OCI.

l)    Inventory

Material extracted from our mines is classified as either ore or waste. Ore represents material that, at the time of extraction, we expect to process into a saleable form and sell at a profit. Raw materials are comprised of both ore in stockpiles and ore on leach pads as processing is required to extract benefit from the ore. Ore is accumulated in stockpiles that are subsequently processed into gold/copper in a saleable form. The recovery of gold and copper from certain oxide ores is achieved through the heap leaching process. Work in process represents gold/copper in the processing circuit that has not completed the production process, and is not yet in a saleable form. Finished goods inventory represents gold/copper in saleable form.

Metal inventories are valued at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Cost is determined on a weighted average basis and includes all costs incurred, based on a normal production capacity, in bringing each product to its present location and condition. Cost of inventories comprises direct labor, materials and contractor expenses, including non-capitalized stripping costs; depreciation on PP&E including capitalized stripping costs; and an allocation of general and administrative costs. As ore is removed for processing, costs are removed based on the average cost per ounce/pound in the stockpile. Net realizable value is determined with reference to relevant market prices less applicable variable selling expenses.

Mine operating supplies represent commodity consumables and other raw materials used in the production process, as well as spare parts and other maintenance supplies that are not classified as capital items. Provisions are recorded to reduce mine operating

supplies to net realizable value, which is generally calculated by reference to its salvage or scrap value, when it is determined that the supplies are obsolete. Provisions are reversed to reflect subsequent recoveries in net realizable value where the inventory is still on hand.

m)    Royalties

Certain of our properties are subject to royalty arrangements based on mineral production at the properties. The primary type of royalty is a net smelter return (NSR) royalty. Under this type of royalty we pay the holder an amount calculated as the royalty percentage multiplied by the value of gold production at market gold prices less third-party smelting, refining and transportation costs. Royalty expense is recorded on completion of the production or sales process in cost of sales. Other types of royalties include:

· Net profits interest (NPI) royalty to other than a government,

· Modified net smelter return (NSR) royalty,

· Net smelter return sliding scale (NSRSS) royalty,

· Gross proceeds sliding scale (GPSS) royalty,

· Gross smelter return (GSR) royalty,

· Net value (NV) royalty,

· Land tenement (LT) royalty, and a

· Gold revenue royalty.

n)    Property, Plant and Equipment

Estimated useful lives of Major Asset Categories

Buildings, plant and equipment	7 – 27 years
Underground mobile equipment	5 - 7 years
Light vehicles and other mobile equipment	2 - 3 years
Furniture, computer and office equipment	2 - 3 years

Buildings, Plant and Equipment

At acquisition, we record buildings, plant and equipment at cost, including all expenditures incurred to prepare an asset for its intended use. These expenditures consist of: the purchase price; brokers’ commissions; and installation costs including architectural, design and engineering fees, legal fees, survey costs, site preparation costs, freight charges, transportation insurance costs, duties, testing and preparation charges.

We capitalize costs that meet the asset recognition criteria. Costs incurred that do not extend the productive capacity or useful economic life of an asset are considered repairs and maintenance expense and are accounted for as a cost of the inventory produced in the period.

Buildings, plant and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line basis over their expected useful life, which commences when the assets are considered available for use. Once buildings, plant and equipment are considered available for use they are measured at cost less

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 106 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

accumulated depreciation and applicable impairment losses.

Depreciation on equipment utilized in the development of assets, including open pit and underground mine development, is recapitalized as development costs attributable to the related asset.

Mineral Properties

Mineral properties consist of: the fair value attributable to mineral reserves and resources acquired in a business combination or asset acquisition; underground mine development costs; open pit mine development costs; capitalized exploration and evaluation costs; and capitalized interest. In addition, we incur project costs which are generally capitalized when the expenditures result in a future benefit.

i) Acquired Mining Properties

On acquisition of a mining property, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the proven and probable mineral reserves, mineral resources and exploration potential attributable to the property. The estimated fair value attributable to the mineral reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is depreciated on a units of production (“UOP”) basis whereby the denominator is the proven and probable reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction. The estimated fair value attributable to mineral resources that are not considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is not subject to depreciation until the resources become probable of economic extraction in the future. The estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses is recorded as an intangible asset and is not subject to depreciation until the property enters production.

ii) Underground Mine Development Costs

At our underground mines, we incur development costs to build new shafts, drifts and ramps that will enable us to physically access ore underground. The time over which we will continue to incur these costs depends on the mine life. These underground development costs are capitalized as incurred.

Capitalized underground development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis, whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current life of mine (“LOM”) plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

iii) Open Pit Mine Development Costs

In open pit mining operations, it is necessary to remove overburden and other waste materials to access ore from

which minerals can be extracted economically. The process of mining overburden and waste materials is referred to as stripping. Stripping costs incurred in order to provide initial access to the ore body (referred to as pre-production stripping) are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Pre-production stripping costs are capitalized until an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is extracted, after which time such costs are either capitalized to inventory or, if it qualifies as an open pit stripping activity that provides a future benefit, to PP&E. We consider various relevant criteria to assess when an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is produced. Some of the criteria considered would include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the amount of minerals mined versus total ounces in LOM ore; (2) the amount of ore tons mined versus total LOM expected ore tons mined; (3) the current stripping ratio versus the LOM strip ratio; and (4) the ore grade versus the LOM grade.

Stripping costs incurred during the production stage of a pit are accounted for as costs of the inventory produced during the period that the stripping costs are incurred, unless these costs are expected to provide a future economic benefit to an identifiable component of the ore body. Components of the ore body are based on the distinct development phases identified by the mine planning engineers when determining the optimal development plan for the open pit. Production phase stripping costs generate a future economic benefit when the related stripping activity: (1) improves access to a component of the ore body to be mined in the future; (2) increases the fair value of the mine (or pit) as access to future mineral reserves becomes less costly; and (3) increases the productive capacity or extends the productive life of the mine (or pit). Production phase stripping costs that are expected to generate a future economic benefit are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Capitalized open pit mine development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current LOM plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

Construction-in-Progress

Assets under construction are capitalized as construction-in-progress until the asset is available for use. The cost of construction-in-progress comprises its purchase price and any costs directly attributable to bringing it into working condition for its intended use. Construction-in-progress amounts related to development projects are included in the carrying amount of the development project. Construction-in-progress amounts incurred at operating mines are presented as a separate asset within PP&E.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 107 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Construction-in-progress also includes deposits on long lead items. Construction-in-progress is not depreciated. Depreciation commences once the asset is complete and available for use.

Leasing Arrangements

The determination of whether an arrangement is, or contains, a lease is based on the substance of the arrangement at inception date, including whether the fulfillment of the arrangement is dependent on the use of a specific asset or assets or whether the arrangement conveys a right to use the asset.

Leasing arrangements that transfer substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset to Barrick are classified as finance leases. Assets acquired via a finance lease are recorded as an asset with a corresponding liability at an amount equal to the lower of the fair value of the leased property and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Each lease payment is allocated between the liability and finance costs using the effective interest method, whereby a constant rate of interest expense is recognized on the balance of the liability outstanding. The interest element of the lease is charged to the consolidated statement of income as a finance cost.

PP&E assets acquired under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the asset and the lease term.

All other leases are classified as operating leases. Operating lease payments are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Capitalized Interest

We capitalize interest costs for qualifying assets. Qualifying assets are assets that require a significant amount of time to prepare for their intended use, including projects that are in the exploration and evaluation, development or construction stages. Qualifying assets also include significant expansion projects at our operating mines. Capitalized interest costs are considered an element of the cost of the qualifying asset which is determined based on gross expenditures incurred on an asset. Capitalization ceases when the asset is substantially complete or if active development is suspended or ceases. Where the funds used to finance a qualifying asset form part of general borrowings, the amount capitalized is calculated using a weighted average of rates applicable to the relevant borrowings during the period. Where funds borrowed are directly attributable to a qualifying asset, the amount capitalized represents the borrowing costs specific to those borrowings. Where surplus funds available out of money borrowed specifically to finance a project are temporarily invested, the total capitalized interest is reduced by

income generated from short-term investments of such funds.

Insurance

We record losses relating to insurable events as they occur. Proceeds receivable from insurance coverage are recorded at such time as receipt is receivable or virtually certain and the amount receivable is fixed or determinable. For business interruption insurance the amount recoverable is only recognized when receipt is virtually certain, as supported by notification of a minimum or proposed settlement amount from the insurance adjuster.

o)    Impairment (and Reversals of Impairment) of Non-Current Assets

We review and test the carrying amounts of PP&E and intangible assets with finite lives when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist. Impairment assessments on PP&E and intangible assets are conducted at the level of the cash generating unit (“CGU”), which is the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and includes most liabilities specific to the CGU. For operating mines and projects, the individual mine/project represents a CGU for impairment testing.

The recoverable amount of a CGU is the higher of Value in Use (“VIU”) and Fair Value Less Costs of Disposal (“FVLCD”). We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU amounts and therefore used as the recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes. An impairment loss is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of a CGU over its recoverable amount where both the recoverable amount and carrying value include the associated other assets and liabilities, including taxes where applicable, of the CGU. Where it is not appropriate to allocate the loss to a separate asset, an impairment loss related to a CGU is allocated to the carrying amount of the assets of the CGU on a pro rata basis based on the carrying amount of its non-monetary assets.

Impairment Reversal

An assessment is made at each reporting date to determine whether there is an indication that previously recognized impairment losses may no longer exist or may have decreased. A previously recognized impairment loss is reversed only if there has been a change in the assumptions used to determine the CGU’s recoverable amount since the last impairment loss was recognized. This reversal is recognized in the consolidated statements of income and is limited to the carrying value that would have been determined, net of any depreciation where applicable, had no impairment charge been recognized in prior years. When an impairment reversal is undertaken, the recoverable amount is assessed by reference to the higher of VIU and FVLCD. We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 108 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

amounts and therefore used as recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes.

p)    Intangible Assets

Intangible assets acquired by way of an asset acquisition or business combination are recognized if the asset is separable or arises from contractual or legal rights and the fair value can be measured reliably on initial recognition.

On acquisition of a mineral property in the exploration stage, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the exploration licenses acquired, including the fair value attributable to mineral resources, if any, of that property. The fair value of the exploration license is recorded as an intangible asset (acquired exploration potential) as at the date of acquisition. When an exploration stage property moves into development, the acquired exploration potential attributable to that property is transferred to mining interests within PP&E.

We also have water rights associated with our mineral properties. Upon acquisition, they are measured at initial cost and are depreciated when they are being used. They are also subject to impairment testing when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist.

q)    Goodwill

Under the acquisition method of accounting, the costs of business combinations are allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on the estimated fair value at the date of acquisition. The excess of the fair value of consideration paid over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. Goodwill is not amortized; instead it is tested for impairment in the fourth quarter and also when there is an indicator of impairment. At the date of acquisition, goodwill is assigned to the CGU or group of CGUs that is expected to benefit from the synergies of the business combination. For the purposes of impairment testing, goodwill is allocated to the Company’s operating segments, which are our individual mine sites and corresponds to the level at which goodwill is internally monitored by the Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President.

The recoverable amount of an operating segment is the higher of VIU and FVLCD. A goodwill impairment is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of the operating segment over its recoverable amount. Goodwill impairment charges are not reversible.

r)    Debt

Debt is recognized initially at fair value, net of financing costs incurred, and subsequently measured at amortized cost. Any difference between the amounts originally received and the redemption value of the debt is recognized in the consolidated statements of income over the period to maturity using the effective interest method.

s)        Derivative Instruments and Hedge Accounting

Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheet, classified based on contractual maturity. Derivative instruments are classified as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”), hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”) or non-hedge derivatives. Derivatives designated as either a fair value or cash flow hedge that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Derivative assets and derivative liabilities are shown separately in the balance sheet unless there is a legal right to offset and intent to settle on a net basis.

Fair Value Hedges

Changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges are recorded in the consolidated statements of income, together with any changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability or firm commitment that is attributable to the hedged risk.

Cash Flow Hedges

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges is recognized in equity. The gain or loss relating to the ineffective portion is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. Amounts accumulated in equity are transferred to the consolidated statements of income in the period when the forecasted transaction impacts earnings. When the forecasted transaction that is hedged results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability, the gains and losses previously deferred in equity are transferred from equity and included in the measurement of the initial carrying amount of the asset or liability.

When a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge expires or is sold and the forecasted transaction is still expected to occur, any cumulative gain or loss relating to the derivative that is recorded in equity at that time remains in equity and is recognized in the consolidated statements of income when the forecasted transaction occurs. When a forecasted transaction is no longer expected to occur, the cumulative gain or loss that was recorded in equity is immediately transferred to the consolidated statements of income.

Non-Hedge Derivatives

Derivative instruments that do not qualify as either fair value or cash flow hedges are recorded at their fair value

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 109 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

at the balance sheet date, with changes in fair value recognized in the consolidated statements of income.

t)    Embedded Derivatives

Derivatives embedded in other financial instruments or executory contracts are accounted for as separate derivatives when their risks and characteristics are not closely related to their host financial instrument or contract. In some cases, the embedded derivatives may be designated as hedges and are accounted for as described above.

u)    Environmental Rehabilitation Provision

Mining, extraction and processing activities normally give rise to obligations for environmental rehabilitation. Rehabilitation work can include facility decommissioning and dismantling; removal or treatment of waste materials; site and land rehabilitation, including compliance with and monitoring of environmental regulations; security and other site-related costs required to perform the rehabilitation work; and operation of equipment designed to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. The extent of work required and the associated costs are dependent on the requirements of relevant authorities and our environmental policies. Routine operating costs that may impact the ultimate closure and rehabilitation activities, such as waste material handling conducted as an integral part of a mining or production process, are not included in the provision. Abnormal costs arising from unforeseen circumstances, such as the contamination caused by unplanned discharges, are recognized as an expense and liability when the event that gives rise to an obligation occurs and reliable estimates of the required rehabilitation costs can be made.

Provisions for the cost of each rehabilitation program are normally recognized at the time that an environmental disturbance occurs or a new legal or constructive obligation is determined. When the extent of disturbance increases over the life of an operation, the provision is increased accordingly. The major parts of the carrying amount of provisions relate to closure/rehabilitation of tailings ponds, heap leach pads and waste dumps; demolition of buildings/mine facilities; ongoing water treatment; and ongoing care and maintenance and security of closed mines. Costs included in the provision encompass all closure and rehabilitation activity expected to occur progressively over the life of the operation at the time of closure and post-closure in connection with disturbances as at the reporting date. Estimated costs included in the determination of the provision reflect the risks and probabilities of alternative estimates of cash flows required to settle the obligation at each particular operation. The expected rehabilitation costs are estimated based on the cost of external contractors performing the work or the cost of performing the work internally depending on management’s intention.

The timing of the actual rehabilitation expenditure is dependent upon a number of factors such as the life and nature of the asset, the operating license conditions and the environment in which the mine operates. Expenditures may occur before and after closure and can continue for an extended period of time depending on rehabilitation requirements. Rehabilitation provisions are measured at the expected value of future cash flows, which exclude the effect of inflation, discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate. The unwinding of the discount, referred to as accretion expense, is included in finance costs and results in an increase in the amount of the provision. Provisions are updated each reporting period for changes to expected cash flows and for the effect of changes in the discount rate, and the change in estimate is added or deducted from the related asset and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Significant judgments and estimates are involved in forming expectations of future activities, the amount and timing of the associated cash flows and the period over which we estimate those cash flows. Those expectations are formed based on existing environmental and regulatory requirements or, if more stringent, our environmental policies which give rise to a constructive obligation.

When provisions for closure and rehabilitation are initially recognized, the corresponding cost is capitalized as an asset, representing part of the cost of acquiring the future economic benefits of the operation. The capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities is recognized in PP&E and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Adjustments to the estimated amount and timing of future closure and rehabilitation cash flows are a normal occurrence in light of the significant judgments and estimates involved. The principal factors that can cause expected cash flows to change are: the construction of new processing facilities; changes in the quantities of material in reserves and resources with a corresponding change in the life of mine plan; changing ore characteristics that impact required environmental protection measures and related costs; changes in water quality that impact the extent of water treatment required; changes in discount rates; changes in foreign exchange rates; changes in Barrick’s closure policies; and changes in laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment.

Rehabilitation provisions are adjusted as a result of changes in estimates and assumptions. Those adjustments are accounted for as a change in the corresponding cost of the related assets, including the related mineral property, except where a reduction in the provision is greater than the remaining net book value of

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 110 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

the related assets, in which case the value is reduced to nil and the remaining adjustment is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. In the case of closed sites, changes in estimates and assumptions are recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of income. For an operating mine, the adjusted carrying amount of the related asset is depreciated prospectively. Adjustments also result in changes to future finance costs.

v)    Litigation and Other Provisions

Provisions are recognized when a present obligation exists (legal or constructive), as a result of a past event, for which it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. Provisions are discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate and the accretion expense is included in finance costs.

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued, which may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

If the assessment of a contingency suggests that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reliably estimated, then a loss is recorded. When a contingent loss is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reliably estimated, then details of the contingent loss are disclosed. Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed unless they involve guarantees, in which case we disclose the nature of the guarantee. Legal fees incurred in connection with pending legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. Contingent gains are only recognized when the inflow of economic benefits is virtually certain.

w)    Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize the expense related to these plans over the vesting period, beginning once the grant has been approved and announced to the beneficiaries.

Cash-settled awards are measured at fair value initially using the market value of the underlying shares on the day preceding the date of the grant of the award and are required to be remeasured to fair value at each reporting date until settlement. The cost is then recorded over the vesting period of the award. This expense, and any changes in the fair value of the award, is recorded to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs. The cost of a cash-settled award is recorded within liabilities until settled. Barrick offers cash-settled

(Restricted Share Units (“RSU”), Deferred Share Units (“DSU”), Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”) and Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

Equity-settled awards are measured at fair value, using the Lattice model for stock options, with market related inputs as of the date of the grant. The cost is recorded over the vesting period of the award to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs (i.e., cost of sales or general and administrative) and the corresponding entry is recorded in equity. Equity-settled awards are not remeasured subsequent to the initial grant date. Barrick offers equity-settled (Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”), Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”) and Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

We use the accelerated method (also referred to as ‘graded’ vesting) for attributing stock option expense over the vesting period. Stock option expense incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”)

Under Barrick’s ESOP, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted to the individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest equally over four years, beginning in the year after granting. The ESOP arrangement has graded vesting terms, and therefore multiple vesting periods must be valued and accounted for separately over their respective vesting periods. The compensation expense of the instruments issued for each grant under the ESOP is calculated using the Lattice model. The compensation expense is adjusted by the estimated forfeiture rate which is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Restricted Share Units (“RSU”)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest within three years and upon vesting the employee will receive either cash or common shares, depending on the terms of the grant. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

A liability for RSUs is measured at fair value on the grant date and is subsequently adjusted for changes in fair

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 111 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

value. The liability is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period, with a corresponding charge to compensation expense, as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration. Compensation expenses for RSUs incorporate an estimate for expected forfeiture rates based on which the fair value is adjusted.

Deferred Share Units (“DSU”)

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive at least 75% of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs or cash to purchase common shares that cannot be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of until the Director leaves the Board. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director leaves the Board, at which time the cash value of the DSUs is paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized immediately. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any change in fair value recorded as compensation expense in the period. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. We also allow granting of DSUs to other officers and employees at the discretion of the Board Compensation Committee.

Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”)

Under our PRSU plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. PRSUs vest at the end of a three-year period and are settled in cash on the third anniversary of the grant date. Additional PRSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period. Vesting, and therefore the liability, is based on the achievement of performance goals and the target settlement ranges from 0% to 200% of the original grant of units.

The value of a PRSU reflects the value of a Barrick common share and the number of share units issued is adjusted for its relative performance against certain competitors and other internal financial performance measures. Therefore, the fair value of the PRSUs is determined with reference to the closing stock price at each remeasurement date.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense. The fair value is adjusted for the revised estimated forfeiture rate.

Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)

Under our PGSU plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one

Barrick common share. Annual PGSU awards are determined based on a multiple ranging from one to six times base salary (depending on position and level of responsibility) multiplied by a performance factor. The number of PGSUs granted to a plan participant is determined by dividing the dollar value of the award by the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant, or if the grant date occurs during a blackout period, by the greater of (i) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant date and (ii) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the first day following the expiration of the blackout. Upon vesting, the after-tax value of the award is used to purchase common shares and generally these shares cannot be sold until the employee retires or leaves Barrick. PGSUs vest at the end of the third year from the date of the grant.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense.

Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”)

Under our ESPP plan, certain Barrick employees can purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. Each year, employees may contribute 1%-6% of their combined base salary and annual short-term incentive, and Barrick will match 50% of the contribution, up to a maximum of C$5,000 per year.

Both Barrick and the employee make the contributions on a semi-monthly basis with the funds being transferred to a custodian who purchases Barrick Common Shares in the open market. Shares purchased with employee contributions have no vesting requirement; however, shares purchased with Barrick’s contributions vest approximately one year from contribution date. All dividend income is used to purchase additional Barrick shares.

Barrick records an expense equal to its semi-monthly cash contribution. No forfeiture rate is applied to the amounts accrued. Where an employee leaves prior to vesting, any accrual for contributions by Barrick during the year related to that employee is reversed.

Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)

Under our GESP plan, Barrick employees are awarded Company Common Shares. These shares vest immediately, but must be held until the employee ceases to be employed by the Company. Barrick recognizes the expense when the award is announced and has no ongoing liability.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 112 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

x)    Post-Retirement Benefits

Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans whereby we contribute up to 6% of the employee’s annual salary. We also have a retirement plan for certain officers of Barrick under which we contribute 15% of the officer’s annual salary and annual short-term incentive. The contributions are recognized as compensation expense as incurred. The Company has no further payment obligations once the contributions have been paid.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on employees’ years of service. Our policy is to fund the amounts necessary on an actuarial basis to provide enough assets to meet the benefits payable to plan members. Independent trustees administer assets of the plans, which are invested mainly in fixed-income and equity securities.

As well as the qualified plans, we have non-qualified defined benefit pension plans covering certain employees and former directors of Barrick. No funding is done on these plans and contributions for future years are required to be equal to benefit payments.

Actuarial gains and losses arising from experience adjustments and changes in actuarial assumptions are charged or credited to equity in OCI in the period in which they arise.

Our valuations are carried out using the projected unit credit method. We record the difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the present value of the plan obligations as an asset or liability on the consolidated balance sheets.

Pension Plan Assets and Liabilities

Pension plan assets, which consist primarily of fixed-income and equity securities, are valued using current market quotations. Plan obligations and the annual pension expense are determined on an actuarial basis and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including the market value of plan assets, estimates of the expected return on plan assets, discount rates, future wage increases and other assumptions.

The discount rate and life expectancy are the assumptions that generally have the most significant impact on our pension cost and obligation.

Other Post-Retirement Benefits

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees. Actuarial gains and losses resulting from variances between actual results

and economic estimates or actuarial assumptions are recorded in OCI.

y)    New Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Effective

IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

In May 2014, the IASB issued IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which covers principles that an entity shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from a contract with a customer. In September 2015, the IASB deferred the effective date of the standard to annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018, with earlier application permitted. We have not early adopted IFRS 15. In 2017 we completed our assessment of the impact on our consolidated financial statements. Our assessment is as follows:

· Bullion (gold and silver) sales – these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15.

· Concentrate (gold and copper) and cathode (copper) sales – the recognition of these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15, but we will begin separate presentation of the provisional pricing adjustments within our revenue note disclosure.

· Streaming arrangements – IFRS 15 requires us to treat deferred revenue earned on streaming transactions as variable, which must be adjusted each time there is a change in the underlying production profile. As at January 1, 2018, an insignificant opening balance sheet adjustment will be recorded upon transition to retroactively adjust the historical revenue recognized from our streaming transactions, resulting in an increase to our deferred revenue balance and a decrease in retained earnings. The retroactive adjustment reflects the change in the transaction price per unit due to a change in the life of mine production profile of the mines since the inception of the streaming agreements and the corresponding impact on accretion. Going forward, each time we have an update to the life of mine production profile (typically in the fourth quarter of each year) we will record an adjustment to revenue to retroactively adjust for the new number of ounces expected to be delivered to our streaming counterparty.

· We will use the modified retrospective approach of adoption.

IFRS 16 Leases

In January 2016, the IASB issued IFRS 16 Leases, which requires lessees to recognize assets and liabilities for most leases. Application of the standard is mandatory for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019, with earlier application permitted, provided the new revenue standard, IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, has been applied or is applied at the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 113 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

same date as IFRS 16. We are not early adopting IFRS 16. We expect that IFRS 16 will result in an increase in assets and liabilities as fewer leases will be expensed as payments are made. We expect an increase in depreciation and accretion expenses and also an increase in cash flow from operating activities as these lease payments will be recorded as financing outflows in our cash flow statement. We have developed a full implementation plan to determine the impact on our financial statements and internal controls. In fourth quarter 2017, we formed an IFRS 16 working group and began the process of compiling all of our existing operating leases and service contracts. In 2018, we will review the relevant agreements and determine which of the operating leases and service contracts are in scope for IFRS 16.

3 > CRITICAL JUDGMENTS, ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

Many of the amounts included in the consolidated balance sheet require management to make judgments and/or estimates. These judgments and estimates are continuously evaluated and are based on management’s experience and knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances. Actual results may differ from the estimates. Information about such judgments and estimates is contained in the description of our accounting policies and/or other notes to the financial statements. The key areas where judgments, estimates and assumptions have been made are summarized below.

Life of Mine (“LOM”) Plans and Reserves and Resources

Estimates of the quantities of proven and probable mineral reserves and mineral resources form the basis for our LOM plans, which are used for a number of important business and accounting purposes, including: the calculation of depreciation expense; the capitalization of production phase stripping costs; and forecasting the timing of the payments related to the environmental rehabilitation provision. In addition, the underlying LOM plans are used in the impairment tests for goodwill and non-current assets. In certain cases, these LOM plans have made assumptions about our ability to obtain the necessary permits required to complete the planned activities. We estimate our ore reserves and mineral resources based on information compiled by qualified persons as defined in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects requirements. To calculate our gold reserves, as at December 31, 2017 we have used a per ounce gold price of $1,200, compared to $1,000 short-term and $1,200 long-term as at December 31, 2016. To calculate our measured, indicated, and inferred gold resources, as at December 31, 2017 we have used a gold price assumption of $1,500 per ounce, consistent with the prior year. Refer to notes 19 and 21.

Inventory

The measurement of inventory including the determination of its net realizable value, especially as it relates to ore in stockpiles, involves the use of estimates. Estimation is required in determining the tonnage, recoverable gold and copper contained therein, and in determining the remaining costs of completion to bring inventory into its saleable form. Judgment also exists in determining whether to recognize a provision for obsolescence on mine operating supplies, and estimates are required to determine salvage or scrap value of supplies.

Estimates of recoverable gold or copper on the leach pads are calculated from the quantities of ore placed on the leach pads (measured tons added to the leach pads), the grade of ore placed on the leach pads (based on assay data) and a recovery percentage (based on ore type).

Impairment and Reversal of Impairment for Non-Current Assets and Impairment of Goodwill

Goodwill and non-current assets are tested for impairment if there is an indicator of impairment or reversal of impairment, and in the case of goodwill annually during the fourth quarter, for all of our operating segments. We consider both external and internal sources of information for indications that non-current assets and/or goodwill are impaired. External sources of information we consider include changes in the market, economic and legal environment in which the CGU operates that are not within its control and affect the recoverable amount of mining interests and goodwill. Internal sources of information we consider include the manner in which mining properties and plant and equipment are being used or are expected to be used and indications of economic performance of the assets. Calculating the FVLCD of CGUs for non-current asset and goodwill impairment tests requires management to make estimates and assumptions with respect to future production levels, operating, capital and closure costs in our LOM plans, future metal prices, foreign exchange rates, Net Asset Value (“NAV”) multiples, value of reserves outside LOM plans in relation to the assumptions related to comparable entities and the market values per ounce and per pound and discount rates. Changes in any of the assumptions or estimates used in determining the fair values could impact the impairment analysis. Refer to notes 2o, 2q and 21 for further information.

Provisions for Environmental Rehabilitation

Management assesses its provision for environmental rehabilitation on an annual basis or when new information becomes available. This assessment includes the estimation of the future rehabilitation costs, the timing of these expenditures, and the impact of changes in discount rates and foreign exchange rates. The actual future expenditures may differ from the amounts currently provided if the estimates made are significantly different than actual results or if there are significant

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 114 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

changes in environmental and/or regulatory requirements in the future. Refer to notes 2u and 27 for further information.

Taxes

Management is required to make estimations regarding the tax basis of assets and liabilities and related deferred income tax assets and liabilities, amounts recorded for uncertain tax positions, the measurement of income tax expense and indirect taxes, and estimates of the timing of repatriation of earnings, which would impact the recognition of withholding taxes and taxes related to the outside basis on subsidiaries/associates. A number of these estimates require management to make estimates of future taxable profit, as well as the recoverability of indirect taxes, and if actual results are significantly different than our estimates, the ability to realize the deferred tax assets and indirect tax receivables recorded on our balance sheet could be impacted. Refer to notes 2j, 12 and 30 for further information.

Contingencies

Contingencies can be either possible assets or possible liabilities arising from past events which, by their nature, will only be resolved when one or more future events not wholly within our control occur or fail to occur. The assessment of such contingencies inherently involves the exercise of significant judgment and estimates of the outcome of future events. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings or regulatory or government actions that may negatively impact our business or operations, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims or actions as well as the perceived merits of the nature and amount of relief sought or expected to be sought, when determining the amount, if any, to recognize as a contingent liability or assessing the impact on the carrying value of assets. Contingent assets are not recognized in the consolidated financial statements. Refer to note 36 for more information.

Pascua-Lama

The Pascua-Lama project received $484 million as at December 31, 2017 ($429 million as at December 31, 2016) in value added tax (“VAT”) refunds in Chile relating to the development of the Chilean side of the project. Under the current arrangement this amount plus interest of $313 million (2016: $236 million) must be repaid if the project does not evidence exports for an amount of $3,538 million within a term that expires on December 31, 2026. The terms of the current VAT arrangement in Chile are applicable to either an open pit or an underground mine design. We have recorded $221 million in VAT recoverable in Argentina as at December 31, 2017 ($255 million as at December 31, 2016) relating to the development of the Argentinean side of the project. These amounts may not be recoverable if the project does not

enter into production and are subject to devaluation risk as the amounts are recoverable in Argentinean pesos.

Streaming Transactions

The upfront cash deposit received from Royal Gold on the gold and silver streaming transaction for production linked to Barrick’s 60% interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine has been accounted for as deferred revenue as we have determined that it is not a derivative as it will be satisfied through the delivery of non-financial items (i.e., gold and silver) rather than cash or financial assets. It is our intention to settle the obligations under the streaming arrangement through our own production and if we were to fail to settle the obligations with Royal Gold through our own production, this would lead to the streaming arrangement becoming a derivative. This would cause a change to the accounting treatment, resulting in the revaluation of the fair value of the agreement through profit and loss on a recurring basis. Refer to note 29 for further details.

Our silver sale agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”) (formerly Silver Wheaton Corp.) requires us to deliver 25% of the life of mine silver production from the Pascua-Lama project once it is constructed and 100% of silver from Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines until March 31, 2018. The completion date for Pascua-Lama was originally December 31, 2015 but was subsequently extended to June 30, 2020. Per the terms of the amended silver purchase agreement, if the requirements of the completion guarantee have not been satisfied by June 30, 2020, the agreement may be terminated by Wheaton, in which case, they will be entitled to the return of the upfront cash consideration paid less credit for silver delivered up to the date of that event. The cash liability at December 31, 2017 is $262 million.

Refer to note 28 for a summary of our key financial risks.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 115 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Other Notes to the Financial Statements

	Note
Acquisitions and Divestitures		4
Segment information		5
Revenue		6
Cost of sales		7
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		8
Other expense (income)		9
Impairment reversals		10
General and administrative expenses		11
Income tax expense		12
Earnings per share		13
Finance costs, net		14
Cash flow - other items		15
Investments		16
Inventories		17
Accounts receivable and other current assets		18
Property, plant and equipment		19
Goodwill and other intangible assets		20
Impairment and reversal of non-current assets		21
Other assets		22
Accounts payable		23
Other current liabilities		24
Financial instruments		25
Fair value measurements		26
Provisions		27
Financial risk management		28
Other non-current liabilities		29
Deferred income taxes		30
Capital stock		31
Non-controlling interests		32
Remuneration of key management personnel		33
Stock-based compensation		34
Post-retirement benefits		35
Contingencies		36

4 > ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture
Veladero		$990		$—
Bald Mountain		—		423
Round Mountain		—		165
		$990		$588

a) Sale of 50% of Veladero

On April 6, 2017, we announced a strategic cooperation agreement with Shandong Gold Group Co., Ltd. (“Shandong”) where Shandong agreed to acquire 50 percent of Barrick’s Veladero mine in Argentina. The transaction closed on June 30, 2017 and we received total cash consideration of $990 million, which includes working capital adjustments of $30 million received in the fourth quarter of 2017. The transaction resulted in a gain of $718 million, partially on the sale of 50 percent to Shandong and partially upon remeasurement of our remaining interest in Veladero. We have accounted for our remaining 50 percent interest as a joint operation and consolidated our proportionate share of the assets and liabilities. We have recognized our share of the revenue and expenses of Veladero starting July 1, 2017.

In accordance with the acquisition method of accounting, the acquisition cost has been allocated to the underlying assets acquired and liabilities assumed. We completed the purchase price allocation in the fourth quarter of 2017 and recognized a deferred tax liability for the difference between the fair values and the tax base of those assets and now have an updated goodwill balance of $154 million, which is not deductible for tax purposes.

b) Sale of 25% of Cerro Casale

On March 28, 2017, we announced an agreement with Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”) to form a new partnership at the Cerro Casale Project in Chile. The transaction closed on June 9, 2017. Under the terms of the agreement, Goldcorp agreed to purchase a 25 percent interest in Cerro Casale from Barrick. This transaction, coupled with the concurrent purchase by Goldcorp of Kinross Gold Corporation’s (“Kinross”) 25 percent interest in Cerro Casale, resulted in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50 percent interest in the joint operation.

The total consideration received by Barrick and Kinross implies a fair value of $1.2 billion for 100 percent of Cerro Casale, which resulted in a reversal of impairment of $1.12 billion in the first quarter of 2017. Refer to note 21 to the Financial Statements for further details of the impairment reversal. We are accounting for our remaining 50 percent interest as a joint operation and consolidate our proportionate share of the assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses of Cerro Casale. We recognized a gain of $193 million due to the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 116 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

deconsolidation of the non-controlling interest in Cerro Casale in the second quarter of 2017.

As consideration for the 25 percent interest acquired from Barrick, Goldcorp will fund Barrick’s first $260 million of expenditures on the project and will spend an equivalent amount on its own behalf for a total project investment commitment of $520 million. Under the agreement, Goldcorp must spend a minimum of $60 million in the two-year period following closing, and then $80 million in each successive two-year period. The outstanding funding commitment will accrue interest at an annual rate of 4.75 percent. In the event that Goldcorp does not spend the minimum amount in any two-year period, 50 percent of any shortfall will be paid directly to Barrick in cash.

In addition, Goldcorp also funded Cerro Casale’s acquisition of a 100 percent interest in the adjacent Quebrada Seca property from Kinross upon closing. Upon a construction decision Goldcorp will pay Barrick $40 million in cash and Barrick will receive a 1.25 percent royalty on 25 percent of the gross revenues derived from metal production from both Cerro Casale and Quebrada Seca. The contingent consideration payable to Barrick has been recorded at its estimated fair value in other long-term assets.

Goldcorp entered into a separate agreement for the acquisition of Exeter Resource Corporation, whose sole asset is the Caspiche Project, located approximately 10 kilometers north of Cerro Casale. The acquisition of 100 percent of Exeter was completed in the third quarter and Goldcorp contributed the Caspiche Project into the joint venture at a total acquisition cost of approximately $157 million. The acquisition costs incurred by Goldcorp have been deducted from the $520 million total project investment commitment, but will not count towards the minimum expenditures for the initial two-year period. We have recorded a receivable of $181 million, split $15 million as short-term and $166 million as long-term, in other current assets and other long-term assets, respectively. Moving forward, this joint venture will be referred to as Norte Abierto and includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits.

c) Investment in Reunion Gold

On December 1, 2017, we announced the acquisition of 48 million common shares, representing approximately 15 percent of issued and outstanding common shares of Reunion Gold Corporation in a non-brokered private placement for total consideration of $9 million. Subsequent to acquisition of the shares, we will be accounting for our interest as other investments with changes in fair value recorded in OCI.

d) Acquisition of Robertson Property in Nevada

On June 7, 2017, we completed the acquisition of the Robertson Property in Nevada from Coral Gold Resources (“Coral”). Consideration paid by Barrick consisted of $16 million, the return of 4.15 million shares (approximate value of $1 million) held by Barrick and a sliding scale royalty on any future production from the Robertson Property.

e) Disposition of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain Mines

On January 11, 2016, we closed the sale of our Bald Mountain mine and our 50% interest in the Round Mountain mine. We received net cash consideration of $588 million, which reflected working capital adjustments of $22 million in the second quarter of 2016. The transactions resulted in a loss of $17 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 117 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

5 > SEGMENT INFORMATION

In the first quarter of 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. Barrick’s business is organized into eleven individual minesites, one grouping of two mine sites, one publicly traded company and one project. Barrick’s Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President, reviews the operating results, assesses performance and makes capital allocation decisions at the minesite, grouping, Company and/or project level. Therefore, each individual minesite, with the exception of Barrick Nevada, Acacia and the Pascua-Lama project, is an operating segment for financial reporting purposes. Our updated presentation of our reportable operating segments is now four individual gold mines (Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge), Barrick Nevada, Acacia and our Pascua-Lama project. The remaining operating segments, our remaining gold and copper mines, have been grouped into an “other” category and will not be reported on individually. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. Segment performance is evaluated based on a number of measures including operating income before tax, production levels and unit production costs. Certain costs are managed on a consolidated basis and are therefore not reflected in segment income.

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31,  2017	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1			Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,961		$1,076		$793		$24		$16			$1,052
Pueblo Viejo2		1,417		501		229		—		16			671
Lagunas Norte		514		177		68		4		6			259
Veladero		591		291		119		3		5			173
Turquoise Ridge		280		131		28		—		2			119
Acacia2		751		362		107		—		91			191
Pascua-Lama		—		—		8		125		(10	)		(123	)
Other Mines3		1,860		1,086		267		12		31			464
		$8,374		$3,624		$1,619		$168		$157			$2,806

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31, 2016	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1		Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,703		$1,089		$807		$19		$17		$771
Pueblo Viejo2		1,548		497		147		—		3		901
Lagunas Norte		548		180		96		3		9		260
Veladero		685		346		118		1		—		220
Turquoise Ridge		322		128		27		—		1		166
Acacia2		1,045		553		166		27		—		299
Pascua-Lama		—		—		7		59		1		(67	)
Other Mines3		1,707		958		188		6		52		503
		$8,558		$3,751		$1,556		$115		$83		$3,053

¹ Includes accretion expense, which is included with finance costs in the consolidated statements of income. For the year ended December 31, 2017, accretion expense was $55 million (2016: $41 million). Refer to note 9a for details of other expenses (income).

² Includes non-controlling interest portion of revenues, cost of sales and segment income for the year ended December 31, 2017, for Pueblo Viejo, $567 million, $285 million, $276 million (2016: $623 million, $249 million, $373 million) and Acacia, $271 million, $169 million, $69 million (2016: $377 million, $259 million, $108 million).

³ Includes cost of sales of Pierina for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $174 million (2016: $82 million).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 118 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Reconciliation of Segment Income to Income from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Segment income	$	2,806			$3,053
Other cost of sales/amortization1		(57	)		(98	)
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments		(186	)		(122	)
General and administrative expenses		(248	)		(256	)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments		901			(18	)
Impairment reversals		212			250
Loss on currency translation		(72	)		(199	)
Closed mine rehabilitation		(55	)		(130	)
Income from equity investees		76			20
Finance costs, net (includes non-segment accretion)2		(636	)		(734	)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives3		6			12
Income before income taxes	$	2,747			$1,778

¹ Includes all realized hedge losses of $27 million (2016: $73 million).

² Includes debt extinguishment losses of $127 million (2016: $129 million).

³ Includes unrealized non-hedge gains of $1 million (2016: $32 million).

Geographic Information

	Non-current assets				Revenue1
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		2017		2016
United States		$6,641		$6,768		$3,299		$3,081
Dominican Republic		3,480		3,540		1,417		1,548
Argentina		2,217		2,366		591		685
Chile		2,469		1,945		—		—
Tanzania		1,129		1,673		751		1,045
Peru		734		678		676		663
Australia		463		478		456		472
Zambia		787		473		612		466
Papua New Guinea		351		353		322		304
Saudi Arabia		371		346		—		—
Canada		625		503		250		294
Unallocated		1,357		1,267		—		—
Total		$20,624		$20,390		$8,374		$8,558

¹ Presented based on the location from which the product originated.

Capital Expenditures Information

	Segment Capital Expenditures1
	As at December 31, 2017	As at December 31, 2016
Barrick Nevada	$585		$358
Pueblo Viejo	114		101
Lagunas Norte	25		56
Veladero	173		95
Turquoise Ridge	36		32
Acacia	148		191
Pascua-Lama	6		20
Other Mines	259		230
Segment total	$1,346		$1,083
Other items not allocated to segments	36		36
Total	$1,382		$1,119

¹ Segment capital expenditures are presented for internal management reporting purposes on an accrual basis. Capital expenditures in the consolidated statements of cash flow are presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash expenditures were $1,396 million (2016: $1,126 million) and the decrease in accrued expenditures was $14 million (2016: $7 million decrease).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 119 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

6 > REVENUE

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gold bullion sales1
Spot market sales		$7,566		$7,650
Concentrate sales		65		258
		$7,631		$7,908
Copper concentrate sales1		$608		$466
Other sales2		$135		$184
Total		$8,374		$8,558

¹ Revenues include amounts transferred from OCI to earnings for commodity cash flow hedges (see note 25d). Revenue is presented net of direct sales taxes of $nil (2016: $2 million).

² Revenues include the sale of by-products from our gold and copper mines and energy sales to third parties from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

Principal Products

All of our gold mining operations produce gold in doré form, except Acacia’s gold mines of Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi, which produce both gold doré and gold concentrate. Gold doré is unrefined gold bullion bars usually consisting of 90% gold that is refined to pure gold bullion prior to sale to our customers. Concentrate is a processing product containing the valuable ore mineral from which most of the waste mineral has been eliminated. Our Lumwana and Jabal Sayid mines produce a concentrate that primarily contains copper. Incidental revenues from the sale of by-products, primarily copper, silver and energy at our gold mines, are classified within other sales.

Provisional Copper and Gold Sales

We have provisionally priced sales for which price finalization, referenced to the relevant copper and gold index, is outstanding at the balance sheet date. Our exposure at December 31, 2017 to the impact of movements in market commodity prices for provisionally priced sales is set out in the following table:

	Volumes subject to final pricing Copper (millions) Gold (000s)			Impact on net income before taxation of 10% movement in market price US$
As at December 31		2017	2016		2017	2016
Copper pounds		40	44		$13	$11
Gold ounces		—	13		—	2

For the year ended December 31, 2017, our provisionally priced copper sales included provisional pricing gains of $46 million (2016: $22 million loss) and our provisionally priced gold sales included provisional pricing adjustments of $1 million (2016: $nil).

At December 31, 2017, our provisionally priced copper sales subject to final settlement were recorded at average prices of $3.29/lb (2016: $2.51/lb). At December 31, 2017, there were no provisionally priced gold sales subject to final settlement. At December 31, 2016, our provisionally priced gold sales subject to final settlement were recorded at an average price of $1,152/oz. The sensitivities in the above tables have been determined as the impact of a 10% change in commodity prices at each reporting date, while holding all other variables, including foreign currency exchange rates, constant.

7 > COST OF SALES

	Gold				Copper				Other5				Total
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016
Direct mining cost1,2,3,4		$3,063		$3,215		$274		$228		$28		$77		$3,365		$3,520
Depreciation		1,529		1,504		83		45		35		25		1,647		1,574
Royalty expense		206		224		38		41		—		—		244		265
Community relations		38		37		4		5		2		4		44		46
Total		$4,836		$4,980		$399		$319		$65		$106		$5,300		$5,405

¹ Direct mining cost includes charges to reduce the cost of inventory to net realizable value of $21 million (2016: $68 million).

² Direct mining cost includes the costs of extracting by-products.

³ Includes employee costs of $1,051 million (2016: $1,048 million).

⁴ Cost of sales also includes costs associated with power sales to third parties from our Monte Rio power plant in the Dominican Republic up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

⁵ Other includes all realized hedge gains and losses and corporate amortization.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 120 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

8 > EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT EXPENSES

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Minesite exploration and evaluation1	$47	$44
Global exploration and evaluation1	126	88
Advanced project costs:
Pascua-Lama	122	59
Other	14	17
Corporate development	13	14
Business improvement and innovation	32	15
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses	$354	$237

¹ Approximates the impact on operating cash flow.

9 > OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME)

a) Other expense (income)

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Other Expense:
Bank charges	$23	$20
Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs1	53	—
Litigation	24	—
Miscellaneous write-offs	11	—
Other	43	15
Total other expense	$154	$35
Other Income:
(Gain) loss on sale of long-lived assets2	($911)	$42
Office closure	—	(4)
Other	(42)	(13)
Total other income	($953)	$25
Total	($799)	$60

¹ Primarily consists of severance, contractor, and inventory write-down costs.

² 2017 includes gains of $718 million from the 50% sale of Veladero and $193 million from the 25% sale of Cerro Casale. 2016 includes losses of $17 million from the sale of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain, and $39 million from the sale of Zaldivar.

b) Loss on currency translation

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Currency translation losses released as a result of  the disposal and reorganization of entities	$11	$91
Foreign currency translation losses	61	108
Total	$72	$199

10 > IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Impairment reversals of long-lived assets1	($224)	($250)
Impairment of intangibles1	12	—
Total	($212)	($250)

¹ Refer to note 21 for further details.

11 > GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Corporate administration1	$227	$201
Operating segment administration	21	55
Total2	$248	$256

¹ Includes $3 million (2016: $9 million) related to one-time severance payments.

² Includes employee costs of $98 million (2016: $153 million).

12 > INCOME TAX EXPENSE

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Tax on profit
Current tax
Charge for the year	$1,125	$911
Adjustment in respect of prior years	—	(2)
	$1,125	$909
Deferred tax
Origination and reversal of temporary differences in the current year	$112	$10
Adjustment in respect of prior years	(6)	(2)
	$106	$8
Income tax expense	$1,231	$917
Tax expense related to continuing operations
Current
Canada	$7	$7
International	1,118	902
	$1,125	$909
Deferred
Canada	($97)	($30)
International	203	38
	$106	$8
Income tax expense	$1,231	$917

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 121 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Currency Translation

Deferred tax balances are subject to remeasurement for changes in currency exchange rates each period. The most significant balances are Argentinean deferred tax liabilities. In 2017 and 2016, tax expense of $10 million and $23 million, respectively, primarily arose from translation losses due to the weakening of the Argentinean peso against the US dollar. These losses are included within deferred tax expense/recovery.

Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
At 26.5% statutory rate		$728			$471
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions1		(96	)		(134	)
Impact of foreign tax rates2		215			113
Expenses not tax deductible		24			54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets		(241	)		—
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets		66			—
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances		10			23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments		(7	)		(5	)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets		21			35
United States tax reform		(203	)		—
Non-recognition of US AMT credits		—			13
Adjustments in respect of prior years		(6	)		(4	)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities		172			70
Impact of tax rate changes		—			(13	)
United States withholding taxes		252			—
Other withholding taxes		18			11
Mining taxes		266			267
Other items		12			16
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917

¹ We are able to claim certain allowances and tax deductions unique to extractive industries that result in a lower effective tax rate.

² We operate in multiple foreign tax jurisdictions that have tax rates different than the Canadian statutory rate.

United States Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017 Tax Reform was enacted in the United States. The significant changes include: (i) a reduction from 35% to 21% in the corporate income tax rate effective January 1, 2018, which resulted in a deferred tax recovery of $343 million on our net deferred tax liability in the US, (ii) a repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) effective January 1, 2018, (iii) the mandatory repatriation of earnings and

profits of specified foreign corporations effective December 31, 2017, which resulted in an estimated one-time 2017 toll charge of $228 million, offset by (iv) the recognition of our previously unrecognized deferred tax asset on AMT credits in the amount of $88 million, which can be used to offset the one-time toll charge. The net one-time 2017 toll charge payable amount of $140 million is payable over 8 years. $129 million of this amount has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (see note 29). The impact of the United States Tax Reform may differ from this estimate due to changes in interpretations and assumptions we have made and guidance that may be issued.

Proposed Framework for Acacia Operations in Tanzania and the Increase to Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities in Tanzania

The terms of the Proposed Framework for Acacia Mining Operations in Tanzania were announced on October 19, 2017. The Proposed Framework indicates that in support of ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the government of Tanzania, on terms to be settled by a working group. A tax provision of $128 million had been recorded prior to December 31, 2016 in respect of tax disputes related to Acacia. Of this amount, $70 million was recorded in 2016. In the third quarter of 2017, an additional amount of $172 million was recorded as current tax expense. See note 36 for further information with respect to these matters.

United States Withholding Taxes

Prior to fourth quarter 2017, we had not previously recorded withholding tax related to the undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries because our intention was to reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries indefinitely. During fourth quarter 2017, we reassessed our intentions regarding those undistributed earnings. As a result of our reassessment, we concluded that it was no longer our intent to indefinitely reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries, and therefore in fourth quarter 2017, we recognized an increase in our income tax provision in the amount of $252 million, representing withholding tax on the undistributed United States earnings. $150 million was recorded in the tax charge for the year, and $102 million was recorded as deferred tax expense. Of the $150 million, $130 million has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (see note 29).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 122 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

13 > EARNINGS PER SHARE

For the years ended December 31 ($ millions, except shares in millions and per share amounts in dollars)	2017		2016
	Basic	Diluted	Basic	Diluted
Net income	$ 1,516	$ 1,516	$861	$861
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests	(78)	(78)	(206)	(206)
Net income attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$ 1,438	$ 1,438	$655	$655
Weighted average shares outstanding	1,166	1,166	1,165	1,165
Basic and diluted earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$ 1.23	$ 1.23	$0.56	$0.56

14 > FINANCE COSTS, NET

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Interest1	$511	$591
Amortization of debt issue costs	5	17
Amortization of discount	1	2
Gain on interest rate hedges	(6)	(1)
Accretion	67	50
Loss on debt extinguishment2	127	129
Finance income	(14)	(13)
Total	$691	$775

¹ Interest in the consolidated statements of cash flow is presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash interest paid was $425 million (2016: $513 million).

² 2017 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (4.10% notes due 2023, 6.95% notes due 2019, and Pueblo Viejo Project Financing). 2016 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (2.50% notes due 2018, 4.40% notes due 2021, 4.95% notes due 2020, 6.80% notes due 2018 and 6.95% notes due 2019).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 123 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

15 > CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS

Operating Cash Flows - Other Items

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Adjustments for non-cash income statement items:
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)		($6	)		($12	)
Stock-based compensation expense		80			82
Income from investment in equity investees (note 16)		(76	)		(20	)
Change in estimate of rehabilitation costs at closed mines		55			130
Net inventory impairment charges (note 17)		21			68
Change in other assets and liabilities		(196	)		(249	)
Settlement of rehabilitation obligations		(59	)		(62	)
Other operating activities		($181	)		($63	)
Cash flow arising from changes in:
Accounts receivable		$8			($5	)
Inventory		(372	)		(190	)
Other current assets		(278	)		(72	)
Accounts payable		(35	)		(190	)
Other current liabilities		(51	)		29
Change in working capital		($728	)		($428	)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 124 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

16 > INVESTMENTS

Equity Accounting Method Investment Continuity

	Kabanga			Jabal Sayid		Zaldívar			GNX			Total
At January 1, 2016		$30			$178		$990			$1			$1,199
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees		(1	)		2		27			(8	)		20
Funds invested		1			—		—			8			9
Working capital adjustments		—			—		6			—			6
Impairment charges		—			—		(49	)		—			(49	)
At December 31, 2016		$30			$180		$974			$1			$1,185
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees		(1	)		26		61			(10	)		76
Funds invested		1			—		—			11			12
Dividend		—			—		(60	)		—			(60	)
At December 31, 2017		$30			$206		$975			$2			$1,213
Publicly traded		No			No		No			No

Summarized Equity Investee Financial Information
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Revenue		$214			$80		$649			$518
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)		116			65		375			354
Depreciation		33			12		111			87
Finance expense		3			—		1			2
Other expense (income)		2			—		—			(5	)
Income from continuing operations before tax		$60			$3		$162			$80
Income tax expense		(8	)		—		(40	)		(25	)
Income from continuing operations after tax		$52			$3		$122			$55
Total comprehensive income		$52			$3		$122			$55
Summarized Balance Sheet
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Cash and equivalents		$50			$14		$72			$102
Other current assets1		70			56		563			482
Total current assets		$120			$70		$635			$584
Non-current assets		485			473		1,582			1,603
Total assets		$605			$543		$2,217			$2,187
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		$12			$—		$19			$23
Other current liabilities		35			27		110			84
Total current liabilities		$47			$27		$129			$107
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		379			391		20			33
Other non-current liabilities		13			11		99			80
Total non-current liabilities		$392			$402		$119			$113
Total liabilities		$439			$429		$248			$220
Net assets		$166			$114		$1,969			$1,967

¹ Zaldívar other current assets include inventory of $451 million (2016: $429 million).

The information above reflects the amounts presented in the financial information of the joint venture adjusted for differences between IFRS and local GAAP.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 125 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Reconciliation of Summarized Financial Information to Carrying Value
	Jabal Sayid1		Zaldívar
Opening net assets		$114		$1,967
Income for the period		52		122
Dividend		—		(120	)
Closing net assets, December 31		$166		$1,969
Barrick’s share of net assets (50%)		83		985
Equity earnings adjustment		—		(10	)
Goodwill recognition		123		—
Carrying value		$206		$975

¹ A $165 million non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV is presented as part of Other Assets (see note 22).

17 > INVENTORIES

	Gold		Copper
	As at  December 31,  2017	As at  December 31,  2016	As at  December 31,  2017	As at  December 31,  2016
Raw materials
Ore in stockpiles	$2,125	$2,067	$102	$72
Ore on leach pads	405	406	—	—
Mine operating supplies	515	585	79	62
Work in process	174	219	—	—
Finished products	168	50	3	5
	$3,387	$3,327	$184	$139
Non-current ore in stockpiles1	(1,681)	(1,536)	—	—
	$1,706	$1,791	$184	$139

¹ Ore that we do not expect to process in the next 12 months is classified within other long-term assets.

Inventory Impairment Charges

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Barrick Nevada		$—		$57
Golden Sunlight		6		7
Porgera		4		3
Pierina		11		1
Inventory impairment charges1		$21		$68

¹ Impairment charges in 2017 primarily relate to leach pad inventories at Pierina. Impairment charges in 2016 primarily relate to stockpiles at Cortez.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 126 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Ore in Stockpiles

	As at December 31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016
Gold
Barrick Nevada	$1,040	$1,128
Pueblo Viejo	538	475
Porgera	55	77
Kalgoorlie	138	127
Lagunas Norte	147	91
Buzwagi	109	64
North Mara	47	41
Veladero	22	38
Turquoise Ridge	26	22
Other	3	4
Copper
Lumwana	102	72
	$2,227	$2,139
Ore on Leach pads
	As at December 31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016
Gold
Veladero	$145	$172
Nevada	105	109
Lagunas Norte	143	97
Pierina	12	28
	$405	$406

Purchase Commitments

At December 31, 2017, we had purchase obligations for supplies and consumables of approximately $1,147 million (2016: $970 million).

18 > ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS

	As at December 31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016
Accounts receivable
Amounts due from concentrate sales	$110	$110
Receivable from Dominican Republic government1	1	30
Other receivables	128	109
	$239	$249
Other current assets
Derivative assets (note 25f)	$2	$1
Goods and services taxes recoverable2	167	239
Prepaid expenses	68	48
Other	84	18
	$321	$306

¹ Amounts receivable from the Dominican Republic government primarily relate to payments made by Pueblo Viejo on behalf of the government.

² Primarily includes VAT and fuel tax recoverables of $32 million in Tanzania, $49 million in Argentina, $3 million in Chile, $19 million in the Dominican Republic, and $8 million in Peru (Dec. 31, 2016: $124 million, $52 million, $32 million, $10 million and $6 million, respectively).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 127 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

19 > PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

	Buildings,     plant and     equipment			Mining     property costs     subject to     depreciation1,3			Mining     property costs     not subject to     depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2017
Net of accumulated depreciation		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
Additions4		158			219			1,966			2,343
Disposals		(72	)		(32	)		(1,093	)		(1,197	)
Depreciation		(878	)		(819	)		—			(1,697	)
Impairment reversals		(102	)		(359	)		715			254
Transfers5		551			449			(1,000	)		—
At December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
At December 31, 2017
Cost		$14,209			$21,068			$14,507			$49,784
Accumulated depreciation and impairments		(9,996	)		(14,416	)		(11,566	)		(35,978	)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
	Buildings,     plant and     equipment			Mining property     costs subject to     depreciation1,3			Mining property     costs not subject     to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2016
Cost		$13,782			$19,968			$14,734			$48,484
Accumulated depreciation and impairments		(9,098	)		(12,668	)		(12,284	)		(34,050	)
Net carrying amount – January 1, 2016		$4,684			$7,300			$2,450			$14,434
Additions4		71			272			933			1,276
Disposals		(80	)		—			(37	)		(117	)
Depreciation		(794	)		(995	)		—			(1,789	)
Impairment charges		217			79			3			299
Transfers5		458			538			(996	)		—
At December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
At December 31, 2016
Cost		$14,111			$20,778			$14,634			$49,523
Accumulated depreciation and impairments		(9,555	)		(13,584	)		(12,281	)		(35,420	)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103

¹ Includes capitalized reserve acquisition costs, capitalized development costs and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs other than exploration license costs included in intangible assets.

² Assets not subject to depreciation includes construction-in-progress, projects and acquired mineral resources and exploration potential at operating mine sites and development projects.

³ Assets subject to depreciation includes the following items for production stage properties: acquired mineral reserves and resources, capitalized mine development costs, capitalized stripping and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs.

⁴ Additions include revisions to the capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities.

⁵ Primarily relates to long-lived assets that are transferred to PP&E once they are placed into service.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 128 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

a)     Mineral Property Costs Not Subject to Depreciation

	Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2017		Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2016
Construction-in-progress1		$640		$466
Acquired mineral resources and exploration potential		24		24
Projects
Pascua-Lama		1,499		1,263
Norte Abierto		612		444
Donlin Gold		166		156
		$2,941		$2,353

¹ Represents assets under construction at our operating mine sites.

b)     Changes in Gold and Copper Mineral Life of Mine Plan

As part of our annual business cycle, we prepare updated estimates of proven and probable gold and copper mineral reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction for each mineral

property. This forms the basis for our LOM plans. We prospectively revise calculations of amortization expense for property, plant and equipment amortized using the UOP method, where the denominator is our LOM ounces. The effect of changes in our LOM on amortization expense for 2017 was a $91 million decrease (2016: $67 million decrease).

c)     Capital Commitments and Operating Leases

In addition to entering into various operational commitments in the normal course of business, we had commitments of approximately $118 million at December 31, 2017 (2016: $103 million) for construction activities at our sites and projects.

Operating leases are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term. At December 31, 2017, we have operating lease commitments totaling $68 million, of which $21 million is expected to be paid within a year, $46 million is expected to be paid within two to five years and the remaining amount to be paid beyond five years.

20 > GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

a) Intangible Assets

	Water rights1			Technology2			Supply     contracts3			Exploration     potential4			Total
Opening balance January 1, 2016		$87			$12			$16			$156			$271
Additions		—			—			—			4			4
Amortization		—			(1	)		(2	)		—			(3	)
Closing balance December 31, 2016		$87			$11			$14			$160			$272
Additions		—			—			—			16			16
Disposals5		(16	)		—			—			—			(16	)
Amortization and impairment losses		—			(2	)		(3	)		(12	)		(17	)
Closing balance December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255
Cost		$71			$17			$39			$298			$425
Accumulated amortization and impairment losses		—			(8	)		(28	)		(134	)		(170	)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255

¹ Relates to water rights in South America, and will be amortized through cost of sales when we begin using these in the future.

² The amount is amortized through cost of sales using the UOP method over LOM ounces of the Pueblo Viejo mine, with no assumed residual value.

³ Relates to a supply agreement with Michelin North America Inc. to secure a supply of tires and is amortized over the effective term of the contract through cost of sales.

⁴ Exploration potential consists of the estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses acquired as a result of a business combination or asset acquisition. The carrying value of the licenses will be transferred to PP&E when the development of attributable mineral resources commences. See note 21 for details of impairment charges recorded against exploration assets.

⁵ Represents the net disposal as a result of the Cerro Casale sale. Refer to note 4b.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 129 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Goodwill

	Closing balance December 31, 2016		Disposals			Closing balance     December 31, 2017
Barrick Nevada1		$514		$—			$514
Veladero2		195		(41	)		154
Turquoise Ridge		528		—			528
Hemlo		63		—			63
Kalgoorlie		71		—			71
Total		$1,371		($41	)		$1,330

¹ In Q1 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. The prior period has been changed to reflect this presentation.

² Represents the net disposal as a result of the partial Veladero sale. Refer to note 4a.

On a total basis, the gross amount and accumulated impairment losses are as follows:

Cost	$8,618
Accumulated impairment losses December 31, 2017	(7,288	)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017	$1,330

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 130 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

21 > IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

Summary of impairments (reversals)

For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recorded net impairment reversals of $212 million (2016: $250 million) for non-current assets, as summarized in the following table:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Cerro Casale		($1,120	)		$—
Lumwana		(259	)		—
Bulyanhulu		740			—
Veladero		—			(275	)
Lagunas Norte		3			(28	)
Pascua-Lama		407			—
Zaldívar		—			49
Exploration sites		12			—
Other		5			4
Total impairment (reversals) of long-lived assets		($212	)		($250	)

2017 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2017

In the fourth quarter 2017, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note one indicator of potential impairment reversal. Additionally, as a result of events that occurred in the fourth quarter, we identified indicators of impairment at Acacia and Pascua-Lama as discussed below.

Also as a result of an increase in proven and probable reserves, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia that has resulted in a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2014. An impairment reversal in the amount of $259 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017. The recoverable amount based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $747 million.

Pascua-Lama

As described in note 36, on January 17, 2018 the Pascua-Lama project received a revised notice from the Chilean environmental regulators, which reduced the administrative fine and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the project in addition to certain monitoring activities. Given the impact on our ability to advance the project as an open pit operation and the subsequent reclassification of Pascua- Lama’s open-pit reserves to resources, this was determined to be an indicator of impairment in the fourth quarter of 2017 as it was the resolution of a condition that existed at December 31, 2017. We identified that the

carrying value of Pascua-Lama exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $429 million, based on a FVLCD of $850 million.

Acacia

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (“Ban”), impacting Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Subsequently, during the second quarter of 2017 two Presidential Committees reported their findings, following investigations, that Acacia and its predecessor companies have historically under-declared the contents of the exports of concentrate, resulting in a significant under-declaration of taxes. Acacia has refuted the findings of these committees, affirming that it has declared everything of commercial value that it has produced since it started operating in Tanzania and has paid all appropriate royalties and taxes on all of the payable minerals that it has produced.

In July 2017, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017.

At the beginning of September 2017, as a result of the ongoing concentrate export ban, Bulyanhulu commenced a program to reduce operational activity and expenditure in order to preserve the viability of the mine over the long term. This decision was identified by management as a potential indicator of impairment in the third quarter of 2017.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed on a framework with the Government of Tanzania for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the key terms of the proposed framework was reviewed by Acacia management and independent board members. Acacia has not yet been provided with a detailed proposal for a decision around the ongoing discussions between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania.

In the fourth quarter of 2017 Barrick identified several indicators of impairment, including but not limited to, the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania, the announcement of new legislation by the Government of Tanzania in respect of

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 131 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

the natural resources sector and the resulting decision to reduce operations at Bulyanhulu.

As a result of the updated LOM plan, which reflects the targeted outcome for a negotiated resolution in line with the proposed framework, we identified that the carrying value of Bulyanhulu exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $740 million, based on a FVLCD of $600 million (100% basis). Refer to note 36 for further details of the proposed framework.

Impairment assessments were also performed in the second and third quarters of 2017 and no impairment charges were recorded.

Cerro Casale - First Quarter 2017

As noted in note 4(b), on March 28, 2017, we announced the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale Project in Chile, which would result in Barrick retaining a 50% interest in the Project and this was deemed to be an indicator of impairment reversal in the first quarter of 2017. As such, in first quarter 2017, we recognized a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $1.12 billion. The recoverable amount, based on the fair value less cost to dispose as implied by the transaction price, was $1.2 billion.

2016 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2016

In the fourth quarter 2016, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note three indicators of potential impairment reversal.

As a result of improvements in the cost structure at our Veladero mine in Argentina, we have expanded the open pit in our LOM plan, increasing our expected production and the number of years in our plan. These changes increased Veladero’s FVLCD which has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2013. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount of $275 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2016. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $1.6 billion.

Also as a result of cost improvements, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lagunas Norte mine in Peru that has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount

of $28 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2015. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $630 million.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia completed a new LOM plan incorporating a lower cost structure. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana mine. Based on the level of uncertainty surrounding some of the assumptions in our FVLCD calculation, we determined there existed significant uncertainty as to whether or not a change in FVLCD existed that warranted a reversal in the previously recorded impairment.

Third Quarter 2016

In the third quarter of 2016 we agreed to an adjustment of the purchase price for the 50% interest in our Zaldívar mine. This adjustment resulted in a non-current asset impairment loss of $49 million. This is in addition to the goodwill impairment loss of $427 million we recognized in third quarter 2016, as detailed below. The recoverable amount after the impairment, based on the FVLCD of our 50% equity interest, was $950 million.

Second Quarter 2016

In June 2016, the Zambian government passed legislation to amend the royalty tax for mining operations to a variable rate based on the prevailing copper price effective June 1, 2016. These rates are 4% at copper prices below $2.04 per pound; 5% at copper prices between $2.04 per pound and $2.72 per pound; and 6% at copper prices of $2.72 per pound and above. Legislation was also passed to remove the 15% variable profit tax on income from mining companies. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana copper mine and we determined the FVLCD was not in excess of the carrying value and therefore no reversal was recorded.

Key Assumptions

The recoverable amount has been determined based on its estimated FVLCD, which has been determined to be greater than the VIU amounts. The key assumptions and estimates used in determining the FVLCD are related to commodity prices, discount rates, NAV multiples for gold assets, operating costs, exchange rates, capital expenditures, the LOM production profile, continued license to operate, evidence of value from current year disposals and for our projects the expected start of production. In addition, assumptions are related to observable market evaluation metrics, including identification of comparable entities, and associated market values per ounce and per pound of reserves and/or resources, as well as the valuation of resources beyond what is included in LOM plans.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 132 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Gold

For the gold segments where a recoverable amount was required to be determined, FVLCD was determined by calculating the net present value (“NPV”) of the future cash flows expected to be generated by the mines and projects within the segments (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). The estimates of future cash flows were derived from the most recent LOM plans and, where the LOM plans exclude a material portion of total reserves and resources, we assign value to reserves and resources not considered in these models. Based on observable market or publicly available data, including forward prices and equity sell-side analyst forecasts, we make an assumption of future gold and silver prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each gold mine are discounted using a real weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”), which reflects specific market risk factors for each mine. Some gold companies trade at a market capitalization greater than the NPV of their expected cash flows. Market participants describe this as a “NAV multiple”, which represents the multiple applied to the NPV to arrive at the trading price. The NAV multiple is generally understood to take account of a variety of additional value factors such as the exploration potential of the mineral property, namely the ability to find and produce more metal than what is currently included in the LOM plan or reserve and resource estimates, and the benefit of gold price optionality. As a result, we applied a specific NAV multiple to the NPV of each CGU within each gold segment based on the NAV multiples observed in the market in recent periods and that we judged to be appropriate to the CGU.

Pascua-Lama

The FVLCD for Pascua-Lama was determined by considering observable market values for comparable assets expressed as dollar per ounce of measured and indicated resources (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). We used the market approach as the LOM for Pascua-Lama has significant uncertainty with respect to the scope and estimated timeline for the project. The observable market values were adjusted, where appropriate, for country risk if the comparable asset was in a different country.

Copper

For our copper operating segments, the FVLCD for each of the CGUs was determined based on the NPV of future cash flows expected to be generated using the most recent LOM plans (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). Based on observable market or publicly available data including spot and forward prices and equity sell-side analyst consensus, we make an assumption of future copper prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each copper mine are discounted using a WACC depending on the location and market risk factors for each mine.

Assumptions

Our gold price assumptions used in our 2017 impairment testing is $1,200 per ounce. Our gold price assumptions used in our 2016 impairment testing were 2017: $1,050 per ounce and 2018+: $1,200 per ounce. The other key assumptions used in our impairment testing, based on the CGUs tested in each year, are summarized in the table below:

	2017		2016
Copper price per lb (long-term)		$2.75		$2.75
WACC - gold (range)		3%-11%		3%-6%
WACC - gold (avg)		6%		4%
WACC - copper		9%		9%
NAV multiple - gold (avg)		1.2		1.2
LOM years - gold (avg)		17		15
Value per ounce of gold		$30 - $55		n/a
Value per ounce of silver		$0.41 - $0.76		n/a

Sensitivities

Should there be a significant increase or decline in commodity prices, we would take actions to assess the implications on our life of mine plans, including the determination of reserves and resources, and the appropriate cost structure for the operating segments. The recoverable amount of the CGUs would be affected by these changes and also be impacted by other market factors such as changes in net asset value multiples and the value per ounce/pound of comparable market entities.

We performed a sensitivity analysis on each CGU that was tested as part of the goodwill impairment test, as well as those CGUs which have had an impairment or impairment reversal in recent years. We flexed the gold and copper prices and the WACC, which are the most significant assumptions that impact the impairment calculations. We first assumed a +/- $100 per ounce change in our gold price assumptions or a +/- $0.25 per pound change in copper price assumptions, while holding all other assumptions constant. We then assumed a +/- 1% change in our WACC, independent from the change in gold or copper prices, while holding all other assumptions constant. These sensitivities help to determine the theoretical impairment losses or impairment reversals that would be recorded with these changes in gold or copper prices and WACC. If the gold price per ounce was decreased by $100, a further non-current asset impairment of $172 million, net of tax, would be recognized for Bulyanhulu, with a similar increase in the gold price per ounce resulting in a reduction in the impairment of $172 million. The partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment reversal recorded for Lumwana would not be recognized if the copper price per ounce was decreased by $0.25 and would result in the recognition of a further impairment reversal of $303 million if the copper price per ounce was increased by $0.25. Lumwana was otherwise not affected by the sensitivity analysis.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 133 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Other results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows:

	(Impairment)/reversal based on
	Gold price	Gold price
Operating Segment	+$100	-$100
Pueblo Viejo	$546	($651)
Lagunas Norte	-	(311)
Veladero	-	(188)

We also performed a sensitivity analysis on our WACC, which is another key input that impacts the impairment calculations. We assumed a +/-1% change on the WACC, while holding all other assumptions constant, to determine the impact on impairment losses recorded, and whether any additional operating segments would be impacted. The results of this analysis are as follows:

A 1% decrease in the WACC would result in a partial reversal of $425 million of the non-current asset impairment recorded in 2015 at Pueblo Viejo. It would also result in the recognition of a further $63 million non-current asset impairment at Bulyanhulu, while a 1% increase in the WACC would result in a reduction of similar value in the impairment recognized at Bulyanhulu.

In addition, for our Pascua-Lama project, we have determined our valuation based on a market approach. The key assumption that impacts the impairment calculations is the value per ounce of gold and per pound of silver based on an analysis of comparable companies. We assumed a negative 10% change for the assumption of gold and silver value per ounce, while holding all other assumptions constant, and based on the results of the impairment testing performed in fourth quarter 2017 for Pascua-Lama, the fair value of the CGU would have been reduced from $850 million to $750 million. We note that this sensitivity identifies the decrease in the value that, in isolation, would cause the carrying value of the CGU to exceed its recoverable amount. For Pascua-Lama, this value decrease is linear to the decrease in value per ounce/pound.

The carrying value of the CGUs that are most sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the FVLCD calculation are:

As at December 31, 2017	Carrying Value
Pueblo Viejo1		$3,077
Veladero2		1,016
Lumwana3		849
Norte Abierto2,4		817
Bulyanhulu3		600
Lagunas Norte5		458
Buzwagi		194
Pascua-Lama3,6,7		$38

¹ This CGU had an impairment loss in 2015. As there have been no indicators of impairment or impairment reversal in 2017, the carrying value would remain sensitive to the key assumptions in the FVLCD model from 2015.

² As a result of partial divestments that occurred in 2017 (refer to notes 4a and 4b) these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the purchase price allocations.

³ As a result of the impairment/reversal recorded in 2017 these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁴ Norte Abierto is the new name of our joint venture with Goldcorp, comprised of the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵ As a result of the reversal recorded in 2016 this CGU was remeasured to fair value and is sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁶ The carrying value of Pascua-Lama includes the deferred revenue liability relating to the Wheaton Precious Metals stream ($812 million).

⁷ This CGU is most sensitive to changes in the value per ounce of comparable market entities.

22 > OTHER ASSETS

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December  31, 2016
Derivative assets (note 25f)		$1		$1
Goods and services taxes  recoverable1		398		303
Notes receivable2		279		274
Restricted cash3		119		118
Prepayments		42		51
Norte Abierto JV Partner  Receivable		166		—
Other		265		199
		$1,270		$946

¹ Includes VAT and fuel tax receivables of $220 million in Argentina, $132 million in Tanzania and $46 million in Chile (Dec. 31, 2016: $255 million, $8 million and $40 million, respectively). The VAT in Argentina is recoverable once Pascua-Lama enters production.

² Primarily represents the interest bearing promissory note due from NovaGold and the non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV as a result of the divestment of 50 percent interest in Jabal Sayid.

³ Represents cash balance at Pueblo Viejo that is contractually restricted to the disbursements for environmental rehabilitation that are expected to occur near the end of Pueblo Viejo’s mine life.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 134 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

23 > ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December  31, 2016
Accounts payable		$760		$749
Accruals		299		335
		$1,059		$1,084

24 > OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES

	As at December 31, 2017		As at  December  31, 2016
Provision for environmental rehabilitation (note 27b)		$152		$67
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)		30		50
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement		85		77
Share-based payments (note 34b)		17		53
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement		7		26
Other		40		36
		$331		$309

25 > FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Financial instruments include cash; evidence of ownership in an entity; or a contract that imposes an obligation on one party and conveys a right to a second entity to deliver/receive cash or another financial instrument. Information on certain types of financial instruments is included elsewhere in these consolidated financial statements as follows: accounts receivable (note 18); restricted share units (note 34b).

a) Cash and Equivalents

Cash and equivalents include cash, term deposits, treasury bills and money market investments with original maturities of less than 90 days.

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Cash deposits		$662		$1,009
Term deposits		427		654
Money market investments		1,145		726
		$2,234		$2,389

Of total cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2017, $305 million (2016: $943 million) was held in subsidiaries which have regulatory regulations, contractual restrictions or operate in countries where exchange controls and other legal restrictions apply and are therefore not available for general use by the Company.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 135 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Debt and Interest¹

	Closing balance December 31, 2016			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization   and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2017
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$1,467			$—		$—			$1			$1,468
3.85%/5.25% notes		1,078			—		—			1			1,079
5.80% notes4,9		395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9		593			—		—			—			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9		1,607			—		(279	)		(2	)		1,326
Project financing		400			—		(423	)		23			—
Capital leases7		114			—		(68	)		—			46
Other debt obligations		609			—		(4	)		(2	)		603
4.10%/5.75% notes8,9		1,569			—		(731	)		4			842
Acacia credit facility10		99			—		(28	)		—			71
		$7,931			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,423
Less: current portion11		(143	)		—		—			—			(59)
		$7,788			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,364

	Closing balance December 31, 2015			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2016
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$2,182			$—		($721	)		$6			$1,467
3.85%/5.25% notes		1,077			—		—			1			1,078
5.80% notes4,9		395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9		592			—		—			1			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9		2,451			—		(848	)		4			1,607
Project financing		646			—		(254	)		8			400
Capital leases7		153			2		(41	)		—			114
Other debt obligations		654			3		(46	)		(2	)		609
2.5%/4.10%/5.75% notes8,9		1,690			—		(123	)		2			1,569
Acacia credit facility10		128			—		(29	)		—			99
		$9,968			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,931
Less: current portion11		(203	)		—		—			—			(143)
		$9,765			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,788

¹ The agreements that govern our long-term debt each contain various provisions which are not summarized herein. These provisions allow Barrick, at its option, to redeem indebtedness prior to maturity at specified prices and also may permit redemption of debt by Barrick upon the occurrence of certain specified changes in tax legislation.

² Amortization of debt premium/discount and increases (decreases) in capital leases.

³ Consists of $1.5 billion (2016: $1.5 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick North America Finance LLC (“BNAF”). This consists of $629 million (2016: $629 million) of BNAF notes due 2021 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BNAF notes due 2041.

⁴ Consists of $400 million (2016: $400 million) of 5.80% notes which mature in 2034.

⁵ Consists of $600 million (2016: $600 million) of 6.35% notes which mature in 2036.

⁶ Consists of $1.3 billion (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF and our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”). This consists of $248 million (2016: $248 million) of BPDAF notes due 2020, $250 million (2016: $250 million) of BNAF notes due 2038 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BPDAF notes due 2039.

⁷ Consists primarily of capital leases at Pascua-Lama, $13 million and Lagunas Norte, $27 million (2016: $50 million and $56 million, respectively).

⁸ Consists of $850 million (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF.

⁹ We provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on all BNAF, BPDAF, Barrick Gold Finance Company (“BGFC”), and Barrick (HMC) Mining (“BHMC”) notes and generally provide such guarantees on all BNAF, BPDAF, BGFC, and BHMC notes issued, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

¹⁰ Consists of an export credit backed term loan facility.

¹¹ The current portion of long-term debt consists of project financing ($nil; 2016: $72 million), other debt obligations ($4 million; 2016: $5 million), capital leases ($27 million; 2016: $38 million) and Acacia credit facility ($28 million; 2016: $28 million).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 136 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1.75%/2.9%/4.4%/5.7% Notes

In June 2011, BNAF issued an aggregate of $4.0 billion in debt securities comprised of: $700 million of 1.75% notes that had an original maturity date in 2014 and $1.1 billion of 2.90% notes that had an original maturity date in 2016 issued by Barrick (collectively, the “Barrick Notes”) as well as $1.35 billion of 4.40% notes that mature in 2021 and $850 million of 5.70% notes that mature in 2041 issued by BNAF (collectively, the “BNAF Notes”). Barrick provides an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the BNAF Notes. The Barrick Notes and the guarantee in respect of the BNAF Notes will rank equally with Barrick’s other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, the entire balance ($700 million) of the 1.75% notes was repaid along with $871 million of the $1.1 billion of 2.9% notes. During 2015, the remainder ($229 million) of the $1.1 billion of 2.9% notes was repaid. During 2016, $721 million of the $1.35 billion of the 4.4% notes was repaid.

3.85% and 5.25% Notes

On April 3, 2012, we issued an aggregate of $2 billion in debt securities comprised of $1.25 billion of 3.85% notes that mature in 2022 and $750 million of 5.25% notes that mature in 2042. During 2015, $913 million of the 3.85% notes was repaid.

Other Fixed Rate Notes

On October 16, 2009, we issued two tranches of debentures totaling $1.25 billion through our wholly-owned indirect subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”) consisting of $850 million of 30-year notes with a coupon rate of 5.95%, and $400 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 4.95%. We also provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of these payments, which rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations. During 2016, $152 million of the $400 million of the 4.95% notes was repaid.

On March 19, 2009, we issued an aggregate of $750 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.95% for general corporate purposes. The notes are unsecured, unsubordinated obligations and rank equally with our other unsecured, unsubordinated obligations. During 2015, $275 million was repaid. During 2016, an additional $196 million was repaid. During 2017, the remaining $279 million was repaid.

In September 2008, we issued an aggregate of $1.25 billion of notes through our wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries Barrick North America Finance LLC and Barrick Gold Financeco LLC (collectively, the “LLCs”) consisting of $500 million of 5-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.125%, $500 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.8%, and $250 million of 30-year notes with a coupon rate of 7.5%. We also provide an

unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of these payments, which rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, the entire balance ($500 million) of the 5-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.125% that was due in September 2013 was repaid. During 2016, the entire balance ($500 million) of the 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.8% was repaid.

Pueblo Viejo Project Financing Agreement

In April 2010, Barrick and Goldcorp finalized terms for $1.035 billion (100% basis) in project financing for Pueblo Viejo. The project financing was non-recourse subject to guarantees provided by Barrick and Goldcorp for their proportionate share which would terminate upon Pueblo Viejo meeting certain operating completion tests and are subject to an exclusion for certain political risk events. On February 17, 2015, we received notification that the completion tests had been met, resulting in termination of the guarantees. The lending syndicate was comprised of international financial institutions including export development agencies and commercial banks.

We had drawn the entire $1.035 billion. During 2017, the remaining principal balance of the Pueblo Viejo Financing Agreement was fully repaid.

Refinancing of the Credit Facility

In January 2012, we finalized a credit and guarantee agreement (the “Credit Facility”, previously referred to as the “2012 Credit Facility”) with certain Lenders, which requires such Lenders to make available to us a credit facility of $4.0 billion or the equivalent amount in Canadian dollars. The Credit Facility, which is unsecured, currently has an interest rate of London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 2.00% on drawn amounts, and a commitment rate of 0.35% on undrawn amounts. In November 2017, $3.977 billion of the $4 billion credit facility was agreed to be extended from January 2022 to January 2023. The remaining $23 million currently terminates in January 2020. The Credit Facility is undrawn as at December 31, 2017.

2.50%/4.10%/5.75% Notes

On May 2, 2013, we issued an aggregate of $3 billion in notes through Barrick and our wholly-owned indirect subsidiary BNAF consisting of $650 million of 2.50% notes that mature in 2018, $1.5 billion of 4.10% notes that mature in 2023 and $850 million of 5.75% notes issued by BNAF that mature in 2043. $2 billion of the net proceeds from this offering were used to repay existing indebtedness under our $4 billion revolving credit facility. We provided an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on the $850 million of 5.75% notes issued by BNAF, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 137 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

During 2013, $398 million of the $650 million 2.50% notes were repaid. During 2015, $769 million of 4.10% notes and $129 million of 2.5% notes were repaid. During 2016, the remainder ($123 million) of the $650 million of the 2.50% notes was repaid. During 2017, the remaining $731 million of the 4.10% notes was repaid.

Acacia Credit Facility

In January 2013, Acacia concluded negotiations with a group of commercial banks for the provision of an export credit backed term loan facility (the “Facility”) for the amount of US $142 million. The Facility was put in place to fund a substantial portion of the construction costs of

the CIL circuit at the process plant at the Bulyanhulu Project. The Facility is collateralized by the Bulyanhulu Project, has a term of seven years and, when drawn, the spread over LIBOR will be 250 basis points. The Facility is repayable in equal installments over the term of the Facility, after a two-year repayment holiday period. The interest rate has been fixed at an effective rate of 3.6% through the use of an interest rate swap. At December 31, 2014, the full value of the Facility was drawn. During 2015, $14 million was repaid. During 2016, $29 million was repaid. During 2017, $28 million was repaid.

	2017			2016
For the years ended December 31	Interest cost		Effective rate1	Interest cost		Effective rate1
4.4%/5.7% notes		$77	5.23%		$104	5.09%
3.85%/5.25% notes		53	4.87%		53	4.87%
5.80% notes		23	5.85%		23	5.85%
6.35% notes		38	6.41%		38	6.41%
Other fixed rate notes		93	6.38%		128	6.75%
Project financing		14	7.04%		33	6.23%
Capital leases		3	3.60%		5	4.02%
Other debt obligations		31	6.55%		36	6.09%
4.10%/5.75% notes		72	5.12%		82	4.98%
Acacia credit facility		6	3.59%		7	3.59%
Deposits on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement (note 29)		66	8.37%		63	8.37%
Deposits on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement (note 29)		35	6.14%		37	6.34%
		$511			$609

¹ The effective rate includes the stated interest rate under the debt agreement, amortization of debt issue costs and debt discount/premium and the impact of interest rate contracts designated in a hedging relationship with debt.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 138 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Scheduled Debt Repayments¹

	Issuer		Maturity Year		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023 and thereafter		Total
4.95% notes3		BPDAF		2020		$—		$—		$248		$—		$—		$—		$248
7.31% notes2		BGC		2021		—		—		—		7		—		—		7
4.40% notes		BNAF		2021		—		—		—		629		—		—		629
3.85% notes		BGC		2022		—		—		—		—		337		—		337
7.73% notes2		BGC		2025		—		—		—		—		—		7		7
7.70% notes2		BGC		2025		—		—		—		—		—		5		5
7.37% notes2		BGC		2026		—		—		—		—		—		32		32
8.05% notes2		BGC		2026		—		—		—		—		—		15		15
6.38% notes2		BGC		2033		—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes		BGC		2034		—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes		BGFC		2034		—		—		—		—		—		200		200
6.45% notes2		BGC		2035		—		—		—		—		—		300		300
6.35% notes		BHMC		2036		—		—		—		—		—		600		600
7.50% notes3		BNAF		2038		—		—		—		—		—		250		250
5.95% notes3		BPDAF		2039		—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.70% notes		BNAF		2041		—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.25% notes		BGC		2042		—		—		—		—		—		750		750
5.75% notes		BNAF		2043		—		—		—		—		—		850		850
Other debt obligations2						4		5		—		—		—		—		9
Acacia credit facility						28		28		15		—		—		—		71
						$32		$33		$263		$636		$337		$5,109		$6,410
Minimum annual payments under capital leases						$27		$11		$4		$1		$1		$2		$46

¹ This table illustrates the contractual undiscounted cash flows, and may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the consolidated balance sheet.

² Included in Other debt obligations in the Long-Term Debt table.

³ Included in Other fixed rate notes in the Long-Term Debt table.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 139 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

c)    Derivative Instruments (“Derivatives”)

In the normal course of business, our assets, liabilities and forecasted transactions, as reported in US dollars, are impacted by various market risks including, but not limited to:

Item	Impacted by
●    Sales	●    Prices of gold, silver and copper
o    By-product credits	o    Prices of silver, copper and gold
●    Cost of sales
o    Consumption of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity	o    Prices of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity
o    Non-US dollar expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    General and administration, exploration and evaluation costs	●    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, GBP, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    Capital expenditures
o    Non-US dollar capital expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, GBP, PGK, and ZAR
o    Consumption of steel	o    Price of steel
●    Interest earned on cash and equivalents	●    US dollar interest rates
●    Interest paid on fixed-rate borrowings	●    US dollar interest rates

The time frame and manner in which we manage those risks varies for each item based upon our assessment of the risk and available alternatives for mitigating risk. For these particular risks, we believe that derivatives are an appropriate way of managing the risk.

We use derivatives as part of our risk management program to mitigate variability associated with changing market values related to the hedged item. Many of the derivatives we use meet the hedge effectiveness criteria and are designated in a hedge accounting relationship.

Certain derivatives are designated as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”) or hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”), collectively known as “accounting hedges”. Hedges that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Some of the derivatives we use are effective in achieving our risk management objectives, but they do not meet the strict hedge accounting criteria. These derivatives are considered to be “non-hedge derivatives”.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 140 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

d)    Summary of Derivatives at December 31, 2017

	Notional Amount by Term to Maturity								Accounting Classification by Notional Amount
	Within 1 year		2 to 3 years		4 to 5 years		Total		Cash flow hedge		Non-Hedge		Fair value (USD)
US dollar interest rate contracts (US$ millions)
Total receive - float swap positions		$28		$43		$—		$71		$71		$—		$1
Currency contracts
A$:US$ contracts (A$ millions)		21		—		—		21		—		21		—
C$:US$ contracts (C$ millions)		8		—		—		8		—		8		—
PGK:US$ contracts (PGK millions)		32		—		—		32		—		32		—
Commodity contracts
Gold collar sell contracts (thousands of ounces)		105		—		—		105		—		105		2
Copper bought floor contracts (millions of pounds)		60		—		—		60		60		—		(8	)
Fuel contracts (thousands of barrels)1		1,244		42		—		1,286		840		446		(24	)

¹ Fuel contracts represent a combination of WTI swaps and Brent options. These derivatives hedge physical supply contracts based on the price of fuel across our operating mine sites plus a spread. WTI represents West Texas Intermediate and Brent represents Brent Crude Oil.

Fair Values of Derivative Instruments

	Asset Derivatives						Liability Derivatives
	Balance Sheet Classification		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2016		Balance Sheet Classification		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at   Dec. 31, 2016
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments
US dollar interest rate contracts		Other assets		$1		$1		Other liabilities		$—		$—
Commodity contracts		Other assets		—		—		Other liabilities		25		71
Total derivatives classified as hedging instruments				$1		$1				$25		$71
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
Commodity contracts		Other assets		$2		$1		Other liabilities		$7		$7
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments				$2		$1				$7		$7
Total derivatives				$3		$2				$32		$78

As of December 31, 2017, we had 18 counterparties to our derivative positions. We proactively manage our exposure to individual counterparties in order to mitigate both credit and liquidity risks. We have six counterparties with which we hold a net asset position of $2 million, and 12 counterparties with which we are in a net liability position, for a total net liability of $31 million. On an ongoing basis, we monitor our exposures and ensure that none of the counterparties with which we hold outstanding contracts has declared insolvency.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 141 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

US Dollar Interest Rate Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

At December 31, 2017, Acacia has $71 million of pay-fixed receive-float interest rate swaps to hedge the floating rate debt associated with the Bulyanhulu plant expansion. These contracts, designated as cash flow hedges, convert the floating rate debt as it is drawn against the financing agreement.

Currency Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

During the year, no currency contracts have been designated against forecasted non-US dollar denominated expenditures. As at December 31, 2017, there are no outstanding currency contracts designated as cash flow hedges of our anticipated operating, administrative and sustaining capital spend.

During 2013, we sold back and effectively closed out approximately A $990 million of our Australian dollar forward contracts as a loss mitigation strategy. No cash settlement occurred and payments will net at maturity (2014-2016). During 2016, losses of $14 million were recognized in the consolidated statement of income based on the original hedge contract maturity dates. No losses remain crystallized in OCI at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017.

Commodity Contracts

Diesel/Propane/Electricity/Natural Gas

Cash Flow Hedges

During 2015, 8,040 thousand barrels of WTI contracts designated against forecasted fuel consumption at our mines were designated as hedging instruments as a result of adopting IFRS 9 and did not qualify for hedge accounting prior to January 1, 2015. As at December 31, 2017, we have 840 thousand barrels of WTI designated as cash flow hedges at an average rate of $79 per barrel of our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases at our mines.

Non-hedge Derivatives

During the year, Acacia entered into a contract to purchase 79 thousand barrels of Brent to economically hedge our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases for expected consumption at our mines. In total, on a combined basis Acacia has 206 thousand barrels of Brent swaps outstanding that economically hedge our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases at our mines.

Metals Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

During 2017, we purchased 115 million pounds of copper collars, of which 60 million pounds remain outstanding at December 31, 2017. The outstanding positions will mature evenly throughout the first half of 2018. These contracts contained purchased put and sold call options with weighted average strike prices of $2.83/lb and $3.25/lb, respectively. These contracts are designated as cash flow hedges, with the effective portion and the changes in time value of the hedge recognized in OCI and the ineffective portion recognized in non-hedge derivative gains (losses).

During 2014, we early terminated 65 million ounces of silver hedges. We realized net cash proceeds of approximately $190 million with $2 million remaining crystallized in OCI at December 31, 2017, to be recognized in revenue as the exposure occurs. Any unrealized changes and realized gains/losses on ineffective amounts or time value have been recognized in the consolidated statements of income as gains on non-hedge derivatives.

Non-hedge Derivatives

We enter into purchased and written contracts with the primary objective of increasing the realized price on some of our gold and copper sales. During the year, Acacia purchased gold put options of 210 thousand ounces. As a result of these activities, we recorded approximately $4 million in the consolidated statement of income as gains on non-hedge derivatives. There are 105 thousand ounces of gold positions outstanding at December 31, 2017.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 142 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”)

	Commodity price hedges									Currency hedges							Interest rate hedges
	Gold/Silver			Copper			Fuel			Operating costs			General and administrative costs		Capital expenditures		Long-term debt			Total
At January 1, 2016		$14			$—			($102	)		($30	)		$—		$—		($22	)		($140	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		—			—			23			2			—		—		—			25
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1		(5	)		—			47			28			—		—		2			72
At December 31, 2016		$9			$—			($32	)		$—			$—		$—		($20	)		($43	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		—			(11	)		(8	)		—			—		—		—			(19	)
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1		(7	)		4			27			—			—		—		3			27
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction		—			—			5			—			—		—		—			5
At December 31, 2017		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($17	)		($30	)
Hedge gains/losses classified within		Gold/Silver sales			Copper sales			Cost of sales			Cost of sales			General and administrative costs		Property, plant, and equipment		Interest expense			Total
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2018 earnings2		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($1	)		($14	)

¹ Realized gains (losses) on qualifying currency hedges of capital expenditures are transferred from OCI to PP&E on settlement.

² Based on the fair value of hedge contracts at December 31, 2017.

Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) at December 31

Derivatives in cash       flow hedging       relationships	Amount of gain (loss) recognized in OCI					Location of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income/PP&E (effective portion)	Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)						Location of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)		Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded  from effectiveness testing)
	2017			2016			2017			2016					2017			2016
Interest rate contracts		($1	)		$—	Finance income/ finance costs		($3	)		($2	)		Gain (loss) on non-  hedge derivatives		$—			$—
Foreign exchange contracts		—			2	Cost of sales/general and administrative costs/PP&E		—			(28	)		Gain (loss) on non-  hedge derivatives		—			—
Commodity contracts		(18	)		23	Revenue/cost of sales		(24	)		(42	)		Gain (loss) on non-  hedge derivatives		(5	)		—
Total		($19	)		$25			($27	)		($72	)				($5	)		$—

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 143 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e)    Gains (Losses) on Non-hedge Derivatives

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Commodity contracts
Gold		$4			$2
Silver1		7			6
Copper		(1	)		—
Fuel		—			5
Currency Contracts		1			(1	)
		$11			$12
Hedge ineffectiveness		(5	)		—
		$6			$12

¹ Relates to the amortization of crystallized OCI.

f)    Derivative Assets and Liabilities

	2017			2016
At January 1		($76	)		($263	)
Derivatives cash (inflow) outflow
Operating activities		62			156
Change in fair value of:
Non-hedge derivatives		4			6
Cash flow hedges:
Effective portion		(19	)		25
Ineffective portion		5			—
Excluded from effectiveness changes		(5	)		—
At December 31		($29	)		($76	)
Classification:
Other current assets		$2			$1
Other long-term assets		1			1
Other current liabilities		(30	)		(50	)
Other long-term obligations		(2	)		(28	)
		($29	)		($76	)

26 > FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy establishes three levels to classify the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (for example, interest rate and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, forward pricing curves used to value currency and commodity contracts and volatility measurements used to value option contracts), or inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data or other means. Level 3 inputs are unobservable (supported by little or no market activity). The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 inputs and the lowest priority to Level 3 inputs.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 144 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

a)    Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

Fair Value Measurements

At December 31, 2017	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)			Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Aggregate Fair Value
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—			$—		$2,234
Other investments		33		—			—		33
Derivatives		—		(29	)		—		(29	)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales		—		110			—		110
		$2,267		$81			$—		$2,348
Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2016	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)			Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Aggregate Fair Value
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—			$—		$2,389
Other investments		18		—			—		18
Derivatives		—		(76	)		—		(76	)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales		—		110			—		110
		$2,407		$34			$—		$2,441

b)    Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

	At December 31, 2017				At December 31, 2016
	Carrying amount		Estimated fair value		Carrying amount		Estimated fair value
Financial assets
Other assets1		$572		$572		$399		$399
Other investments2		33		33		18		18
Derivative assets		3		3		2		2
		$608		$608		$419		$419
Financial liabilities
Debt3		$6,423		$7,715		$7,931		$8,279
Derivative liabilities		32		32		78		78
Other liabilities		252		252		216		216
		$6,707		$7,999		$8,225		$8,573

¹ Includes restricted cash and amounts due from our partners.

² Recorded at fair value. Quoted market prices are used to determine fair value.

³ Debt is generally recorded at amortized cost except for obligations that are designated in a fair-value hedge relationship, in which case the carrying amount is adjusted for changes in fair value of the hedging instrument in periods when a hedge relationship exists. The fair value of debt is primarily determined using quoted market prices. Balance includes both current and long-term portions of debt.

We do not offset financial assets with financial liabilities.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 145 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

c)    Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Non-Recurring Basis

	Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1)		Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)		Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)		Aggregate fair value
Other assets1		$—		$—		$45		$45
Property, plant and equipment2		—		—		6,105		6,105
Intangible assets3		—		—		34		34

¹ Other assets were written down by $30 million, which was included in earnings in this period.

² Property, plant and equipment were written up by $254 million, which was included in earnings in this period, reflecting the historical impairment loss taken on these assets.

³ Intangibles were written down by $12 million, which was included in earnings in this period, to their fair value less costs of disposal of $34 million.

Valuation Techniques

Cash Equivalents

The fair value of our cash equivalents is classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices in active markets. Our cash equivalents are comprised of U.S. Treasury bills and money market securities that are invested primarily in U.S. Treasury bills.

Other Investments

The fair value of other investments is determined based on the closing price of each security at the balance sheet date. The closing price is a quoted market price obtained from the exchange that is the principal active market for the particular security, and therefore other investments are classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

Derivative Instruments

The fair value of derivative instruments is determined using either present value techniques or option pricing models that utilize a variety of inputs that are a combination of quoted prices and market-corroborated inputs. The fair value of all our derivative contracts includes an adjustment for credit risk. For counterparties in a net asset position, credit risk is based upon the observed credit default swap spread for each particular counterparty, as appropriate. For counterparties in a net liability position, credit risk is based upon Barrick’s observed credit default swap spread. The fair value of US dollar interest rate and currency swap contracts is determined by discounting contracted cash flows using a discount rate derived from observed LIBOR and swap rate curves and Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) rates. In the case of currency contracts, we convert non-US dollar cash flows into US dollars using an exchange rate derived from currency swap curves and CDS rates. The fair value of commodity forward contracts is determined by discounting contractual cash flows using a discount rate derived from observed LIBOR and swap rate curves and CDS rates. Contractual cash flows are calculated using a forward pricing curve derived from observed forward prices for each commodity. Derivative instruments are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Receivables from Provisional Copper and Gold Sales

The fair value of receivables arising from copper and gold sales contracts that contain provisional pricing mechanisms is determined using the appropriate quoted forward price from the exchange that is the principal active market for the particular metal. As such, these receivables, which meet the definition of an embedded derivative, are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Other Long-Term Assets

The fair value of property, plant and equipment, goodwill, intangibles and other assets is determined primarily using an income approach based on unobservable cash flows and a market multiples approach where applicable, and as a result is classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Refer to note 21 for disclosure of inputs used to develop these measures.

27 > PROVISIONS

a) Provisions

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Environmental rehabilitation (“PER”)		$2,944		$2,179
Post-retirement benefits		48		72
Share-based payments		37		34
Other employee benefits		27		45
Other		85		33
		$3,141		$2,363

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 146 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Environmental Rehabilitation

	2017			2016
At January 1	$	2,246		$	1,982
PERs divested during the year		(31	)		—
Closed Sites
Impact of revisions to expected cash flows recorded in earnings		46			146
Settlements
Cash payments		(41	)		(28	)
Settlement gains		(1	)		(1	)
Accretion		12			10
Operating Sites
PERs arising in the year		836			134
Settlements
Cash payments		(18	)		(34	)
Settlement gains		(1	)		(3	)
Accretion		48			40
At December 31	$	3,096		$	2,246
Current portion (note 24)		(152	)		(67	)
	$	2,944		$	2,179

The eventual settlement of substantially all PERs is expected to take place between 2018 and 2058.

The PER has increased in the fourth quarter of 2017 by $864 million primarily due to changes in cost estimates at our Pascua-Lama, Lagunas Norte and Veladero properties, partially offset by changes in discount rates. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our PER balance increased by $850 million as a result of various impacts at our mine sites including new requirements related to water treatment, expanded footprints of our operations and updated estimates for reclamation activities. A 1% increase in the discount rate would result in a decrease in PER by $385 million and a 1% decrease in the discount rate would result in an increase in PER by $257 million, while holding the other assumptions constant.

28 > FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

Our financial instruments are comprised of financial liabilities and financial assets. Our principal financial liabilities, other than derivatives, comprise accounts payable and debt. The main purpose of these financial instruments is to manage short-term cash flow and raise funds for our capital expenditure program. Our principal financial assets, other than derivative instruments, are cash and equivalents and accounts receivable, which arise directly from our operations. In the normal course of business, we use derivative instruments to mitigate exposure to various financial risks.

We manage our exposure to key financial risks in accordance with our financial risk management policy. The objective of the policy is to support the delivery of our financial targets while protecting future financial security.

The main risks that could adversely affect our financial assets, liabilities or future cash flows are as follows:

a. Market risk, including commodity price risk, foreign currency and interest rate risk;

b. Credit risk;

c. Liquidity risk; and

d. Capital risk management.

Management designs strategies for managing each of these risks, which are summarized below. Our senior management oversees the management of financial risks. Our senior management ensures that our financial risk-taking activities are governed by policies and procedures and that financial risks are identified, measured and managed in accordance with our policies and our risk appetite. All derivative activities for risk management purposes are carried out by the appropriate personnel.

a) Market Risk

Market risk is the risk that changes in market factors, such as commodity prices, foreign exchange rates or interest rates, will affect the value of our financial instruments. We manage market risk by either accepting it or mitigating it through the use of derivatives and other economic hedging strategies.

Commodity Price Risk

Gold and Copper

We sell our gold and copper production in the world market. The market prices of gold and copper are the primary drivers of our profitability and ability to generate both operating and free cash flow. Our corporate treasury group implements hedging strategies on an opportunistic basis to protect us from downside price risk on our gold and copper production. We have 60 million pounds of copper positions outstanding at December 31, 2017. Acacia has 105 thousand ounces of gold positions outstanding at December 31, 2017 and purchased an additional 120 thousand ounces of gold put options subsequent to year end. Our remaining gold and copper production is subject to market prices.

Fuel

On average we consume approximately 4 million barrels of diesel fuel annually across all our mines. Diesel fuel is refined from crude oil and is therefore subject to the same price volatility affecting crude oil prices. Therefore, volatility in crude oil prices has a significant direct and indirect impact on our production costs. To mitigate this volatility, we employ a strategy of using financial contracts to hedge our exposure to oil prices.

Foreign Currency Risk

The functional and reporting currency for all of our operating segments is the US dollar and we report our results using the US dollar. The majority of our operating and capital expenditures are denominated and settled in US dollars. We have exposure to the Australian dollar and

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 147 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Canadian dollar through a combination of mine operating costs and general and administrative costs; and to the Papua New Guinea kina, Peruvian sol, Chilean peso, Argentinean peso, Dominican Republic peso and Zambian kwacha through mine operating costs. Consequently, fluctuations in the US dollar exchange rate against these currencies increase the volatility of cost of sales, general and administrative costs and overall net earnings, when translated into US dollars.

Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk refers to the risk that the value of a financial instrument or cash flows associated with the instruments will fluctuate due to changes in market interest rates. Currently, our interest rate exposure mainly relates to interest receipts on our cash balances ($2.2 billion at the end of the year); the mark-to-market value of derivative instruments; the fair value and ongoing payments under US dollar interest-rate swaps; and to the interest payments on our variable-rate debt ($0.1 billion at December 31, 2017).

The effect on net earnings and equity of a 1% change in the interest rate of our financial assets and liabilities as at December 31, is approximately $10 million (2016: $13 million).

b) Credit Risk

Credit risk is the risk that a third party might fail to fulfill its performance obligations under the terms of a financial instrument. Credit risk arises from cash and equivalents, trade and other receivables as well as derivative assets. For cash and equivalents and trade and other receivables, credit risk exposure equals the carrying amount on the balance sheet, net of any overdraft positions. To mitigate our inherent exposure to credit risk we maintain policies to limit the concentration of credit risk, review counterparty creditworthiness on a monthly basis, and ensure liquidity of available funds. We also invest our cash and equivalents in highly rated financial institutions, primarily within the United States and other investment grade countries, which are countries rated BBB- or higher by S&P and include Canada, Chile, Australia and Peru. Furthermore, we sell our gold and copper production into the world market and to private customers with strong credit ratings. Historically customer defaults have not had a significant impact on our operating results or financial position.

For derivatives with a positive fair value, we are exposed to credit risk equal to the carrying value. When the fair value of a derivative is negative, we assume no credit risk. We mitigate credit risk on derivatives by:

· Entering into derivatives with high credit-quality counterparties;

· Limiting the amount of net exposure with each counterparty; and

· Monitoring the financial condition of counterparties on a regular basis.

The Company’s maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date is the carrying value of each of the financial assets disclosed as follows:

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December  31, 2016
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$2,389
Accounts receivable		239		249
Net derivative assets by counterparty		2		1
		$2,475		$2,639

c) Liquidity Risk

Liquidity risk is the risk of loss from not having access to sufficient funds to meet both expected and unexpected cash demands. We manage our exposure to liquidity risk by maintaining cash reserves, access to undrawn credit facilities and access to public debt markets, by staggering the maturities of outstanding debt instruments to mitigate refinancing risk and by monitoring of forecasted and actual cash flows. Details of the undrawn credit facility are included in note 25.

Our capital structure comprises a mix of debt and shareholders’ equity. As at December 31, 2017, our total debt was $6.4 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $4.2 billion) compared to total debt as at December 31, 2016 of $7.9 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $5.5 billion).

As part of our capital allocation strategy, we are constantly evaluating our capital expenditures and making reductions where the risk-adjusted returns do not justify the investment. Our primary source of liquidity is our operating cash flow. Other options to enhance liquidity include drawing the $4.0 billion available under our Credit Facility (subject to compliance with covenants and the making of certain representations and warranties, this facility is available for drawdown as a source of financing), further asset sales and issuances of debt or equity securities in the public markets or to private investors, which could be undertaken for liquidity enhancement and/or in connection with establishing a strategic partnership. Many factors, including, but not limited to, general market conditions and then prevailing metals prices could impact our ability to issue securities on acceptable terms, as could our credit ratings. Moody’s and S&P rate our long-term debt Baa3 and BBB-, respectively. Changes in our ratings could affect the trading prices of our securities and our cost of capital. If we were to borrow under our Credit Facility, the applicable interest rate on the amounts borrowed would be based, in part, on our credit ratings at the time. The key financial covenant, which was amended in the fourth quarter 2015, in the Credit Facility (undrawn as at December 31, 2017) requires Barrick to maintain a net debt to total capitalization ratio, as defined in the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 148 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

agreement, of 0.60:1 or lower (Barrick’s net debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.27:1 as at December 31, 2017).

The following table outlines the expected maturity of our significant financial assets and liabilities into relevant maturity groupings based on the remaining period from

the balance sheet date to the contractual maturity date. As the amounts presented in the table are the contractual undiscounted cash flows, these balances may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the balance sheet.

As at December 31, 2017  (in $ millions)	Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—		$—		$—		$2,234
Accounts receivable		239		—		—		—		239
Derivative assets		2		1		—		—		3
Trade and other payables		1,059		—		—		—		1,059
Debt		59		311		975		5,111		6,456
Derivative liabilities		30		2		—		—		32
Other liabilities		30		231		64		186		511
As at December 31, 2016  (in $ millions)		Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—		$—		$—		$2,389
Accounts receivable		249		—		—		—		249
Derivative assets		1		1		—		—		2
Trade and other payables		1,084		—		—		—		1,084
Debt		143		533		997		6,316		7,989
Derivative liabilities		51		27		—		—		78
Other liabilities		42		51		3		120		216

d) Capital Risk Management

Our objective when managing capital is to provide value for shareholders by maintaining an optimal short-term and long-term capital structure in order to reduce the overall cost of capital while preserving our ability to continue as a going concern. Our capital management objectives are to safeguard our ability to support our operating requirements on an ongoing basis, continue the development and exploration of our mineral properties and support any expansion plans. Our objectives are also to ensure that we maintain a strong balance sheet and optimize the use of debt and equity to support our business and provide financial flexibility in order to maximize shareholder value. We define capital as total debt less cash and equivalents and it is managed by management subject to approved policies and limits by the Board of Directors. We have no significant financial covenants or capital requirements with our lenders or other parties other than what is discussed under liquidity risk in note 28.

29 > OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

	As at  December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver  sale agreement		$805		$749
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and  silver streaming agreement		459		499
Long-term income tax payable		259		—
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)		2		28
Provision for offsite remediation		45		48
Other		174		137
		$1,744		$1,461

Silver Sale Agreement

Our silver sale agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”) (formerly Silver Wheaton Corp.) requires us to deliver 25 percent of the life of mine silver production from the Pascua-Lama project and 100 percent of silver production from the Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines (“South American mines”) until March 31, 2018. In return, we were entitled to an upfront cash payment of $625 million payable over three years from the date of the agreement, as well as ongoing payments in cash of the lesser of $3.90 (subject to an annual inflation adjustment of 1 percent starting three years after project completion at Pascua-Lama) and the prevailing market price for each ounce of silver delivered under the agreement. An imputed interest expense is being recorded on the liability at the rate implicit in the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 149 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

agreement. The liability plus imputed interest will be amortized based on the difference between the effective contract price for silver and the amount of the ongoing cash payment per ounce of silver delivered under the agreement.

Gold and Silver Streaming Agreement

On September 29, 2015, we closed a gold and silver streaming transaction with Royal Gold, Inc. (“Royal Gold”) for production linked to Barrick’s 60 percent interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine. Royal Gold made an upfront cash payment of $610 million and will continue to make cash payments for gold and silver delivered under the agreement. The $610 million upfront payment is not repayable and Barrick is obligated to deliver gold and silver based on Pueblo Viejo’s production. We have accounted for the upfront payment as deferred revenue and will recognize it in earnings, along with the ongoing cash payments, as the gold and silver is delivered to Royal Gold. We will also be recording accretion expense on the deferred revenue balance as the time value of the upfront deposit represents a significant component of the transaction.

Under the terms of the agreement, Barrick will sell gold and silver to Royal Gold equivalent to:

· 7.5 percent of Barrick’s interest in the gold produced at Pueblo Viejo until 990,000 ounces of gold have been delivered, and 3.75 percent thereafter.

· 75 percent of Barrick’s interest in the silver produced at Pueblo Viejo until 50 million ounces have been delivered, and 37.5 percent thereafter. Silver will be delivered based on a fixed recovery rate of 70 percent. Silver above this recovery rate is not subject to the stream.

Barrick will receive ongoing cash payments from Royal Gold equivalent to 30 percent of the prevailing spot prices for the first 550,000 ounces of gold and 23.1 million ounces of silver delivered. Thereafter payments will double to 60 percent of prevailing spot prices for each subsequent ounce of gold and silver delivered. Ongoing cash payments to Barrick are tied to prevailing spot prices rather than fixed in advance, maintaining exposure to higher gold and silver prices in the future.

30 > DEFERRED INCOME TAXES

Recognition and Measurement

We record deferred income tax assets and liabilities where temporary differences exist between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities in our balance sheet and their tax bases. The measurement and recognition of deferred income tax assets and liabilities takes into account: substantively enacted rates that will apply when temporary differences reverse; interpretations of relevant tax legislation; estimates of the tax bases of assets and liabilities; and the deductibility of expenditures for income

tax purposes. In addition, the measurement and recognition of deferred tax assets takes into account tax planning strategies. We recognize the effect of changes in our assessment of these estimates and factors when they occur. Changes in deferred income tax assets and liabilities are allocated between net income, other comprehensive income, and goodwill based on the source of the change.

Current income taxes of $239 million and deferred income taxes of $155 million have been provided on the undistributed earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries. Deferred income taxes have not been provided on the undistributed earnings of all other foreign subsidiaries for which we are able to control the timing of the remittance, and it is probable that there will be no remittance in the foreseeable future. These undistributed earnings amounted to $3,916 million as at December 31, 2017.

Sources of Deferred Income Tax Assets and Liabilities

	As at December 31, 2017			As at  December  31, 2016
Deferred tax assets
Tax loss carry forwards		$926		$735
Environmental rehabilitation		594		639
Property, plant and equipment		175		273
Post-retirement benefit obligations  and other employee benefits		49		47
Accrued interest payable		40		75
Other working capital		23		54
Derivative instruments		74		89
Other		21		41
		$1,902		$1,953
Deferred tax liabilities
Property, plant and equipment		(1,571	)	(1,963)
Inventory		(507	)	(533)
		($176	)	($543)
Classification:
Non-current assets		$1,069		$977
Non-current liabilities		(1,245	)	(1,520)
		($176	)	($543)

The deferred tax asset of $1,069 million includes $1,064 million expected to be realized in more than one year. The deferred tax liability of $1,245 million includes $1,228 million expected to be realized in more than one year.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 150 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Expiry Dates of Tax Losses

	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022+		No expiry date		Total
Non-capital tax losses1
Canada		$—		$—		$—		$—		$2,093		$—		$2,093
Argentina		—		—		—		271		—		—		271
Barbados		4,727		922		217		13		735		—		6,614
Chile		—		—		—		—		—		1,052		1,052
Tanzania		—		—		—		—		—		1,756		1,756
Zambia		115		—		—		12		404		—		531
Other		7		—		—		—		—		568		575
		$4,849		$922		$217		$296		$3,232		$3,376		$12,892

¹ Represents the gross amount of tax loss carry forwards translated at closing exchange rates at December 31, 2017.

The non-capital tax losses include $9,153 million of losses which are not recognized in deferred tax assets. Of these, $4,843 million expire in 2018, $922 million expire in 2019, $217 million expire in 2020, $296 million expire in 2021, $1,009 million expire in 2022 or later, and $1,866 million have no expiry date.

Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets

We recognize deferred tax assets taking into account the effects of local tax law. Deferred tax assets are fully recognized when we conclude that sufficient positive evidence exists to demonstrate that it is probable that a deferred tax asset will be realized. The main factors considered are:

· Historic and expected future levels of taxable income;

· Tax plans that affect whether tax assets can be realized; and

· The nature, amount and expected timing of reversal of taxable temporary differences.

Levels of future income are mainly affected by: market gold, copper and silver prices; forecasted future costs and expenses to produce gold and copper reserves; quantities of proven and probable gold and copper reserves; market interest rates; and foreign currency exchange rates. If these factors or other circumstances change, we record an adjustment to the recognition of deferred tax assets to reflect our latest assessment of the amount of deferred tax assets that is probable will be realized.

A deferred income tax asset totaling $661 million (December 31, 2016: $569 million) has been recorded in Canada. This deferred tax asset primarily arose from derivative realized losses, finance costs, and general and administrative expenses. A deferred tax asset totaling $98 million (December 31, 2016: $126 million) has been recorded in a foreign subsidiary. This deferred tax asset primarily arose from a realized loss on internal restructuring of subsidiary corporations. Projections of various sources of income support the conclusion that the realizability of these deferred tax assets is probable and

consequently, we have fully recognized these deferred tax assets.

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December   31, 2016
Australia		$158	$162
Canada		388	377
United States		—	115
Chile		993	890
Argentina		515	599
Barbados		66	66
Tanzania		209	183
Zambia		50	151
Saudi Arabia		70	70
		$2,449	$2,613

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized relate to: non-capital loss carry forwards of $690 million (2016: $638 million), capital loss carry forwards with no expiry date of $452 million (2016: $440 million), US AMT credits of $nil (2016: $113 million) and other deductible temporary differences with no expiry date of $1,307 million (2016: $1,422 million).

Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Temporary differences
Property, plant and equipment		$295	($297)
Environmental rehabilitation		(45)	79
Tax loss carry forwards		191	259
Inventory		26	(94)
Derivatives		(16)	(16)
Other		(84)	39
		$367	($30)
Intraperiod allocation to:
Income from continuing operations before income taxes		($106)	($8)
Cerro Casale disposition		469	—
Veladero disposition		16	—
OCI		(12)	(22)
		$367	($30)
Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities
	2017		2016
At January 1		$128	$61
Net additions based on uncertain tax positions related to prior years		178	70
Reductions for tax positions of prior years		—	(3)
At December 311		$306	$128

¹ If reversed, the total amount of $306 million would be recognized as a benefit to income taxes on the income statement, and therefore would impact the reported effective tax rate.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 151 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Tax Years Still Under Examination
Canada	2015-2017
United States	2017
Dominican Republic	2013-2017
Peru	2009, 2011-2017
Chile	2013-2017
Argentina	2011-2017
Australia	2013-2017
Papua New Guinea	2006-2017
Saudi Arabia	2007-2017
Tanzania	All years open
Zambia	2010-2017

31 > CAPITAL STOCK

Authorized Capital Stock

Our authorized capital stock includes an unlimited number of common shares (issued 1,166,577,478 common shares); an unlimited number of first preferred shares issuable in series (the first series is designated

the “First Preferred Shares, Series A” and consists of 10,000,000 first preferred shares (issued nil); the second series is designated as the “First Preferred Shares, Series B” and consists of 10,000,000 first preferred shares (issued nil); and the third series is designated as the “First Preferred Shares, Series C Special Voting Share” and consists of 1 Special Voting Share (issued nil)); and an unlimited number of second preferred shares issuable in series (the first series is designated as the “Second Preferred Shares, Series A” and consists of 15,000,000 second preferred shares (issued nil)). Our common shares have no par value.

Dividends

In 2017, we declared and paid dividends in US dollars totaling $125 million (2016: $86 million).

The Company’s dividend reinvestment plan resulted in $16 million (2016: $8 million) reinvested into the Company.

32 > NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS

a) Non-Controlling Interests Continuity

	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia			Cerro Casale			Other			Total
NCI in subsidiary at December 31, 2017		40%		36.1	%		25	%		Various
At January 1, 2016		$1,232		$677			$318			$50			$2,277
Share of income (loss)		174		34			(1	)		(1	)		206
Cash contributed		—		—			2			68			70
Disbursements		(95)		(7	)		—			(73	)		(175	)
At December 31, 2016		$1,311		$704			$319			$44			$2,378
Share of income (loss)		118		(211	)		173			(2	)		78
Cash contributed		—		—			1			12			13
Decrease in non-controlling interest		—		—			(493	)		—			(493	)
Disbursements		(139)		(13	)		—			(43	)		(195	)
At December 31, 2017		$1,290		$480			$—			$11			$1,781

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 152 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Summarized Financial Information on Subsidiaries with Material Non-Controlling Interests

Summarized Balance Sheets

	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia
	As at December   31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016	As at December   31, 2017	As at December  31, 2016
Current assets	$488	$833	$464	$673
Non-current assets	3,489	3,703	1,333	1,725
Total assets	$3,977	$4,536	$1,797	$2,398
Current liabilities	907	1,357	212	71
Non-current liabilities	248	603	280	381
Total liabilities	$1,155	$1,960	$492	$452
Summarized Statements of Income
	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017	2016	2017	2016
Revenue	$1,417	$1,548	$751	$1,045
Income (loss) from continuing operations after tax	293	810	(630)	81
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—	—	—	—
Total comprehensive income (loss)	$293	$810	($630)	$81
Dividends paid to NCI	$—	$—	$13	$7
Summarized Statements of Cash Flows
	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017	2016	2017	2016
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	$283	$602	($15)	$324
Net cash used in investing activities	(112)	(54)	(160)	(190)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(539)	(350)	(62)	(49)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	($368)	$198	($237)	$85

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 153 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

33 > REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

Key management personnel include the members of the Board of Directors and the executive leadership team. Compensation for key management personnel (including Directors) was as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Salaries and short-term employee benefits1		$20		$19
Post-employment benefits2		3		2
Share-based payments and other3		12		17
		$35		$38

¹ Includes annual salary and annual short-term incentives/other bonuses earned in the year.

² Represents Company contributions to retirement savings plans.

³ Relates to stock option, RSU, PGSU and PRSU grants and other compensation.

34 > STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

a)    Global Employee Share Plan (GESP)

In 2016, Barrick launched a Global Employee Share Plan. This is a plan awarded to all eligible employees. During 2017, Barrick contributed and expensed $9 million to this plan.

b)    Restricted Share Units (RSUs) and Deferred Share Units (DSUs)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest from two-and-a-half years to three years and are settled in cash upon vesting. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

Compensation expense for RSUs incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate. At December 31, 2017, the weighted average remaining contractual life of RSUs was 1.19 years (2016: 1.09 ).

Compensation expense for RSUs was a $42 million charge to earnings in 2017 (2016: $60 million) and is presented as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration, consistent with the classification of other elements of compensation expense for those employees who had RSUs.

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive a specified portion of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs, with the option to elect to receive 100% of such retainer in DSUs. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director or officer leaves the Board or Barrick, at which time the cash value of the DSUs will be paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. DSUs are recorded at fair value on the grant date and are

adjusted for changes in fair value. The fair value of amounts granted each period together with changes in fair value are expensed.

DSU and RSU Activity

	DSUs			Fair value			RSUs			Fair value
At January 1, 2016		465			$3.5			6,627			$24.6
Settled for cash		(26	)		(0.4	)		(1,102	)		(22.7	)
Forfeited		—			—			(2,952	)		(46.3	)
Granted		134			2.2			3,836			55.0
Credits for dividends		—			—			43			0.7
Change in value		—			3.8			—			47.3
At December 31, 2016		573			$9.2			6,452			$58.6
Settled for cash		—			—			(3,610	)		(62.5	)
Forfeited		—			—			(121	)		(2.3	)
Granted		152			2.5			1,760			32.7
Credits for dividends		—			—			56			0.9
Change in value		—			(0.1	)		—			10.3
At December 31, 2017		725			$11.6			4,537			$37.7

At December 31, 2017, Acacia Mining plc had $nil of DSUs outstanding (2016: $1 million) and $2 million of RSUs outstanding (2016: $3 million).

c)    Performance Restricted Share Units (PRSUs)

In 2008, Barrick launched a PRSU plan. Under this plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. At December 31, 2017, no units were outstanding (2016: 489 thousand units, fair value $6 million).

At December 31, 2017, Acacia Mining plc had $nil of PRSUs outstanding (2016: $8 million).

d)    Performance Granted Share Units (PGSUs)

In 2014, Barrick launched a PGSU plan. Under this plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. At December 31, 2017, 2,174 thousand units had been granted at a fair value of $14 million (2016: 1,536 thousand units at a value of $11 million).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 154 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e)    Employee Share Purchase Plan (ESPP)

In 2008, Barrick launched an Employee Share Purchase Plan. This plan enables Barrick employees to purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. During 2017, Barrick contributed and expensed $0.4 million to this plan (2016: $0.3 million).

f)    Stock Options

Under Barrick’s stock option plan, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted by individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest evenly over four years, beginning in the year after granting. Options are exercisable over seven years. At

December 31, 2017, 1.0 million (2016: 2.1 million) stock options were outstanding.

Compensation expense for stock options was $nil in 2017 (2016: $nil ), and is presented as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration, consistent with the classification of other elements of compensation expense for those employees who had stock options. The recognition of compensation expense for stock options had no impact on earnings per share for 2017 and 2016.

Total intrinsic value relating to options exercised in 2017 was $nil (2016: $nil).

Employee Stock Option Activity (Number of Shares in Millions)

	2017					2016
	Shares			Average Price		Shares			Average Price
C$ options
At January 1		0.3			$13		0.3			$13
Granted		—			—		—			—
Cancelled/expired		—			—		—			—
At December 31		0.3			$13		0.3			$13
US$ options
At January 1		1.8			$42		2.6			$42
Forfeited		(0.7	)		40		(0.4	)		45
Cancelled/expired		(0.4	)		45		(0.4	)		39
At December 31		0.7			$40		1.8			$42

Stock Options Outstanding (Number of Shares in Millions)

	Outstanding								Exercisable
Range of exercise prices	Shares		Average price		Average life (years)		Intrinsic value1 ($ millions)		Shares		Average price		Intrinsic value1 ($ millions)
C$ options
$  9 - $ 17		0.2		$10		4.6		$2		0.1		$10		$1
$  18 - $ 21		0.1		18		2.6		—		0.1		18		—
		0.3		$13		3.9		$2		0.2		$14		$1
US$ options
$  32 - $ 41		0.4		$32		2.0		$—		0.4		$33		$—
$  42 - $ 55		0.3		49		1.0		—		0.3		49		—
		0.7		$40		1.5		$—		0.7		$40		$—

1 Based on the closing market share price on December 31, 2017 of C $18.18 and US $14.47.

As at December 31, 2017, there was $nil (2016: $0.1 million) of total unrecognized compensation cost relating to unvested stock options. We expect to recognize this cost over a weighted average period of 1 year (2016: 1 year).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 155 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

35 > POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Barrick operates various post-employment plans, including both defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans and other post-retirement plans. The table below outlines where the Company’s post-employment amounts and activity are included in the financial statements:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Balance sheet obligations for:
Defined pension benefits	$	42	$	66
Other post-retirement benefits		6		6
Liability in the balance sheet	$	48	$	72
Income statement charge included  income statement for:
Defined pension benefits	$	1	$	4
Other post-retirement benefits		—		—
	$	1	$	4
Measurements for:
Defined pension benefits	$	23	$	11
Other post-retirement benefits		—		—
	$	23	$	11

The amounts recognized in the balance sheet are determined as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Present value of funded obligations	$122	$198
Fair value of plan assets	(134)	(191)
(Surplus) deficit of funded plans	($12)	$7
Present value of unfunded obligations	54	59
Total deficit of defined benefit pension  plans	$42	$66
Impact of minimum funding requirement/  asset ceiling	—	—
Liability in the balance sheet	$42	$66

a)    Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain of our former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on an employee’s years of service. The plans operate under similar regulatory frameworks and generally face similar risks. The majority of benefit payments are from trustee-administered funds; however, there are also a number of unfunded plans where the Company meets the benefit payment obligation as it falls due. Plan assets held in trust are governed by local regulations and practice in each country. Responsibility for governance of the plans - overseeing all aspects of the plans including investment decisions and contribution schedules - lies with the Company. We have set up pension committees to assist in the management of the plans and have also appointed experienced independent professional experts such as actuaries, custodians and trustees.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 156 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The significant actuarial assumptions were as follows:

As at December 31	Pension Plans 2017		Other Post- Retirement Benefits 2017		Pension Plans 2016		Other Post- Retirement Benefits 2016
Discount rate		2.90-3.95%		3.75%		2.10-3.90%		3.70%

b)    Other Post-Retirement Benefits

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees in the US. All of these plans are unfunded. The weighted average duration of the defined benefit obligation is 10 years (2016: 10 years).

	Less than a year		Between 1-2 years		Between 2-5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Pension benefits		$18		$19		$54		$313		$404
Other post-retirement benefits		1		1		2		6		10
At December 31, 2016		$19		$20		$56		$319		$414
Pension benefits		14		14		39		200		267
Other post-retirement benefits		1		1		2		5		9
At December 31, 2017		$15		$15		$41		$205		$276

c)    Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans and we also have a retirement plan for certain officers of the Company. Our share of contributions to these plans, which is expensed in the year it is earned by the employee, was $33 million in 2017 (2016: $32 million).

36 > CONTINGENCIES

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued that may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The impact of any resulting loss from such matters affecting these financial statements and noted below may be material.

Litigation and Claims

In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel, evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

U.S. Shareholder Class Action

On May 10, 2017, Shepard Broadfoot, a purported shareholder of Barrick Gold Corporation, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against the Company, Kelvin Dushnisky, Catherine Raw, Richard Williams and Jorge Palmes. The complaint asserted claims against the defendants arising from allegedly false and misleading statements concerning production estimates and environmental risks at the Veladero mine, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2017, a second and substantially identical purported class action complaint was filed in the SDNY. On October 4, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A briefing schedule has been set by the Court, and the plaintiffs’ amended

consolidated complaint was filed on December 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 2, 2018. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Proposed Canadian Securities Class Actions

Between April and September 2014, eight proposed class actions were commenced against the Company in Canada in connection with the Pascua-Lama project. Four of the proceedings were commenced in Ontario, two were commenced in Alberta, one was commenced in Saskatchewan, and one was commenced in Quebec. The Canadian proceedings alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements to the investing public relating (among other things) to the cost of the Pascua-Lama project (the “Project”), the amount of time it would take before production commenced at the Project, and the environmental risks of the Project, as well as alleged internal control failures.

The first Ontario and Alberta actions were commenced by Statement of Claim on April 15 and 17, 2014, respectively. The same law firm acts for the plaintiffs in these two proceedings, and the Statements of Claim were largely identical. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky and Ammar Al-Joundi were also named as defendants in the two actions. Both actions purported to be on behalf of anyone who, during the period from May 7, 2009 to May 23, 2013, purchased Barrick securities in Canada. Both actions sought $4.3 billion in general damages and $350

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 157 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

million in special damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The first Ontario action was subsequently consolidated with the fourth Ontario action, as discussed below. The first Alberta action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on June 26, 2015.

The second Ontario action was commenced on April 24, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. Following a September 8, 2014 amendment to the Statement of Claim, this action purported to be on behalf of anyone who acquired Barrick securities during the period from October 29, 2010 to October 30, 2013, and sought $3 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The amended claim also reflected the addition of a law firm that previously acted as counsel in a third Ontario action, which was commenced by Notice of Action on April 28, 2014 and included similar allegations but was never served or pursued. As a result of the outcome of the carriage motion and appeals described below, the second Ontario action has now been stayed.

The Quebec action was commenced on April 30, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who resides in Quebec and acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013. The action seeks unspecified damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure.

The second Alberta action was commenced on May 23, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purports to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The action was dismissed on consent on June 19, 2017.

The Saskatchewan action was commenced by Statement of Claim on May 26, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on December 19, 2016.

The fourth Ontario action was commenced on September 5, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purports to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7,

2009 to November 1, 2013 in Canada, and seeks $3 billion in damages plus an unspecified amount for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The Statement of Claim was amended on October 20, 2014, to include two additional law firms, one of which was acting as counsel in the first Ontario action referred to above and the other of which no longer exists. In January 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a consolidated statement of claim in this action.

In November 2014, an Ontario court heard a motion to determine which of the competing counsel groups would take the lead in the Ontario litigation. The court issued a decision in December 2014 in favor of the counsel group that commenced the first and fourth Ontario actions, which have been consolidated in a single action. The lower court’s decision was subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Court in May 2015 and the Court of Appeal for Ontario in July 2016 following appeals by the losing counsel group. The losing counsel group sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but later discontinued the application after reaching an agreement with the counsel group that commenced the first and fourth Ontario actions.

The proposed representative plaintiffs in the Quebec and Ontario actions have brought motions seeking: (i) leave to proceed with statutory misrepresentation claims pursuant to provincial securities legislation; and (ii) orders certifying the actions as class actions. It is expected that the Quebec motions will be heard in late February 2019, while the motion for leave to proceed in the Ontario action will be heard in early April 2019 (with the certification motion to be heard concurrently or shortly thereafter).

The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the proposed Canadian securities class actions. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from any of the proposed class actions, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions

In May 2013, Compañía Minera Nevada (“CMN”), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion of the Pascua-Lama project (the “Project”), received a Resolution (the “Original Resolution”) from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”) that requires the company to complete the water management system for the Project in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit before resuming construction activities in Chile. The Original Resolution also required CMN to pay an administrative fine of approximately $16 million for deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s Chilean environmental approval, including a series of reporting requirements and instances of non-compliance related to the Project’s water management system. CMN paid the administrative fine in May 2013.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 158 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

In June 2013, CMN began engineering studies to review the Project’s water management system in accordance with the Original Resolution. The studies were suspended in the second half of 2015 as a result of CMN’s decision to file a temporary and partial closure plan for the Project (for more information about this plan, see “Pascua-Lama - Constitutional Protection Action” below). The review of the Project’s water management system may require a new environmental approval and the construction of additional water management facilities.

In June 2013, a group of local farmers and indigenous communities challenged the Original Resolution. The challenge, which was brought in the Environmental Court of Santiago, Chile (the “Environmental Court”), claimed that the fine was inadequate and requested more severe sanctions against CMN including the revocation of the Project’s environmental permit. The SMA presented its defense of the Original Resolution in July 2013. On August 2, 2013, CMN joined as a party to this proceeding and vigorously defended the Original Resolution. On March 3, 2014, the Environmental Court annulled the Original Resolution and remanded the matter back to the SMA for further consideration in accordance with its decision (the “Environmental Court Decision”). In particular, the Environmental Court ordered the SMA to issue a new administrative decision that recalculated the amount of the fine to be paid by CMN using a different methodology and addressed certain other errors it identified in the Resolution. The Environmental Court did not annul the portion of the Original Resolution that required the Company to halt construction on the Chilean side of the Project until the water management system is completed in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit. On December 30, 2014, the Chilean Supreme Court declined to consider CMN’s appeal of the Environmental Court Decision on procedural grounds. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, on April 22, 2015, the SMA reopened the administrative proceeding against CMN in accordance with the Environmental Court Decision.

On April 22, 2015, CMN was notified that the SMA had initiated a new administrative proceeding for alleged deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s environmental approval, including with respect to the Project’s environmental impact and a series of monitoring requirements. In May 2015, CMN submitted a compliance program to address certain of the allegations and presented its defense to the remainder of the alleged deviations. The SMA rejected CMN’s proposed compliance program on June 24, 2015, and denied CMN’s administrative appeal of that decision on July 31, 2015. On December 30, 2016, the Environmental Court rejected CMN’s appeal and CMN declined to challenge this decision.

On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against CMN into a single

proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the Original Resolution in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the Project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.

On January 17, 2018, CMN received the revised resolution (the “Revised Resolution”) from the SMA, in which the environmental regulator reduced the original administrative fine from approximately $16 million to $11.5 million and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the Project in addition to certain monitoring activities. The Revised Resolution does not revoke the Project’s environmental approval. CMN filed an appeal of the Revised Resolution on February 3, 2018.

In light of the SMA’s decision, the Company has reversed the estimated amount previously recorded for any additional proposed administrative fines in this matter. In addition, the Company has reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources and recorded a pre-tax impairment of $429 million. See note 21 of these Financial Statements for information related to impairment losses arising from this matter.

Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action

CMN filed a temporary and partial closure plan for the Pascua-Lama project (the “Temporary Closure Plan”) with the Chilean mining authority (Sernageomin) on August 31, 2015. Sernageomin approved the Temporary Closure Plan on September 29, 2015, and issued a resolution requiring CMN to comply with certain closure-related maintenance and monitoring obligations for a period of two years. The Temporary Closure Plan does not address certain facilities, including the Project’s water management system, which remain subject to the requirements of the Project’s original environmental approval and other regulations.

On December 4, 2015, a constitutional protection action was filed in the Court of Appeals of Santiago, Chile by a group of local farmers and other individuals against CMN and Sernageomin in order to challenge the Temporary Closure Plan and the resolution that approved it. The plaintiffs asserted that the Temporary Closure Plan cannot be approved until the water management system for the Project has been completed in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit. On August 12, 2016, the court ruled in favor of CMN and Sernageomin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Temporary Closure Plan for the Pascua-Lama project. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the Chilean Supreme Court and on March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the Temporary Closure Plan, ruling that additional information regarding the SMA regulatory sanction process was required from the environmental regulator, and ordering Sernageomin to issue a new resolution on

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 159 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

the Temporary Closure Plan after receiving such information. On August 29, 2017, Sernageomin issued a new resolution in which it reapproved the Temporary Closure Plan as originally issued. This approval is valid through September 2019.

Pascua-Lama – Water Quality Review

CMN initiated a review of the baseline water quality of the Rio Estrecho in August 2013 as required by a July 15, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals of Copiapo, Chile. The purpose of the review was to establish whether the water quality baseline has changed since the Pascua-Lama project received its environmental approval in February 2006 and, if so, to require CMN to adopt the appropriate corrective measures. As a result of that study, CMN requested certain modifications to its environmental permit water quality requirements. On June 6, 2016, the responsible agency approved a partial amendment of the environmental permit to better reflect the water quality baseline from 2009. That approval was appealed by certain water users and indigenous residents of the Huasco Valley. On October 19, 2016, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over claims of this nature, voted to uphold the permit amendments. On January 27, 2017, the Environmental Court agreed to consider an appeal of the Chilean Committee’s decision brought by CMN and the water users and indigenous residents. A hearing took place on July 25, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the water users withdrew their appeal. The Environmental Court dismissed that appeal on January 5, 2018. A decision of the Environmental Court on the remaining appeals is still pending. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution

San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction Proceeding

On September 13, 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at the Company’s Veladero mine in San Juan Province, Argentina failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. Minera Argentina Gold SRL (“MAG”) (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold S.A. or MAGSA), Barrick’s Argentine subsidiary that operates the Veladero mine, notified regulatory authorities of the situation. Environmental monitoring was conducted by MAG and independent third parties following the incident. The Company believes this monitoring demonstrates that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. A temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the mine’s processing circuit was lifted on September 24, 2015, and mine operations returned to normal. Monitoring and inspection of the mine site will continue in accordance with a court order.

On October 9, 2015, the San Juan mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAG for alleged violations of the mining code relating to the valve failure and release of cyanide-bearing process solution. MAG submitted its response to these allegations in October 2015 and provided additional information in January 2016.

On March 11, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso/$ exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On December 29, 2016, the request for reconsideration was rejected by the Provincial mining authority. On July 11, 2017, the San Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts. MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the San Juan mining authority.

Criminal Matters

On March 11, 2016, a San Juan Provincial court laid criminal charges based on alleged negligence against nine current and former MAG employees in connection with the solution release (the “Provincial Action”). On August 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictment against eight of the nine individuals that had been charged with alleged negligence in connection with the solution release. The individual defendants filed a special appeal, called a “cassation” appeal, of the indictments with the San Juan Supreme Court, which was rejected on August 31, 2017. The San Juan Provincial court rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 30, 2017, and the defendants appealed this decision on December 4, 2017. A trial date has not yet been set. MAG is not a party to the Provincial Action.

In addition, a federal criminal investigation was initiated by a Buenos Aires federal court based on the alleged failure of certain current and former federal and provincial government officials and individual directors of MAG to prevent the solution release (the “Federal Investigation”). The federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation admitted a local group in San Juan Province as a party. In March 2016, this group requested an injunction against the operations of the Veladero mine. The federal judge ordered technical studies to assess the solution release and its impact and appointed a committee to conduct a site visit, which occurred in late April 2016.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 160 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

On May 5, 2016, the National Supreme Court of Argentina limited the scope of the Federal Investigation to the potential criminal liability of the federal government officials, ruling that the Buenos Aires federal court does not have jurisdiction to investigate the solution release. As a result of this decision, the investigation into the incident will continue to be conducted by the San Juan Provincial judge in the Provincial Action. To date, no charges have been laid against any specific individuals in connection with the Federal Investigation, consistent with its more limited scope.

On October 17, 2016, a separate criminal investigation was initiated by the federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation based on the alleged failure of federal government officials to regulate the Veladero mine under Argentina’s glacier legislation (see “Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation” below). On June 16, 2017, MAG submitted a motion to challenge the federal judge’s decision to assign this investigation to himself. MAG also requested to be admitted as a party to the proceeding in order to present evidence in support of the MAG. On September 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals consolidated the two investigations before the federal judge and allowed MAG to participate in the consolidated Federal Investigation. On November 21, 2017, the Court of Appeals clarified that MAG is not a party to the case and therefore did not have standing to seek the recusal of the federal judge. The Court recognized MAG’s right to continue to participate in the case without clarifying the scope of those rights.

On November 27, 2017, the federal judge indicted four former federal government officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s national glacier legislation including the methodology used to complete the national inventory of glaciers, a portion of which was published on October 3, 2016, and also requiring the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development to determine if there has been any environmental damage to glaciers since the glacier law went into effect in light of his decision. On December 12, 2017, the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to audit environmental damage to glaciers, as this is the responsibility of the Provincial authorities.

No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from these matters, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Veladero – September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution

Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding

On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad at the Veladero mine damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the mine site and returned to the leach pad. Extensive water monitoring in the area conducted by MAG has confirmed that the incident did not result in any environmental impacts. A temporary suspension of operations at the Veladero mine was ordered by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a San Juan Provincial court on September 15, 2016 and September 22, 2016, respectively, as a result of this incident. On October 4, 2016, following, among other matters, the completion of certain urgent works required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a judicial inspection of the mine, the San Juan Provincial court lifted the suspension of operations and ordered that mining activities be resumed.

On September 14, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority commenced an administrative proceeding in connection with this incident that included, in addition to the issue of the suspension order, an infringement proceeding against MAG. On December 2, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code. A new criminal judicial investigation has also been commenced by the Provincial prosecutor’s office in the same San Juan Provincial court that is hearing the Provincial Action. The court in this proceeding issued the orders suspending and resuming the operations at the Veladero mine described above.

On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated the administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident described below (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”).

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 161 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Veladero Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the valley leach facility (“VLF”). In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution incident described below (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”). The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Veladero - March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution

Regulatory Infringement Proceeding and Temporary Suspension of Addition of Cyanide

On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at the Company’s Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. This solution was contained within the operating site; no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. All affected soil was promptly excavated and placed on the leach pad. The Company notified regulatory authorities of the situation, and San Juan provincial authorities inspected the site on March 29, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, the San Juan provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against MAG in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following inspection of corrective actions.

On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. The Company filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding

into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

Provincial Amparo Action

On March 30, 2017, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit, called an “amparo” protection action, filed in the Jachal First Instance Court (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine. The plaintiffs sought an injunction as part of the lawsuit, requesting, among other things, the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the leaching process at the mine. On March 30, 2017, the Jachal Court rejected the request for an injunction to cease all activities at the Veladero mine, but ordered, among other things, the suspension of the leaching process at the Veladero mine and for MAG and the San Juan Provincial mining authority to provide additional information to the Jachal Court in connection with the incident.

The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution - Federal Amparo Action” below). No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Federal Amparo Action

On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident. The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 162 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

activities at the Veladero mine. MAG submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAG also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial Court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court and a decision on the matter is pending. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation

On September 30, 2010, the National Law on Minimum Requirements for the Protection of Glaciers was enacted in Argentina, and came into force in early November 2010. The federal law banned new mining exploration and exploitation activities on glaciers and in the “peri-glacial” environment, and subjected ongoing mining activities to an environmental audit. If the audit identifies significant impacts on glaciers and peri-glacial environment, the relevant authority is empowered to take action, which according to the legislation could include the suspension or relocation of the activity. In the case of the Veladero mine and the Argentinean side of the Pascua-Lama project, the competent authority is the Province of San Juan. In late January 2013, the Province announced that it had completed the required environmental audit, which concluded that Veladero and Pascua-Lama do not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers. On October 3, 2016, federal authorities published a partial national inventory of glaciers, which included the area where the Veladero mine and Pascua-Lama Project are located. The Company has analyzed the national inventory in the area where Veladero and Pascua-Lama are located and has concluded that this inventory is consistent with the provincial inventory that the Province of San Juan used in connection with its January 2013 environmental audit.

The constitutionality of the federal glacier law is the subject of a challenge before the National Supreme Court of Argentina, which has not yet ruled on the issue. On October 27, 2014, the Company submitted its response to a motion by the federal government to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the federal glacier law on

standing grounds. A decision on the motion is pending. If the federal government’s arguments with respect to standing are accepted, then the case will be dismissed. If they are not accepted, then the National Supreme Court of Argentina will proceed to hear evidence on the merits. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome and in any event the provincial audit concluded that the Company’s activities do not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers.

Pueblo Viejo – Amparo Action

In October 2014, Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation (“PVDC”) received a copy of an action filed in an administrative court (the “Administrative Court”) in the Dominican Republic by Rafael Guillen Beltre (the “Petitioner”), who claims to be affiliated with the Dominican Christian Peace Organization. The action alleges that environmental contamination in the vicinity of the Pueblo Viejo mine has caused illness and affected water quality in violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Dominican Constitution and other laws. The primary relief sought in the action, which is styled as an “amparo” remedy, is the suspension of operations at the Pueblo Viejo mine as well as other mining projects in the area until an investigation into the alleged environmental contamination has been completed by the relevant governmental authorities. On November 21, 2014, the Administrative Court granted PVDC’s motion to remand the matter to a trial court in the Municipality of Cotuí (the “Trial Court”) on procedural grounds. On June 25, 2015, the Trial Court rejected the Petitioner’s amparo action, finding that the Petitioner failed to produce evidence to support his allegations. The Petitioner appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Constitutional Court on July 21, 2015. On July 28, 2015, PVDC filed a motion to challenge the timeliness of this appeal as it was submitted after the expiration of the applicable filing deadline. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Perilla Complaint

In 2009, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. were purportedly served in Ontario with a complaint filed in November 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Boac (the “Court”), on the Philippine island of Marinduque, on behalf of two named individuals and purportedly on behalf of the approximately 200,000 residents of Marinduque. The complaint alleges injury to the economy and the ecology of Marinduque as a result of the discharge of mine tailings from the Marcopper mine into Calancan Bay, the Boac River, and the Mogpog River. The plaintiffs are claiming for abatement of a public nuisance allegedly caused by the tailings discharge and for nominal damages for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In June 2010,

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 163 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. filed a motion to have the Court resolve their unresolved motions to dismiss before considering the plaintiffs’ motion to admit an amended complaint and also filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to admit on the same basis. By Order dated November 9, 2011 the Court granted a motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs. It is not known when these motions or the outstanding motions to dismiss will be decided by the Court. To date neither the plaintiffs nor the Company has advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this complaint, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Writ of Kalikasan

In February 2011, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (the “Supreme Court”) in Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy versus Placer Dome Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Petitioners”). In March 2011, the Supreme Court issued an En Banc Resolution and Writ of Kalikasan, directed service of summons on Placer Dome Inc. and the Company, ordered Placer Dome Inc. and the Company to make a verified return of the Writ with ten (10) days of service and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for hearing. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome Inc. violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, among other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam break, the 1996 Boac River tailings spill and failure of Marcopper to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. The petitioners have pleaded that the Company is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome Inc., which was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times, and is seeking orders requiring the Company to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. The petitioners purported to serve the Company in March 2011, following which the Company filed an Urgent Motion For Ruling on Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”) pursuant to which the Petition was filed, as well as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Company. By resolution dated October 12, 2011 the Court of Appeals granted the Petitioners’ October 4, 2011 motion to suspend proceedings to permit the Petitioners to explore the possibility of a settlement. The proceedings are suspended pending further notice from the Petitioners. In November 2011, two local governments, or “baranguays” (Baranguay San Antonio and Baranguay Lobo) filed a motion with the Supreme Court seeking intervenor status with the intention of seeking a dismissal of the proceedings. No decision has

as yet been issued with respect to the Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction, the motion for intervention, or certain other matters before the Supreme Court. The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously.

In November 2016, the Petitioners notified the Court of Appeals that settlement negotiations did not resolve the action. In March 2017, the Court of Appeals required the Petitioners to advise whether they intend to pursue the action. Without responding to the court, Petitioners’ counsel advised the Court in July 2017 of their withdrawal as counsel for the Petitioners and informed the Court of the death of one of the Petitioners. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution in November 2017 requiring the Petitioners to notify the Court whether they have engaged new counsel. Petitioners’ new counsel filed an entry of appearance in December 2017 with the Court. To date, the Petitioners have still not advised the Court whether they intend to pursue the action. The Company is awaiting receipt of the Petitioners’ notification of their intentions.

No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Cerro Casale

One of the environmental permits related to the open pit and water management system at the Company’s 50 percent-owned Cerro Casale project in Chile is subject to an environmental regulation (the “Regulation”) that, if applied as written, would have required the Company to begin construction of the project by January 26, 2015 or risk cancellation of the environmental permit. The Company sought relief from the Regulation as construction was not feasible and did not begin by that date. On October 15, 2015, the Chilean environmental authority issued a resolution confirming that initial project activities were timely commenced as required by the environmental permit and the matter is now closed. Permits required for the majority of the project’s proposed operations were obtained under a second environmental approval (the “Cerro Casale environmental permit”) that was subject to a January 2018 construction commencement deadline. The Company requested relief using the same procedure described above, and the environmental authority confirmed that the initial project activities were timely commenced.

The Cerro Casale environmental permit was challenged in 2013 by local and indigenous community members for alleged procedural deficiencies in the community consultation process and other aspects of the evaluation of the project by the Chilean environmental authority. The challenge was brought before the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over procedural claims of this nature. On January 19, 2015, the Committee of Ministers for the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 164 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Environment rejected the majority of claims made against the Cerro Casale environmental permit while also imposing new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the project may extract for mining operations. The Company appealed this decision to the Environmental Court, which held a hearing on August 27, 2015. On June 12, 2017, the Environmental Court ordered the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment to review its January 9, 2015 decision to impose new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the Cerro Casale project may extract for mining operations. The Company and the Chilean environmental authority appealed this decision to the Chilean Supreme Court.

While this appeal was pending, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment issued a new decision on November 23, 2017 in which it modified the limitations on groundwater extraction imposed in its original ruling. The decision may provide additional water resources for the project and therefore the Company and the Chilean environmental authority agreed to withdraw the appeal to the Supreme Court. The matter is now closed.

Acacia Mining plc - Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessments

The Tanzanian Revenue Authority (“TRA”) has issued a number of tax assessments to the Acacia Mining plc group (“Acacia”) related to past taxation years from 2002-onwards. Acacia believes that the majority of these assessments are incorrect and has filed objections and appeals accordingly in an attempt to resolve these matters by means of discussions with the TRA or through the Tanzanian appeals process. Overall, it is Acacia’s current assessment that the relevant assessments and claims by the TRA are without merit.

The claims include an assessment issued to Acacia in the amount of $41.3 million for withholding tax on certain historic offshore dividend payments paid by Acacia to its shareholders in 2010 to 2013. Acacia is appealing this assessment on the substantive grounds that, as an English incorporated company, it is not resident in Tanzania for taxation purposes. The appeal is currently pending at the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded for any potential liability and Acacia intends to continue to defend this action vigorously.

Further TRA assessments were issued to Acacia in January 2016 in the amount of $500.7 million, based on an allegation that Acacia is resident in Tanzania for corporate and dividend withholding tax purposes. The corporate tax assessments have been levied on certain of Acacia’s net profits before tax. Acacia is in the process of appealing these assessments at the TRA Board level. Acacia’s substantive grounds of appeal are based on the correct interpretation of Tanzanian permanent establishment principles and law, relevant to a non-resident English incorporated company.

In addition, the TRA issued adjusted tax assessments totaling approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. For more information about these adjusted tax assessments, see “Acacia Mining plc - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” below.

See note 12 of these Financial Statements for information related to income tax expenses recorded with respect to these matters.

Acacia Mining plc - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Ministry of Energy and Minerals imposed a general ban on the export of metallic concentrates (the “Ban”). This includes gold/copper concentrate exported by Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Following the imposition of the Ban, Acacia immediately ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate, including 27 containers previously approved for export prior to the Ban.

During the second quarter of 2017, investigations were conducted on behalf of the Tanzanian Government by two Tanzanian Government Presidential Committees, which have resulted in allegations of historical undeclared revenue and unpaid taxes being made against Acacia and its predecessor companies. Acacia considers these findings to be implausible and has fully refuted the findings of both Presidential Committees. Acacia has requested copies of the reports issued by the two Presidential Committees and called for independent verification of the findings, but has not yet received a response to these requests.

On July 4, 2017, Acacia’s subsidiaries, Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited (“BGML”), the owner of the Bulyanhulu mine, and Pangea Minerals Limited (“PML”), the owner of the Buzwagi mine, each commenced international arbitrations against the Government of Tanzania in accordance with the dispute resolution processes agreed by the Government of Tanzania in the Mineral Development Agreements (“MDAs”) with BGML and PML. These arbitrations remain ongoing.

In July 2017, Acacia received adjusted assessments for the tax years 2000-2017 from the Tanzania Revenue Authority (the “TRA”) for a total amount of approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. These assessments are being disputed and the underlying allegations are included in the matters that have been referred to international arbitration.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 165 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

In addition, following the end of the third quarter, Acacia was served with notices of conflicting adjusted corporate income tax and withholding tax assessments for tax years 2005 to 2011 with respect to Acacia’s former Tulawaka joint venture, and demands for payment, for a total amount of approximately $3 billion. Interest and penalties represent the vast majority of the new assessments. The TRA has not provided Acacia with any explanations or reasons for the adjusted assessments, or with the TRA’s position on how the assessments have been calculated or why they have been issued. Acacia disputes these assessments and has requested supporting calculations, which have not yet been received. Acacia is objecting to these assessments and defending this matter through the Tanzanian tax appeals process.

In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. In January 2018, new Mining Regulations were announced by the Tanzanian Government introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations, the scope and effect of which remain under review by Acacia. Acacia continues to monitor the impact of all new legislation in light of its MDAs with the Government of Tanzania. However, to minimize further disruptions to its operations Acacia will, in the interim, satisfy the requirements imposed as regards the increased royalty rate in addition to the recently imposed 1% clearing fee on exports. Acacia is making these payments under protest, without prejudice to its legal rights under its MDAs.

Acacia has been looking to address all issues in respect of the Ban along with other ongoing disputes through dialogue with the Tanzanian Government. Acacia remains of the view that a negotiated resolution is the preferable outcome to the current disputes and Acacia will continue to work to achieve this. During the third

quarter of 2017, Barrick and the Government of Tanzania engaged in discussions for the potential resolution of the disputes. Acacia did not participate directly in these discussions as the Government of Tanzania had informed Barrick that it wished to continue dialogue solely with Barrick.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the Government of Tanzania on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the Government of Tanzania include (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to manage Acacia’s Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara mines and all future operations in the country with key officers located in Tanzania and Tanzanian representation on the board of directors; (ii) maximization of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the Government’s share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Negotiations concerning the proposed framework remain ongoing and the definitive terms of any final proposal for the implementation of the framework remain outstanding. Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia.

See note 12 of these Financial Statements for information related to income tax expenses recorded with respect to these matters and note 21 of these Financial Statements for impairment losses arising from these matters.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 166 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

EX-99.4

Exhibit 99.4

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (“MD&A”)

Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) is intended to help the reader understand Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick”, “we”, “our” or the “Company”), our operations, financial performance and the present and future business environment. This MD&A, which has been prepared as of February 14, 2018, should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements (“Financial Statements”) for the year ended December 31, 2017. Unless otherwise indicated, all amounts are presented in U.S. dollars.

For the purposes of preparing our MD&A, we consider the materiality of information. Information is considered material if: (i) such information results in, or would reasonably be expected to result in, a significant change in the market price or value of our shares; (ii) there is a

substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision; or (iii) it would significantly alter the total mix of information available to investors. We evaluate materiality with reference to all relevant circumstances, including potential market sensitivity.

Continuous disclosure materials, including our most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form, annual MD&A, audited consolidated financial statements, and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Proxy Circular will be available on our website at www.barrick.com, on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov. For an explanation of terminology unique to the mining industry, readers should refer to the glossary on page 86.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain information contained or incorporated by reference in this MD&A, including any information as to our strategy, projects, plans or future financial or operating performance, constitutes “forward-looking statements”. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “target”, “plan”, “objective”, “assume”, “intend”, “intention”, “project”, “goal”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “potential”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “could”, “would” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. In particular, this MD&A contains forward-looking statements including, without limitation, with respect to: (i) Barrick’s forward-looking production guidance; (ii) estimates of future cost of sales per ounce for gold and per pound for copper, cash costs per ounce and C1 cash costs per pound, and all-in-sustaining costs per ounce/pound; (iii) cash flow forecasts; (iv) projected capital, operating and exploration expenditures; (v) Barrick’s expectations regarding the potential benefits resulting from a new partnership between Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”) and the Government of Tanzania; (vi) targeted debt and cost reductions; (vii) mine life and production rates; (viii) potential mineralization and metal or mineral recoveries; (ix) savings from our improved capital management program; (x) Barrick’s Best-in-Class program (including potential improvements to financial and operating performance that may result from certain Best-in-Class initiatives); (xi) the timing and results of the prefeasibility study at Pascua-Lama; (xii) our pipeline of high confidence projects at or near existing operations; (xiii) the benefits of unifying the Cortez and Goldstrike operations; (xiv) the potential impact and benefits of Barrick’s ongoing digital transformation; (xv) our ability to convert resources into reserves; (xvi) asset sales, joint

ventures and partnerships; and (xvii) expectations regarding future price assumptions, financial performance and other outlook or guidance.

Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions including material estimates and assumptions related to the factors set forth below that, while considered reasonable by the Company as at the date of this MD&A in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements and information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, copper or certain other commodities (such as silver, diesel fuel, natural gas and electricity); the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; changes in mineral production performance, exploitation and exploration successes; risks associated with the fact that certain Best-in-Class initiatives are still in the early stages of evaluation and additional engineering and other analysis is required to fully assess their impact; the duration of the Tanzanian ban on mineral concentrate exports; the ultimate terms of any definitive agreement between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania to resolve a dispute relating to the imposition of the concentrate export ban and allegations by the Government of Tanzania that Acacia under-declared the metal content of concentrate exports from Tanzania; the status of certain tax reassessments by the Tanzanian government; the manner in which amendments to the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 22 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

2010 Mining Act (Tanzania) increasing the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), the new Finance Act (Tanzania) imposing a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017 and the new Mining Regulations announced by the Government of Tanzania in January 2018 will be implemented and the impact of these and other legislative changes on Acacia; whether Acacia will approve the terms of any final agreement reached between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania with respect to the dispute between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania; the benefits expected from recent transactions being realized; diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities, including geotechnical challenges and disruptions in the maintenance or provision of required infrastructure and information technology systems; failure to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and regulations; timing of receipt of, or failure to comply with, necessary permits and approvals; uncertainty whether some or all of the Best-in-Class initiatives, targeted investments and projects will meet the Company’s capital allocation objectives and internal hurdle rate; the impact of global liquidity and credit availability on the timing of cash flows and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; adverse changes in our credit ratings; the impact of inflation; fluctuations in the currency markets; changes in U.S. dollar interest rates; risks arising from holding derivative instruments; changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls or regulations and/or changes in the administration of laws, policies and practices; expropriation or nationalization of property and political or economic developments in Canada, the United States and other jurisdictions in which the Company or its affiliates do or may carry on business in the future; lack of certainty with respect to foreign legal systems, corruption and other factors that are inconsistent with the rule of law; the outcome of the appeal of the decision of Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente; damage to the Company’s reputation due to the actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, including negative publicity with respect to the Company’s handling of environmental matters or dealings with community groups, whether true or not; the possibility that future exploration results will not be consistent with the Company’s expectations; risks that exploration data may be incomplete and considerable additional work may be required to complete further evaluation, including but not limited to drilling, engineering and socioeconomic studies and investment; risk of loss due to acts of war, terrorism, sabotage and civil disturbances; litigation; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties, or over access to water, power and other required infrastructure; business opportunities that may be presented to, or pursued by, the Company; risks

associated with the fact that certain of the initiatives described in this MD&A are still in the early stages and may not materialize; our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions or complete divestitures; risks associated with working with partners in jointly controlled assets; employee relations including loss of key employees; increased costs and physical risks, including extreme weather events and resource shortages, related to climate change; availability and increased costs associated with mining inputs and labor; and the organization of our previously held African gold operations and properties under a separate listed Company. In addition, there are risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins, flooding and gold bullion, copper cathode or gold or copper concentrate losses (and the risk of inadequate insurance, or inability to obtain insurance, to cover these risks).

Many of these uncertainties and contingencies can affect our actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, us. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this MD&A are qualified by these cautionary statements. Specific reference is made to the most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities for a more detailed discussion of some of the factors underlying forward-looking statements and the risks that may affect Barrick’s ability to achieve the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements contained in this MD&A. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 23 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

USE OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES

We use the following non-GAAP financial performance measures in our MD&A:

● “adjusted net earnings”

● “free cash flow”

● “EBITDA”

● “adjusted EBITDA”

● “cash costs per ounce”

● “C1 cash costs per pound”

● “all-in sustaining costs per ounce/pound”

● “all-in costs per ounce” and

● “realized price”

For a detailed description of each of the non-GAAP measures used in this MD&A and a detailed reconciliation to the most directly comparable measure under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), please refer to the Non-GAAP Financial Performance Measures section of this MD&A on pages 69 to 84. Each non-GAAP financial performance measure has been annotated with a reference to an endnote on page 85. The non-GAAP financial performance measures set out in this MD&A are intended to provide additional information to investors and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS, and therefore may not be comparable to other issuers, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.

Changes in presentation of non-GAAP financial performance measures

Adjusted EBITDA

Starting in the second quarter 2017 MD&A, we began including additional adjusting items in the Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation to provide a greater level of consistency with the adjusting items included in our Adjusted Net Earnings reconciliation. These new items include: acquisition/disposition gains/losses; foreign currency translation gains/losses; other expense adjustments; and unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments. These amounts are adjusted to remove any impact on finance costs/income, income tax expense and/or depreciation as they do not affect EBITDA. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. We believe this additional information will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in better understanding our ability to generate liquidity from operating cash flow, by excluding these amounts from the calculation as they are not indicative of the performance of our core mining business and not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the periods presented.

INDEX	page
Overview
Our Vision		25
Our Business		25
Our Strategy		25
Full Year Financial and Operating Highlights		26
Outlook for 2018		33
Risks and Risk Management		37
Market Overview		39
Review of Annual Financial Results		42
Revenue		42
Production Costs		42
Capital Expenditures		43
General and Administrative Expenses		44
Exploration, Evaluation and Project Costs		44
Finance Costs, Net		44
Additional Significant Statement of Income Items		45
Income Tax Expense		45
Financial Condition Review		47
Balance Sheet Review		47
Shareholders’ Equity		47
Financial Position and Liquidity		47
Summary of Cash Inflow (Outflow)		48
Summary of Financial Instruments		49
Operating Segments Performance		49
Barrick Nevada		50
Pueblo Viejo		52
Lagunas Norte		54
Veladero		56
Turquoise Ridge		60
Acacia Mining plc		62
Pascua-Lama		65
Commitments and Contingencies		66
Review of Quarterly Results		67
Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures		68
IFRS Critical Accounting Policies and Accounting Estimates		69
Non-GAAP Financial Performance Measures		69
Technical Information		85
Endnotes		85
Glossary of Technical Terms		86

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 24 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

Our Vision

Our Vision is the generation of wealth through responsible mining - wealth for our owners, our people, and the countries and communities with which we partner.

We aim to be the leading mining company focused on gold, growing our cash flow per share by developing and operating high-quality assets through disciplined allocation of human and financial capital and operational excellence.

Our Business

Barrick is one of the world’s leading gold mining companies with annual gold production and gold reserves that are among the largest in the industry. We are principally engaged in the production and sale of gold and copper, as well as related activities such as exploration and mine development. We hold interests in nine producing gold mines, which are located in Argentina, Australia, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Peru and the United States. We also hold a 63.9% equity interest in Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”), a company listed on the London Stock Exchange (“LSE”) that owns gold mines and exploration properties in Africa. More than 75% of our gold production comes from the Americas region. Our copper business contains a wholly-owned copper mine in Zambia and 50% interests in copper mines in Chile and Saudi Arabia. We also have projects located throughout the Americas. We sell our production in the world market through the following distribution channels: gold bullion is sold in the gold spot market; and gold and copper concentrate is sold to independent smelting companies. Barrick’s shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ABX.

2017 Revenue ($ millions)

2017 Gold Production (thousands of ounces)

Our Strategy

Our strategy remains consistent. We are focused on growing free cash flow per share over the long term by: maintaining and growing industry-leading margins, driven by operational excellence, investments in digital technology and innovation; managing our portfolio and allocating capital with discipline and rigor; and leveraging our talent and distinctive partnership culture as a competitive advantage.

Operational Excellence and Innovation

We seek to maximize revenue and expand margins by continuously optimizing existing operations, pushing technical limits to achieve best-in-class performance, improving the returns of existing assets and strengthening the feasibility and economics of undeveloped assets. We will make targeted investments in innovation and accelerate our digital transformation in an effort to drive step changes in current performance and redefine what is possible over the long term. We will continue to refine our decentralized operating model, in which our head office is focused on doing a small number of tasks exceptionally well: setting strategy, allocating capital and managing talent. Our leaders in the field will operate as business owners, focused on optimizing free cash flow, alongside managing risk and creating long-term value.

Exploration and Project Development

Growing free cash flow per share means continually replenishing and improving the quality of our reserves and resources. The quality of our asset base means we have significant opportunities to replace and grow reserves through low-risk brownfield and minex drilling, balanced with greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that have the potential to become profitable mines. In addition to organic projects, we are continuously evaluating external opportunities. We take a highly disciplined approach to all investments, including acquisitions, and will only pursue those that have the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 25 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

potential to generate clear value for our shareholders, while aligning with our strategic focus.

Partnerships

We believe a core part of our business is that of partnering with host governments and communities to transform their natural resources into sustainable benefits and mutual prosperity. These partnerships must be built on a foundation of transparency and mutual respect that

moves beyond an emphasis on maximizing short-term financial returns and transactional relationships. By doing so, our intent is to strengthen our social license to operate, reduce operational disruptions and develop stronger and more durable partnerships with our host governments and communities.

FULL YEAR FINANCIAL AND OPERATING HIGHLIGHTS

Operating Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow¹

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and

Al-in Sustaining Costs¹

($ per ounce)

Gold Production

(000s ounces)

Debt

($ millions)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 26 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per share amounts in dollars)			For the years ended December 31					For the three months ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss) attributable to equity holders of the Company		$1,438		$655		($2,838	)		($314	)		$425
Per share (dollars)1		1.23		0.56		(2.44	)		(0.27	)		0.36
Adjusted net earnings2		876		818		344			253			255
Per share (dollars)1,2		0.75		0.70		0.30			0.22			0.22
Operating cash flow		2,065		2,640		2,794			590			711
Free cash flow2		$669		$1,514		$1,081			$240			$385

1 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share of 1,166 million shares in 2017 (2016: 1,165 million shares; 2015: 1,165 million shares).

2 Adjusted net earnings and free cash flow are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

In 2017, we generated net cash flow provided by operating activities (“operating cash flow”) of $2.1 billion and free cash flow¹ of $669 million for the year. We reduced our cost of sales applicable to gold by $4 per ounce to $794 per ounce, while our all-in sustaining costs¹ (“AISC”) increased by 3% to $750 per ounce, reflecting higher capital expenditures as we increased investments in the future of our business. At the same time, we continued to strengthen our balance sheet by exceeding our debt reduction target.

In 2017, we divested 50% and 25% interests in our Veladero mine and Cerro Casale project, respectively. The successful formation of these new partnerships helped us strengthen our balance sheet, de-risk our portfolio and provide a renewed impetus to how we approach these assets. These two transactions resulted in proceeds of $990 million and combined impairment reversals and gains on disposition of $2,031 million. In addition, we recognized $259 million of impairment reversals at Lumwana due to an increase in reserves. This was offset by an impairment of $740 million (pre-tax, 100%) taken at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine related to the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania; and an impairment of $429 million at Pascua-Lama, mainly attributable to the reclassification of open-pit reserves to resources after receiving a closure order from the Chilean regulators.

Balance Sheet and Liquidity

In 2017, we reduced our total debt by $1.51 billion, or 19%, from $7.93 billion to $6.42 billion, exceeding our original target of $1.45 billion. Since the beginning of

2015, we have reduced our debt by a total of $6.66 billion, which will reduce pre-tax interest payments by approximately $300 million on an annualized basis. Approximately $5 billion of our $6.4 billion in outstanding debt matures after 2032. Since the beginning of December 2015, the average tenor on our outstanding public debt has increased from approximately 14 years to approximately 17 years. Our liquidity position is strong and continues to improve, with robust cash flow generation, modest near-term debt repayment obligations, a $4 billion undrawn credit facility and a consolidated cash balance of approximately $2.2 billion³. Our goal remains to reduce our total debt to around $5 billion by the end of 2018. We plan to achieve this primarily by using cash flow from operations and cash on hand, and potentially through further portfolio optimization. Barrick will continue to pursue debt reduction with discipline, taking only those actions that make sense for the business, on terms we consider favorable to our shareholders.

Cost Performance

In 2017, we continued our focus on driving Best-in-Class productivity and efficiency improvements across our portfolio. Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 decreased by $4 per ounce to $794 per ounce, reflecting a decrease in direct mining costs combined with a positive sales mix, partially offset by higher depreciation expense. Our all-in sustaining costs¹ for 2017 increased by 3% to $750 per ounce, compared to the prior year primarily reflecting the 17% increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures attributed to the future investment in our business.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 27 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Net Earnings (Loss), Adjusted Net Earnings¹, Operating Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow¹

Factors affecting Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings¹

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 Primarily consists of higher earnings from equity investees (~$56 million) and a reduction in finance costs (~$34 million).

Net earnings attributable to equity holders of Barrick (“net earnings”) for 2017 was $1,438 million compared with $655 million in the prior year. This significant improvement in net earnings was primarily due to $2,031 million ($1,425 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) in impairment reversals and gains on sale in 2017 related to our successful formation of joint operations at the Veladero mine and Cerro Casale project. This was partially offset by net impairment charges of $908 million ($511 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) mainly relating to impairment charges at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project, coupled with an impairment reversal at Lumwana. After adjusting for items that are not indicative of future operating earnings, adjusted net earnings¹ of $876 million in 2017 were 7% higher than the prior year primarily as a result of an increase in gold and copper prices, as well as lower direct mining costs driven by higher capitalized waste stripping costs at Barrick Nevada and Veladero, a positive change in our sales mix with lower relative sales volume from our higher cost Acacia mines and lower inventory write-downs than the prior year. This was offset by an increase in exploration and evaluation costs primarily due to an increased investment in the Pascua-Lama project, global exploration and innovation initiatives combined with lower sales volume. The increase in adjusted net earnings¹ was further offset by higher income tax expense associated with our higher net earnings and higher depreciation expense as a result of a depreciation adjustment at Pueblo Viejo, partially offset by lower depreciation at Barrick Nevada associated with the South Arturo pit.

Significant adjusting items to net earnings (pre-tax and non-controlling interest effects) in 2017 include:

• $718 million ($714 million net of tax) gain relating to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine (for further details, refer to note 4 to the Financial Statements);

• $193 million ($192 million net of tax) gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project (for further details, refer to note 4 to the Financial Statements);

• $212 million ($7 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) net impairment charges, primarily on Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine of $740 million ($350 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) and on the Pascua-Lama project of $407 million ($407 million net of tax), partially offset by impairment reversals as a result of the indicative fair value of the Cerro Casale project related to our divestment of 25% of $1,120 million ($518 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) and on Lumwana of $259 million ($259 million net of tax); partially offset by

• $244 million significant tax adjustments primarily relating to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform;

• $178 million other expense adjustments, mainly relating to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine; and

• $72 million foreign currency translation losses, primarily related to the devaluation of the Argentinean peso on VAT receivables.

Refer to page 70 for a full list of reconciling items between net earnings and adjusted net earnings for the current and prior year.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 28 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Factors affecting Operating Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow¹

¹  These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

²  Other primarily includes the negative impact on free cash flow attributable to non-controlling interests (~$100 million) combined with an increase in legal costs (~$20 million) and in reclamation payments (~$10 million).

In 2017, we generated $2,065 million in operating cash flow, compared to $2,640 million of operating cash flow in the prior year. The decrease of $575 million was due to lower gold sales as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017, lower gold sales volume at Pueblo Viejo, Hemlo, Turquoise Ridge, Lagunas Norte and Acacia, partially offset by higher sales at Barrick Nevada attributed to higher grades and Best-in-Class initiatives positively impacting throughput. This was further impacted by working capital outflows reflecting the buildup of metals inventory at Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte and Acacia combined with an increase in exploration, evaluation and project expenses. Operating cash flow was also affected by lower cash flows attributed to non-controlling interest, combined with higher cash taxes paid. These outflows were partially offset by higher gold and copper prices as well as lower direct mining costs.

Free cash flow¹ for 2017 was $669 million, compared to $1,514 million in the prior year, reflecting lower operating cash flows combined with higher capital expenditures. In 2017, capital expenditures on a cash basis were $1,396 million compared to $1,126 million in 2016 as we reinvested more into our business. The increase of $270 million is due to a $109 million increase in project capital expenditures, primarily at Barrick Nevada relating to the development of Crossroads and Cortez Hills Lower Zone, and Goldrush project drilling, partially offset by a decrease in pre-production stripping at the South Arturo pit, which entered commercial production in August 2016. In addition, minesite sustaining capital expenditures increased by $161 million primarily reflecting an increase in sustaining capital at Barrick Nevada relating to higher capitalized stripping costs at Goldstrike and the timing of a greater number of minesite sustaining projects in the current year, combined with increased spending relating to phases 4B and 5B of the leach pad expansion and additional equipment purchases at Veladero. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in sustaining capital at Acacia as a result of reduced operations at Bulyanhulu combined with lower capitalized stripping at North Mara relating to Nyabirama Stage 3 and 4.

The free cash flow¹ generated in 2017 was combined with the $990 million in proceeds from the sale of a 50% interest in Veladero in the second quarter of 2017 and existing cash balances to repay $1.51 billion in debt in the current year, which allowed us to exceed our 2017 debt reduction target of $1.45 billion.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 29 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Safety

Nothing is more important to Barrick than the safety, health and well-being of our workers and their families. Our safety vision is “Every person going home safe and healthy every day.” In 2017, we continued our trend of improving our total reportable injury frequency rate⁵ (“TRIFR”) and since 2009, there has been a 71% improvement in the TRIFR from 1.20 to 0.35.

The foundation underpinning Barrick’s safety improvement continues to be our Courage to Care program, designed to help Barrick make the next step in safety performance through building a strong team-based culture. In addition, we continue to focus on compliance with Barrick’s “Safety and Health Management System”.

On a weekly basis, the global leadership team, including the Executive Committee and representatives from each of Barrick’s country offices, mine sites and corporate functions, participate in a Business Plan Review (“BPR”) meeting. This forum provides us with the opportunity to stress the importance of safety, recall the lessons learned from past fatal incidents, review our current safety performance against targets and share best practices across our business.

Although we are pleased with these trends, this performance was overshadowed by two fatalities in 2017. As previously reported, in February of 2017 a contract worker at Pascua-Lama was involved in a fatal incident while performing scheduled maintenance work. In November of 2017 a surveyor at Hemlo was fatally struck underground by a piece of heavy machinery. Barrick is fully committed to zero fatalities and is implementing Critical Control Management across all sites and exploration activities. Critical Control Management is specifically focused on fatality prevention and is based upon guidance published by the International Council on Mining and Metals (“ICMM”) in 2015. Significant progress has been made in the development of digital technologies that significantly reduce risks of fatalities at our mines, including the development of autonomous vehicles.

Total Reportable Injury Frequency

Environment

Barrick is focused on rebuilding our reputation for environmental excellence and being the preferred partner of host governments and communities. In 2017, our operations worked on adapting the ICMM Critical Control Management guidance to our environmental operations. In addition, each site developed an in-depth improvement plan with a focus on water management. The results of this are demonstrated in a 72% reduction in reportable environmental incidents between 2015 and 2017.

Despite these achievements, in March 2017 the monitoring system at the Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. Although the solution was contained within the operating site and no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses, it was the third cyanide-related incident in the past three years at this site. Barrick along with Shandong Gold, our new joint venture partner at Veladero, made modifications to the leach pad as agreed with San Juan provincial authorities to reduce the risk of this happening again.

Reportable Environmental Incidents

Climate Change

Climate change, including shifts in temperature and precipitation and more frequent severe weather events, will affect the mining industry in a range of possible ways. Volatile climatic conditions can affect the stability and effectiveness of infrastructure and equipment; potentially impact environmental protection and site closure practices; lead to changes in the regulatory environment, including increased carbon tax regimes; and potentially impact the stability and cost of water and energy supplies. We therefore view climate change as a company, community, and global concern. In 2017, we developed a climate change strategy aligned with our overall business strategy to grow free cash flow per share through safe and responsible mining.

Barrick’s climate change strategy has three pillars: understand and mitigate the risks associated with climate change; reduce our impacts on climate change; and improve our disclosure on climate change. Action taken on each pillar in 2017 is described below.

Understand and mitigate the risks associated with climate change: In 2017, we performed a climate change risk

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 30 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

assessment, using our standard risk management framework. We assessed risks and opportunities across both potential transition (e.g., regulatory, policy, reputational) and physical (e.g., extreme climate events) aspects of climate change. We have identified the top three climate-related risks and opportunities for our business: an increase in extended duration extreme precipitation events; an increase in climate change regulations to limit greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions; and increased global investment in innovation and low carbon technologies. The assessment also included a review of the current mitigation and controls associated with each risk and identified areas which may need further strengthening to reduce risk.

Reduce the Company’s impact on climate change: Over the course of 2017, we analyzed our current and forecasted GHG emissions to develop an ambitious but realistic goal to reduce Barrick’s GHG emissions. Mining is an energy-intensive business, and we understand the important link between energy use and GHG emissions. By effectively managing our energy use, we can reduce our draw from local energy grids, reduce our GHG emissions, achieve more efficient production, and save direct mining costs. Barrick has set a goal to keep its current GHG emissions flat in the short term and is targeting a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, from a 2016 baseline of 3.5 MT CO2e emitted. This target is also closely aligned with the national targets set by many of our host governments.

Improve our disclosure on climate change: In 2017, we committed to supporting the voluntary recommendations of the industry-led Financial Stability Board Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). The TCFD recommendations are considered the new benchmark for disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities, and Barrick was the only Canadian mining company to make this public commitment. We will implement the full recommendations over the next two years.

Governance over climate-related risks and opportunities is provided at both the Board and management level. The Board’s Corporate Responsibility Committee meets at least quarterly and is responsible for overseeing Barrick’s policies, programs, and performance relating to the environment, including climate change. The Risk Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s management of enterprise risks as well as the implementation of policies and standards for monitoring and mitigating such risks. Climate change is built into our formal risk management process, outputs of which are reviewed by the Risk Committee. The Audit Committee reviews the Company’s approach to climate change in the context of Barrick’s disclosures.

At the management level, our Climate Change Committee, comprised of senior members of our

management team, provides strategic oversight and governance over key decisions related to Barrick’s Climate Change Strategy, such as overseeing climate change risk and opportunity assessments, monitoring progress against GHG emissions targets, and providing guidance on external disclosures.

Further to the specific focus of the Climate Change Committee, the weekly BPR allows for the discussion of opportunities and risks that may help or hinder the Company from achieving its objectives, including climate-related risks (e.g., spring snow melts, hurricanes, flooding, and mud slides).

Climate change activities initiated in 2017 will continue into 2018 and beyond. Site-level climate-related risks and mitigation plans will be reviewed in the context of the company-wide risk assessment, and site-level plans to reduce energy and GHG emissions will be strengthened. We will continue to enhance our climate-related disclosure according to the TCFD recommendations. Overall, based on the groundwork completed in 2017, Barrick is building resilience to withstand the potential impacts of climate change and leverage potential opportunities as the global economy transitions to a low-carbon future.

Reserves and Resources

Our 2017 reserves were calculated using a gold price assumption of $1,200 per ounce. As of December 31, 2017, Barrick’s proven and probable gold reserves were 64.4 million ounces⁶, compared to 86.0 million ounces at the end of 2016. This decline primarily reflects the divestment of approximately 9.2 million ounces associated with Veladero and Cerro Casale, and the reclassification of approximately 14.0 million ounces of Pascua-Lama proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources.

Barrick added 8.0 million ounces of proven and probable gold reserves at existing operations (as well as the Goldrush project) through drilling, more than replacing the 6.2 million ounces depleted through processing last year. This success reflects increased investment in mine exploration drilling in 2017. Significant additions included 2.1 million ounces at Turquoise Ridge, 1.4 million ounces at Cortez, 1.3 million ounces at Goldstrike, 397,000 ounces at Hemlo, and 392,000 ounces at Lagunas Norte. We also declared an initial reserve of 1.5 million ounces at the Goldrush project. In addition, Barrick’s 63.9 percent share of reserves at Acacia’s North Mara mine increased by 504,000 ounces. The average grade of Barrick’s reserves also increased by 17 percent, from 1.33 grams per tonne, to 1.55 grams per tonne.

In 2017, measured, indicated, and inferred gold resources were calculated using a gold price assumption of $1,500 per ounce, consistent with 2016. Measured and indicated

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 31 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

gold resources increased to 88.6 million ounces⁶ at the end of 2017, compared to 75.2 million ounces at the end of 2016. Roughly 9.1 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources were added as a result of the formation of the Norte Abierto joint venture (which includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits), net of resources divested at Cerro Casale and Veladero. Roughly 14.0 million ounces of measured and indicated resources were added as a result of the reclassification of Pascua-Lama reserves to resources, and 5.8 million ounces were added through drilling, including 1.5 million ounces at Goldstrike, 1.2 million ounces at Cortez, and 535,000 ounces at Hemlo.

Inferred gold resources decreased to 30.8 million ounces⁶ at the end of 2017, compared to 30.7 million ounces at the end of 2016.

Gold Reserves and Resources

(millions of ounces)

Proven and probable copper reserves were calculated using a copper price of $2.75 per pound, consistent with the long-price assumption we used in 2016. Copper reserves, including copper within gold reserves, increased to 11.2 billion pounds⁶ at the end of 2017, compared to 11.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016. The Lumwana mine added approximately 2.6 billion pounds to its reserves as a result of successful cost reduction efforts. Approximately 1.4 billion pounds of copper reserves were divested with the sale of 25% of Cerro Casale, 554 million pounds were processed, and 505 million pounds of copper contained within gold reserves were reclassified as copper contained within gold resources.

In 2017, measured, indicated, and inferred copper resources were calculated using a copper price assumption of $3.50 per pound, consistent with 2016. Measured and indicated copper resources, including copper within measured and indicated gold resources, increased to 11.7 billion pounds⁶, compared to 9.7 billion pounds at the end of 2016. Approximately 2.6 billion pounds of measured and indicated copper resources were upgraded to copper reserves, 2.6 billion pounds were added through the inclusion of the Caspiche deposit, and 1.6 billion pounds were added through drilling. Inferred copper resources were 3.0 billion pounds⁵, compared to 3.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016.

Copper Reserves and Resources

(millions of pounds)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 32 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Outlook for 2018

Operating Unit Guidance

Our 2017 gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹, all-in sustaining costs¹ and 2018 forecast gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹ and all-in sustaining costs¹ ranges by operating unit are as follows:

Operating Unit	2017 production (000s ozs)	2017 cost of sales ($/oz)	2017 cash costs1 ($/oz)	2017 all-in sustaining costs1 ($/oz)	2018 forecast production (000s ozs)	2018 forecast cost of sales ($/oz)	2018 forecast cash costs1 ($/oz)	2018 forecast   all-in   sustaining   costs1 ($/oz)
Gold
Barrick Nevada	2,312	$792	$455	$624	2,000 -2,255	760 -810	470 -530	610 - 660
Pueblo Viejo (60%)	650	699	405	525	585 - 615	720 - 750	425 - 450	590 - 620
Lagunas Norte	387	617	405	483	230 - 270	780 - 910	420 - 490	670 - 780
Veladero (50%)2	432	897	598	987	275 - 330	970 - 1,110	560 - 620	960 - 1,100
Turquoise Ridge (75%)	211	715	589	733	240 - 270	670 - 720	580 - 620	650 - 730
Porgera (47.5%)	235	944	781	993	230 - 255	950 - 1,000	780 - 830	950 - 1,000
Kalgoorlie (50%)	368	806	642	729	390 - 440	720 - 820	580 - 630	695 - 745
Acacia (63.9%)	491	791	587	875	275 - 305	970 - 1,020	690 - 720	935 - 985
Hemlo	196	986	841	1,092	200 - 220	860 - 920	740 - 790	975 - 1,075
Golden Sunlight	41	1,334	1,265	1,329	35 - 50	1,100 -1,200	1,130 -1,230	1,290 -1,460
Total Continuing Operations	5,323	$793	$522	$703	4,500 -5,000	810 - 850	540 - 575	765 - 815
Total Consolidated Barrick3,4,5	5,323	$794	$526	$750	4,500 -5,000	810 - 850	540 - 575	765 - 815
	2017 production (millions lbs)	2017 cost of sales ($/lb)	2017 cash costs1 ($/lb)	2017 all-in sustaining costs1 ($/lb)	2018 forecast production (millions lbs)	2018 forecast cost of sales ($/lb)	2018 forecast C1 cash costs1 ($/lb)	2018     forecast     all-in     sustaining     costs1 ($/lb)
Copper
Zaldívar (50%)	114	$2.15	$1.66	$2.21	115 - 130	2.30 - 2.50	~ 1.70	2.05 - 2.25
Lumwana	256	1.57	1.66	2.35	230 - 265	1.65 - 1.90	1.65 - 1.90	2.50 - 2.80
Jabal Sayid (50%)	43	1.90	1.70	2.30	40 - 55	1.85 - 2.50	1.40 - 1.80	1.70 - 2.30
Total Copper	413	$1.77	$1.66	$2.34	385 - 450	1.80 - 2.10	1.55 - 1.75	2.30 - 2.60

1 Cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 We sold 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017; therefore these measures represent results on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

3 Total gold cash costs and all-in sustaining costs per ounce include the impact of hedges and/or costs allocated to non-operating sites.

4 Operating unit guidance ranges reflect expectations at each individual operating unit, and may not add up to the company-wide guidance range total. The company-wide 2017 results and guidance ranges exclude Pierina which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

5 Total Consolidated Barrick all-in sustaining costs include corporate administration costs.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 33 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Operating Unit, Consolidated Expense and Capital Guidance

Our 2017 gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹, all-in sustaining costs¹, consolidated expenses and capital expenditures and forecast gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹, all-in sustaining costs¹, consolidated expenses and capital expenditures for 2018 are as follows:

($ millions, except per ounce/pound data)	2017 Original Guidance		Q3 2017 Guidance		2017 Actual			2018 Guidance
Gold production and costs
Production (millions of ounces)		5.60 - 5.90		5.30 - 5.50		5.32			4.50 - 5.00
Gold unit production costs
Cost of sales - gold ($ per oz)		780 - 820		790 - 810		794			810 - 850
Cash costs ($ per oz)1		510 - 535		520 - 535		526			540 - 575
Depreciation ($ per oz)		245 - 265		245 - 265		254			240 - 260
All-in sustaining costs ($ per oz)1		720 -770		740 - 770		750			765 - 815
Copper production and costs
Production (millions of pounds)		400 - 450		420 - 440		413			385 - 450
Copper unit production costs
Cost of sales - copper ($ per lb)		1.50 - 1.70		1.70 - 1.85		1.77			1.80 - 2.10
C1 cash costs ($ per lb)1		1.40 - 1.60		1.60 - 1.75		1.66			1.55 - 1.75
Depreciation ($ per lb)		0.30 - 0.40		0.30 - 0.40		0.38			0.40 - 0.50
Copper all-in sustaining costs ($ per lb)1		2.10 - 2.40		2.20 - 2.40		2.34			2.30 - 2.60
Exploration and project expenses		415 - 495		415 - 495		354			325 - 405
Exploration and evaluation		185 - 225		185 - 225		173			185 - 225
Project expenses		230 - 270		230 - 270		181			140 -180
General and administrative expenses		~ 285		~ 260		248			~ 340
Corporate administration		~ 200		~ 200		201			~ 275
Stock-based compensation2		~ 40		~ 40		26			~ 30
Acacia3		~ 45		~ 20		21			~ 35
Other expense (income)4		25 - 45		25 - 45		(799	)		80 - 100
Finance costs5		600 - 650		600 - 650		705			500 - 550
Attributable capital expenditures:
Attributable minesite sustaining		1,050 - 1,200		1,100 - 1,200		1,095			950 - 1,100
Attributable project		250 - 300		250 - 300		269			450 - 550
Total attributable capital expenditures6		1,300 - 1,500		1,350 - 1,500		1,364			1,400 - 1,600

1 Cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 2017 actual based on US$14.47 and 2018 guidance based on a three month trailing average ending December 31, 2017 of US$14.50 per share and excludes Acacia.

3 2017 actual includes $8 million in stock-based compensation recovery. 2018 guidance is substantially comprised of stock-based compensation.

4 2017 actual includes gain on sale of non-current assets of $911 million.

5 2017 actual includes a net loss on debt extinguishment of $127 million.

6 Attributable capital expenditures are presented on the same basis as guidance, which includes our 60% share of Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo, our 63.9% share of Acacia and our 50% share of Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

2018 Guidance Analysis

Estimates of future production, cost of sales, and cash costs¹ presented in this MD&A are based on mine plans that reflect the expected method by which we will mine reserves at each site. Actual gold and copper production and associated costs may vary from these estimates due to a number of operational and non-operational risk factors (see the “Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information” on page 22 of this MD&A for a description of certain risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these estimates).

Production

We expect 2018 gold production to be in the range of 4.5 to 5.0 million ounces. 2018 gold production is expected to be lower than 2017, primarily as a result of decreases at Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo and Veladero. We expect first quarter production of around one million ounces at costs that will be proportionately higher than those anticipated for the remainder of the year, largely due to lower grades at Barrick Nevada, and the timing of planned maintenance at Pueblo Viejo.

Lower production is expected at Barrick Nevada as its Cortez Hills open pit and Cortez Hills underground moves from purely oxide ore to a mix of oxide, refractory, and

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 34 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

transitional ores. Grade is expected to be lower as production progresses deeper in the mine. This is partially offset by increased throughput at the oxide mill, increased grades at Goldstrike open pit from processing the third northwest layback, and higher grades at Goldstrike underground. Throughput initiatives at the autoclave are expected to more than offset lower autoclave recovery as we transition from an all acid blend to an alkaline/acid blend.

Production at Pueblo Viejo in 2018 is expected to be lower than 2017 production levels, driven by reduced gold grade, partially offset by increased autoclave throughput resulting from improved maintenance strategies.

Lower production for Veladero is expected as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017. This, combined with an increased proportion of ore tonnage mined at lower grade, will be offset by a higher inventory drawdown due to improved management of the leach pad.

Cost of Sales

On a per ounce basis, cost of sales attributable to gold⁴, after removing the portion related to non-controlling interests, is expected to be in the range of $810 to $850 per ounce, higher than the prior year. The projected increase is mainly due to higher assumed energy and consumables costs. We are planning to offset those rising costs with a continued focus on lowering our other direct mining costs through Best-in-Class initiatives, which should improve operating efficiencies and lower labor and contractor costs.

Cash Costs per ounce

Cash costs¹ are expected to be in the range of $540 to $575 per ounce, slightly higher than the prior year due to increases at Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo and Lagunas Norte, partially offset by a decrease at Veladero.

We expect Barrick Nevada to have higher cash costs¹ than 2017 due to lower sold ounces. At Pueblo Viejo and Lagunas Norte we expect higher cash costs¹ than 2017 primarily due to a reduction in total ounces produced and sold and higher fuel prices.

We expect lower cash costs¹ at Veladero in 2018 compared to the prior year due to lower direct operating costs partly offset by the impact of higher charges from the production inventory movements.

All-In Sustaining Costs per ounce

All-in sustaining costs¹ are expected to be in the range of $765 to $815 per ounce for gold, higher than the $750 per ounce in 2017 driven primarily by the higher expected cash costs as well as an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures on a per ounce basis. In 2018, we expect to incur increased corporate administration

expense. We will also continue to focus on Best-in-Class initiatives to reduce mining costs.

Exploration and Project Expenses

We expect to incur approximately $185 to $225 million of exploration and evaluation (“E&E”) expenditures in 2018 with approximately 80 percent allocated to the Americas. Our exploration programs balance high-quality brownfield projects, greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that we believe have the potential to become profitable mines. We continue to take advantage of existing infrastructure and advance key growth projects in Barrick Nevada. At our Hemlo mine we are building on the expansion potential of our underground, and at the Lagunas Norte mine in Peru we continue to advance a project to extend the life of the mine by potentially exploiting existing oxide stockpiles and then transitioning to mining the refractory material below the oxide ore body in the current open pit.

Highlights of our greenfield exploration program for 2018 include the Fourmile target, adjacent to our Goldrush discovery in Nevada, and the Frontera District on the border of Argentina and Chile.

We expect to incur approximately $140 to $180 million of project expenses in 2018, compared to $181 million in 2017. In 2018, project expenses include the Pascua-Lama study and ongoing site costs, the re-scoping study of our Donlin Gold Project, costs associated with regional digital projects and Norte Abierto (our joint venture with Goldcorp containing Cerro Casale and Caspiche) projects. The Pascua-Lama study spend relates to the cost of ongoing work to evaluate and permit the development of an underground mine at Pascua-Lama, accessed from the Argentinean side of the project. Pascua-Lama’s ongoing site expenses include the cost of care and maintenance and does not anticipate the impact of the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (“SMA”) sanction received on January 17, 2018. The Company has appealed the SMA sanction on Pascua in Chile and the full impacts are still being evaluated.

General and Administrative Expenses

In 2018, we expect corporate administration costs to be approximately $275 million, an increase of $74 million compared to 2017. This reflects additional investments including improving our enterprise-wide processes and systems - the Barrick Data Fabric; accelerating the implementation of digital technology; and driving step-change innovations.

Finance Costs

Finance costs of $500 to $550 million primarily represent interest expense on long-term debt, non-cash interest expense relating to gold and silver streaming agreements, and accretion, net of finance income. We expect finance costs in 2018 to be lower than 2017 finance costs of $705 million primarily due to lower interest expense in 2017

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 35 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

following $1.5 billion of debt repayments in 2017. The impact of any further debt reductions accomplished in 2018 has not been reflected in our guidance on interest expense or extinguishment losses. 2017 finance costs included a $127 million net loss on the extinguishment of debt, and further debt repurchases could lead to additional losses on extinguishment that could cause an increase to forecasted finance costs.

Capital Expenditures

Total attributable capital expenditures for 2018 are expected to be in the range of $1.40 to $1.60 billion. Investing in project capital is a priority in 2018 for Barrick, and we expect attributable project capital expenditures to increase to a range of $450 to $550 million, an increase over our 2017 project capital expenditure of $269 million. In contrast, attributable minesite sustaining capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $950 to $1,100 million, compared to our 2017 minesite sustaining capital expenditure of $1,095 million.

Project capital expenditures reflect capital expenditures at new projects and existing operations that are related to discrete expansion projects intended to increase production and will not benefit production for at least 12 months. Project capital expenditures also include capital expenditures related to the initial construction of a project and include all of the expenditures required to bring the project into operation and achieve commercial production levels.

The budgeted increase in project capital expenditures in 2018 is primarily due to increased spending on the Lower Zone underground expansion and Crossroads project at Cortez, associated with the underground declines at Cortez Hills underground and Goldrush, an increase at Zaldívar associated with a planned plant expansion, and increases at Norte Abierto and Pascua-Lama.

Minesite sustaining capital expenditures reflect the capital spending required to support current planned production levels and those which do not meet our definition of project capital. This includes capitalized production phase stripping costs at our open pit mines, underground mine development, minesite E&E expenditures, and routine plant, equipment and maintenance spend that meet our criteria for capitalization.

Attributable minesite sustaining capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $950 to $1,100 million compared to $1,095 in 2017. We expect reduced capitalized stripping at Barrick Nevada, Porgera and

Acacia, in addition to a reduction in processing and minesite sustaining capital at Barrick Nevada and Veladero. These are partially offset by an increase in capitalized stripping and equipment rebuilds at Lumwana, an increase in tailings and process facility upgrades at Pueblo Viejo and an increase in capital associated with environmental obligations at Lagunas Norte. These decreases in sustaining capital are the result of our continued focus on our asset optimization and capital discipline processes.

At Barrick Nevada in 2018, sustaining capital expenditures are expected to decrease primarily due to a reduction in capitalized stripping as the Goldstrike open pit transitions from stripping both the 3rd and 4th northwest laybacks to only stripping the 4th northwest layback until the fourth quarter of 2018. In addition, Goldstrike’s cooling and ventilation and dewatering projects to allow mining below a 3,600-foot elevation will near completion mid-2018. The autoclave thiosulfate water treatment plant conversion was completed in 2017, which significantly improved water balances and the consumption of fresh reagent.

At Porgera, sustaining capital expenditures are expected to decrease in 2018 primarily due to a planned reduction in capitalized stripping as the site focuses on an underground expansion plan.

At Veladero, a reduction in sustaining capital is expected in 2018, mainly associated with the completion of the Phase 6 VFLF leach pad expansion and process facility upgrades along with a reduction in overall attributable capital spend due to 2018 being our first full year at our 50/50 equity ownership with our joint venture partner, Shandong Gold.

At Lumwana, the 2018 increase in sustaining capital is related to increased stripping of the Chimi deposit and purchase of major maintenance components and the electric conversion of the PC8000 shovel.

At Pueblo Viejo, the increase in sustaining capital in 2018 is related to initiatives to improve the plant’s operational efficiency, process facility upgrades and continued tailings expansion capital.

Effective Income Tax Rate

At current spot gold prices, our expected effective tax rate range for 2018 is 41% to 43%.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 36 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Outlook Assumptions and Economic Sensitivity Analysis

	2018 Guidance Assumption	Hypothetical Change	Impact on Revenue (millions)	Impact on Cost of Sales (millions)	Impact on All-in Sustaining Costs1
Gold revenue, net of royalties2	$1,200/oz	+/- $100/oz	+/- $468	+/- $14	+/- $3/oz
Copper revenue, net of royalties3	$2.75/lb	+ $0.50/lb	+ $205	+ $13	+ $0.03/lb
Copper revenue, net of royalties3	$2.75/lb	- $0.50/lb	- $180	- $12	- $0.03/lb
Gold all-in sustaining costs
WTI crude oil price2	$55/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/- $26	+/- $5 /oz
Australian dollar exchange rate	0.75 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $31	+/- $7 /oz
Argentinean peso exchange rate	18.35 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $7	+/- $2 /oz
Canadian dollar exchange rate	1.25 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $35	+/- $7 /oz
Copper all-in sustaining costs
WTI crude oil price2	$55/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/- $5	+/- $0.06/lb
Chilean peso exchange rate	650 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/-$10	+/- $0.02/lb

1 All-in sustaining costs is a non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardized definition under IFRS. For further information and a detailed reconciliation, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 Due to our hedging activities, which are reflected in these sensitivities, we are partially protected against changes in these factors.

3 Utilizing option collar strategies, the Company has protected the downside of a portion of its expected 2018 copper production at an average floor price of $2.83 per pound and can participate on the same amount up to an average price of $3.25 per pound. Our remaining copper production is subject to market prices.

Risks and Risk Management

Overview

The ability to deliver on our vision, strategic objectives and operating guidance depends on our ability to understand and appropriately respond to the uncertainties or “risks” we face that may prevent us from achieving our objectives. In order to achieve this we:

• Maintain a framework that ensures we manage risk effectively and in a manner that creates the greatest value;

• Integrate a process for managing risk into all our important decision-making processes so that we reduce the effect of uncertainty on achieving our objectives;

• Ensure that the key controls we rely on to achieve the Company’s objectives are actively monitored so that they remain in place and are effective at all times; and

• Provide assurance to the executives and relevant Committees of the Board of Directors on the effectiveness of key control activities.

Board and Committee Oversight

We maintain strong risk oversight practices, with responsibilities outlined in the Board’s and related committees’ mandates. The Board’s mandate makes clear its responsibility for reviewing and discussing with management the processes used to assess and manage risk, including the identification by management of the principal risks of the business, and the implementation of appropriate systems to deal with such risks.

The Risk Committee of the Board of Directors assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s management of principal risks as well as the implementation of policies and standards for monitoring and modifying such risks, and monitoring and reviewing the Company’s financial position and financial risk management programs generally. The Audit Committee and Corporate Responsibility Committee also provide oversight focusing on financial and operational (e.g., environmental, health and safety, corporate social responsibility, security and human rights) risk exposures, respectively.

Management Oversight

On a weekly basis, the global leadership team, including the Executive Committee and representatives from each of Barrick’s country offices, mine sites and corporate functions, participate in the BPR meeting. This forum allows for the timely identification of key risks that may prevent the Company from achieving its objectives. It also fosters a culture of transparent, real-time risk management as a collective and enables a learning organization. At regularly scheduled meetings, the Board and the Risk Committee are provided with updates on issues identified by management at these weekly sessions.

Principal Risks

The following subsections describe some of our key sources of uncertainty and most important risk modification activities. The risks described below are not the only ones facing Barrick. Our business is subject to inherent risks in financial, regulatory, strategic and operational areas. For a more comprehensive discussion of those inherent risks, see “Risk Factors” in our most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 37 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities. Also see the “Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information” on page 22 of this MD&A.

Financial position and liquidity

Our liquidity profile, level of indebtedness and credit ratings are all factors in our ability to meet short- and long-term financial demands. Barrick’s outstanding debt balances impact liquidity through scheduled interest and principal repayments and the results of leverage ratio calculations, which could influence our investment grade credit ratings and ability to access capital markets. In addition, the Company’s ability to draw on our credit facility is subject to meeting its covenants. Our primary source of liquidity is our operating cash flow, which is dependent on the ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows. The ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows, as well as future changes in gold and copper market prices, either favorable or unfavorable, will continue to have a material impact on our cash flow and liquidity.

Key risk modification activities:

• Reduced notional and lengthened average tenor of our outstanding debt through liability management activities;

• Continued focus on generating positive free cash flow by improving the underlying cost structures of our operations in a sustainable manner;

• Disciplined capital allocation criteria for all investments, and regular Investment Committee meetings to ensure a high degree of consistency and rigor is applied to all capital allocation decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of risk and reward;

• Preparation of budgets and forecasts to understand the impact of different price scenarios on liquidity, and formulate appropriate strategies; and

• Other options available to the Company to enhance liquidity include drawing on our $4.0 billion undrawn credit facility, asset sales, joint ventures, or issuance of debt or equity securities.

Improving free cash flow¹ and costs

Our ability to improve productivity, drive down operating costs and reduce working capital remains a focus in 2018 and is subject to several sources of uncertainty. This includes our ability to achieve and maintain industry-leading margins by improving the productivity and efficiency of our operations through our Best-in-Class, Asset Integrity and digital transformation programs.

Key risk modification activities:

• Formal project management protocols are established around these business transformation programs. The status of these projects is reviewed on a weekly basis during the

BPR meetings to ensure the timely identification of key risk exposures that may affect their successful delivery;

• Ongoing implementation of a digitization program including a Cisco partnership to unlock the potential of digital mining; and

• Ongoing implementation of a Best-in-Class program to unleash the full potential of our mines and encompassing:

° A standardized, performance-oriented measurement scorecard linking top operational and economic measures;

° Monthly optimization forums as a way to communicate and review the Best-in-Class projects and performance to targets;

° Innovation and digitization program focused on driving value across the business; and

° Asset Integrity program to improve availability of critical infrastructure.

Social license to operate

At Barrick, we are committed to building, operating, and closing our mines in a safe and responsible manner. To do this, we seek to develop long-term and mutually-beneficial relationships with host governments and communities while working to minimize the social and environmental impacts of our activities. Geopolitical risks such as resource nationalism and incidents of corruption are inherent for a company operating globally. Past environmental incidents in the extractive industry highlight the hazards (e.g., water management, tailings storage facilities, etc.) and the potential consequences to both the environment and community health and safety. Barrick also recognizes climate change as an area of risk requiring specific focus. Our ability to maintain compliance with regulatory and community obligations in order to protect the environment and our host communities alike remains one of our top priorities.

Key risk modification activities:

• Our external Corporate Social Responsibility Advisory Board was formed in 2012 and provides expert advice to the Company on a range of corporate social responsibility matters, including community relations, sustainable development, water, energy, climate change, security and human rights;

• Our obligations, expectations and intentions are codified in our Vision and Values and the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and they are reinforced regularly at all levels of the Company;

• Barrick’s community relations, environment, safety and health, security and compliance management systems set expectations, define performance standards and provide the necessary tools to modify the related risks;

• We take a partnership approach with our home and host governments. This means we work to

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 38 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

balance our own interests and priorities with those of our government partners, working to ensure that everyone derives real value from our operations;

• We open our social and environmental performance to third-party scrutiny, including through the ISO 14001 re-certification process, International Cyanide Management Code audits, annual human rights impact assessments, and an annual assurance against the International Council on Mining and Metal’s Sustainable Development Framework;

• We participate in the annual CDP Climate Change and Water Disclosure process, providing investors and other interested partners with detailed information on our water and energy use and emissions data;

• Under the direction of the Climate Change committee, we performed a climate change risk assessment. Refer to page 30 for details; and

• We continually review and update our closure plans and cost estimates to plan for environmentally responsible closure and monitoring of operations.

Resources and reserves and production outlook

Like any mining company, we face the risk that we are unable to discover or acquire new resources or that we do not convert resources into production. As we move into 2018 and beyond, our overriding objective of growing free cash flow per share is underpinned by a strong pipeline of organic projects and minesite expansion opportunities in our core regions. Uncertainty related to these and other opportunities exists (potentially both favorable and unfavorable) due to the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development as well as the potential for increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects.

Key risk modification activities:

• Focus on responsible Mineral Resource Management and continuously improved orebody knowledge, adding to and upgrading reserves and resources (organically and inorganically);

• Develop and advance a balanced pipeline of high-return projects and seek to exit those that do not meet expectations;

• Pursue high-return growth options with a mindset of innovation, cost control, and risk mitigation;

• Enhance project design to stagger capital outlay and optimize timing of cash flows; and

• Exploration activities including minesite exploration and global programs.

Market Overview

The market prices of gold, and, to a lesser extent, copper are the primary drivers of our profitability and our ability to generate free cash flow for our shareholders.

Gold

The price of gold is subject to volatile price movements over short periods of time and is affected by numerous industry and macroeconomic factors. During the year, the gold price ranged from $1,146 per ounce to $1,358 per ounce. The average market price for the year of $1,257 per ounce represented an increase of 0.5% versus 2016.

The price of gold generally rose over the course of 2017, experiencing its low in early January and ending the year near $1,300/oz. Over the year, the gold price was positively influenced by a weakening of the trade-weighted US dollar to lows not seen since early 2015. In addition, geopolitical tensions, highlighted by concerns regarding North Korea, fluctuations in long-term US interest rates, and investor interest in gold as a safe haven asset and hedge against record high levels in U.S. equity indices were all supportive factors for gold.

Copper

During 2017, London Metal Exchange (“LME”) copper prices traded in a range of $2.47 to $3.32 per pound, averaged $2.80 per pound, and closed the year at $3.25 per pound. Copper prices are significantly influenced by physical demand from emerging markets, especially China.

The price of copper traded higher over the course of 2017, reaching a 3-year high near the end of the year and averaging 27% above the previous year. Copper prices benefited from a weakening of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, positive economic and copper usage data from China, an increase in the price of other non-precious metal mined commodities, and positive investor sentiment. A dearth of new projects scheduled to enter production later in the decade could positively impact prices in the coming years should physical demand continue to grow.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 39 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Utilizing option collar strategies, we have protected the downside on approximately 60 million pounds (~15%) of expected copper production for the first half of 2018 at an average floor price of $2.83 per pound and can participate up to an average price of $3.25 per pound. These positions expire evenly over the first six months of the year. Our remaining copper production is subject to market prices.

We have provisionally priced copper sales for which final price determination versus the relevant copper index is outstanding at the balance sheet date. As at December 31, 2017, we recorded 40 million pounds of copper sales subject to final settlement at an average provisional price of $3.29 per pound. The impact to net income before taxation of a 10% movement in the market price of copper would be approximately $13 million, holding all other variables constant.

Silver

Silver traded in a range of $15.19 to $18.65 per ounce in 2017, with an average market price of $17.05 per ounce and closed the year at $16.87 per ounce. The silver price is driven by factors similar to those influencing investment demand for gold.

Silver prices do not significantly impact our current operating earnings, cash flows, or gold cash costs. Silver prices, however, will have a significant impact on the overall economics for our Pascua-Lama project.

Currency Exchange Rates

The results of our mining operations outside of the United States are affected by US dollar exchange rates with non-US denominated currencies comprising approximately 30% of our operating and capital cost exposures. Although we have made dispositions, we continue to have exposure to the Australian and Canadian dollars through a combination of mine operating and corporate administration costs, as well as exposure to the Chilean peso through expected future capital and operating costs at our Pascua-Lama project and mine operating costs at Zaldívar. We also have exposure to the Argentinean peso through operating costs at our Veladero mine, peso denominated VAT receivable balances and expected future capital and operating costs at our Pascua-Lama project. In addition, we have exposure to the Papua New Guinea kina, Peruvian sol, Zambian kwacha, Tanzanian shilling and Dominican peso through mine operating and capital costs.

Fluctuations in the US dollar increase the volatility of our costs reported in US dollars, subject to positions put in place through our currency hedging program. During 2017, we did not have any currency hedge positions. In 2017, the Australian dollar traded in a range of $0.72 to $0.81 against the US dollar, while the US dollar against the Canadian dollar, Chilean peso and Argentinean peso ranged from $1.21 to $1.38, CLP613 to CLP682 and ARS 15.01 to ARS 19.20, respectively.

We are unhedged against foreign exchange exposures as at December 31, 2017.

Fuel

For 2017, the price of West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude oil traded in a wide range between $42 and $61 per barrel, with an average market price of $51 per barrel and closed the year at $60 per barrel. During 2017, the price of crude oil rose significantly over the second half of the year, reaching the highest levels since mid-2015 toward the end of the year. Reduced supply and increasing demand have helped towards balancing the physical market, and an agreement reportedly being adhered to by major producing nations to cap production has improved overall market sentiment towards crude oil.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 40 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In 2017, we recorded hedge losses in earnings of $32 million on our fuel hedge positions (2016: $47 million loss and 2015: $19 million loss). Assuming December 31, 2017 market forward curves and year-end spot prices, we expect to realize fuel hedge losses of approximately $21 million in 2018. A significant portion of these losses has already been recorded in the consolidated statements of income as an unrealized loss on non-hedge derivatives. Beginning in January 2015, upon early adoption of IFRS 9, Barrick’s fuel hedges qualified for hedge accounting and unrealized gains and losses began being recorded in Other Comprehensive Income.

    Financial Fuel Hedge Summary

	Barrels (thousands)		Average price		% of total expected exposure		Impact of $10 change on pre-tax earnings (USD millions)1
2018		1,244		78		28%		31

1 Includes the impact of hedges currently in place.

US Dollar Interest Rates

Beginning in 2008, in response to the contraction of global credit markets and in an effort to spur economic activity and avoid potential deflation, the US Federal Reserve reduced the range for its benchmark rate to between 0% and 0.25%. The benchmark was kept at this level until December 2015, when the range was increased by 25 basis points. The range was raised by an additional 25 basis points in December 2016 and an additional 75 basis points over the course of 2017. As economic conditions in the US continue to normalize, we expect incremental increases to short-term rates to continue in 2018.

At present, our interest rate exposure mainly relates to interest receipts on our cash balances ($2.2 billion at December 31, 2017); the mark-to-market value of derivative instruments; the fair value of and ongoing payments under US dollar interest-rate swaps; the carrying value of certain long-lived assets and liabilities; and to the interest payments on our variable-rate debt ($0.1 billion at December 31, 2017). Currently, the amount of interest expense recorded in our consolidated statement of income is not materially impacted by changes in interest rates, because the majority of debt was issued at fixed interest rates. The relative amounts of variable-rate financial assets and liabilities may change in the future, depending on the amount of operating cash flow we generate, as well as the level of capital expenditures and our ability to borrow on favorable terms using fixed rate debt instruments. Changes in interest rates affect the accretion expense recorded on our provision for environmental rehabilitation and therefore would affect our net earnings.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 41 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

REVIEW OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL RESULTS

Revenue

($ millions, except per ounce/pound   data in dollars)			For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Gold
000s oz sold1		5,302		5,503		6,083
000s oz produced1		5,323		5,517		6,117
Revenue		$7,631		$7,908		$7,813
Market price2		1,257		1,251		1,160
Realized price2,3		$1,258		$1,248		$1,157
Copper
millions lbs sold1		405		405		510
millions lbs produced1		413		415		511
Revenue		$608		$466		$1,002
Market price2		2.80		2.21		2.49
Realized price2,3		2.95		2.29		2.37
Other sales		$135		$184		$214
Total revenue		$8,374		$8,558		$9,029

1 Includes our equity share of gold ounces from Acacia and Pueblo Viejo and copper pounds from Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

2 Per ounce/pound weighted average.

3 Realized price is a non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

In 2017, gold revenues were down 4% compared to the prior year primarily due to a decrease in gold sales volume, partially offset by higher realized gold prices¹. The average realized gold price¹ for 2017 was up $10 per ounce compared to the prior year reflecting the higher market gold prices in 2017, which averaged $6 per ounce higher than 2016.

In 2017, gold production was 194 thousand ounces or 4% lower than the prior year, primarily as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017. Excluding the impact of the Veladero divestment, gold production decreased by 1% or 48 thousand ounces due to lower grade and recovery at Turquoise Ridge, lower grade at Pueblo Viejo and Hemlo, lower recovery at Lagunas Norte and lower throughput at Acacia as a result of reduced operations at Bulyanhulu. These decreases were partially offset by higher production at Barrick Nevada and Veladero attributed to higher throughput and grade.

Copper revenues for 2017 were up 30% compared to the prior year due to a higher realized copper price¹. In 2017, the realized copper price was up $0.66 per pound compared to 2016, due to the 27% increase in market copper prices over the prior year.

Copper production for 2017 was 2 million pounds lower than the prior year as lower production at Lumwana by 15 million pounds due to lower grades and recoveries was partially offset by increased production at Jabal Sayid of 13 million pounds, related to a full year of production in 2017 after it achieved of commercial production in July 2016.

Production Costs

($ millions, except per ounce/pound data in dollars)
For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Gold
Direct mining costs		$3,063		$3,215		$4,006
Depreciation		1,529		1,504		1,615
Royalty expense		206		224		235
Community relations		38		37		50
Cost of sales		$4,836		$4,980		$5,906
Cost of sales (per oz)1		794		798		859
Cash costs2,3		526		546		596
All-in sustaining costs2,3		750		730		831
Copper
Cost of sales		$399		$319		$814
Cost of sales (per lb)1		1.77		1.41		1.65
C1 cash costs2,3		1.66		1.49		1.73
All-in sustaining costs2,3		$2.34		$2.05		$2.33

1 Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales related to gold on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces. Cost of sales related to copper per pound is calculated using cost of sales related to copper including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

2 Per ounce/pound weighted average.

3 Cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

In 2017, cost of sales applicable to gold was 3% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower sales volume, which has contributed to a decrease in direct mining costs and royalty expense. This was partially offset by an increase in depreciation expense, as discussed below. On a per ounce basis, cost of sales applicable to gold⁴ after removing the portion related to non-controlling interests, was 1% lower than the prior year primarily due to a decrease in direct mining costs combined with a positive change in our sales mix with lower relative sales volume from our higher cost Acacia mines. Direct mining costs expense also decreased as a result of higher capitalized waste stripping activity at Barrick Nevada and Veladero

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 42 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

combined with lower inventory write-downs than the prior year and higher equipment rental costs in the prior year as a result of the oxygen plant motor failure at Pueblo Viejo in the fourth quarter of 2015. These decreases were partially offset by higher fuel prices and consulting costs associated with Best-in-Class initiatives. Direct mining costs in 2016 had also benefited from the receipt of insurance proceeds relating to the 2015 oxygen plant motor failure at Pueblo Viejo. Higher depreciation expense is mainly a result of higher depreciation at Pueblo Viejo relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment, partially offset by lower depreciation at Barrick Nevada associated with the South Arturo pit.

In 2017, gold all-in sustaining costs¹ were up $20 per ounce or 3% compared to the prior year primarily due to a planned increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures, partially offset by lower cost of sales per ounce⁴.

In 2017, cost of sales applicable to copper was 25% higher than the prior year as a result of higher power, fuel, consumables and contractor costs combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana. On a per pound basis, cost of sales applicable to copper⁴, after including our proportionate share of cost of sales at our equity method investees, increased 26% compared to the prior year primarily due to higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana as discussed above, partially offset by the positive sales mix impact of lower sales volume at Lumwana compared to the prior year. This was further impacted by higher direct mining costs at Zaldívar primarily related to higher fuel and labor costs combined with higher depreciation expense.

Copper all-in sustaining costs¹, which have been adjusted to include our proportionate share of equity method investments, were 14% higher than the prior year primarily reflecting the higher cost of sales applicable to copper combined with higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures at Lumwana and Jabal Sayid.

Capital Expenditures¹

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Minesite sustaining2		$1,109		$944		$1,359
Project capital expenditures3,4		273		175		133
Capitalized interest		—		—		17
Total consolidated  capital expenditures		$1,382		$1,119		$1,509
Attributable  consolidated  capital expenditures5		$1,364		$1,053		$1,414

1 These amounts are presented on a 100% accrued basis, except for attributable consolidated capital expenditures.

2 Includes both minesite sustaining and mine development.

3 Project capital expenditures are included in our calculation of all-in costs, but not included in our calculation of all-in sustaining costs.

4 Includes both minesite expansion and projects.

5 These amounts are presented on the same basis as our guidance, which include our 60% share of Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo, our 63.9% share of Acacia and our 50% share of Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

In 2017, total consolidated capital expenditures increased 24% compared to the prior year primarily due to an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures combined with an increase in project capital expenditures.

The 17% increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures reflects a $143 million increase in sustaining capital at Barrick Nevada relating to higher capitalized stripping costs at Goldstrike open pit and a greater number of minesite sustaining projects compared to 2016, combined with increased spending of $78 million relating to phases 4B and 5B of the leach pad expansion and additional equipment purchases at Veladero. These increases were partially offset by a $53 million decrease in sustaining capital at Acacia as a result of reduced operations at Bulyanhulu combined with lower capitalized stripping at North Mara relating to Nyabirama Stage 3 and 4.

Project capital expenditures increased by $98 million primarily as a result of greater spending incurred at Barrick Nevada relating to development of Crossroads and Cortez Hills Lower Zone, and Goldrush project drilling, partially offset by lower spending at South Arturo, which entered commercial production in August 2016.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 43 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

General and Administrative Expenses

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Corporate administration1		$201		$159		$183
Stock-based compensation2		26		42		8
Acacia		21		55		42
General & administrative expenses		$248		$256		$233

1 For the year ended December 31, 2017, corporate administration costs include approximately $3 million of severance costs (2016: $9 million; 2015: $29 million).

2 Based on US$14.47 share price as at December 31, 2017 (2016: US$15.98; 2015: US$7.38) and excludes Acacia.

General and administrative expenses were $8 million lower than the prior year primarily related to lower stock-based compensation expense due to decreases in Barrick’s and Acacia’s share prices. These were partially offset by higher corporate administration expenses, in line with expectation, mainly relating to increased spending on digital initiatives and upgrading IT systems.

Exploration, Evaluation and Project Costs

($ millions)	For the years ended  December 31
	2017	2016	2015
Minesite exploration and evaluation	$47	$44		$47
Global exploration and evaluation	126	88		116
Advanced project costs:
Pascua-Lama	122	59		119
Other	14	17		12
Corporate development	13	14		42
Business improvement and innovation	32	15		19
Global exploration and evaluation and project expense	$307	$193		$308
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses	$354	$237		$355

Exploration, evaluation and project costs for 2017 increased $117 million compared to the prior year. The increase is primarily due to a $63 million increase in project costs at Pascua-Lama including study costs. The increase was further impacted by a $38 million increase in global exploration expenses, including Alturas, and various earn-in projects combined with a $17 million increase in business improvement and innovation, primarily related to innovation projects.

Finance Costs, Net

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015
Interest expense1		$511			$591			$737
Accretion		67			50			63
Loss (gain) on debt extinguishment		127			129			(68	)
Other finance costs		—			18			7
Finance income		(14	)		(13	)		(13	)
Finance costs, net		$691			$775			$726

1 For the year ended December 31, 2017, interest expense includes approximately $101 million of non-cash interest expense relating to the gold and silver streaming agreements with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and Royal Gold, Inc. (2016: $100 million; 2015: $61 million).

In 2017, net finance costs were $84 million lower than the prior year primarily due to an $80 million reduction in interest expense attributed to debt reductions combined with a decrease in other finance costs relating to amortization of debt issue costs and higher gains on interest rate hedges. These were partially offset by an increase in accretion expense. We also recorded $127 million and $129 million in losses on debt extinguishment in 2017 and 2016, respectively, as we have been actively reducing our outstanding debt balances in recent years.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 44 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Additional Significant Statement of Income Items

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015
Impairment charges (reversals)		($212	)		($250	)		$3,897
Loss (income) on currency translation		$72			$          199			$120
Other expense/(income)		($799	)		$60			($113	)
Impairment Charges (Reversals)
($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015
	Post-tax (our share)			Post-tax (our share)			Post-tax  (our  share)
Asset impairments (reversals)
Cerro Casale		$        (518	)		$          —			$       —
Bulyanhulu		350			—			—
Lumwana		(259	)		—			—
Pascua-Lama		407			1			399
Lagunas Norte		2			(20	)		26
Golden Sunlight		2			—			—
Veladero		—			(179	)		—
Equity method investments		—			49			—
Pueblo Viejo		—			—			386
Buzwagi		—			—			30
Round Mountain/Bald Mountain		—			—			53
Exploration sites		8			—			—
Other		1			3			53
Total asset impairment charges (reversals)		$            (7	)		$       (146	)		$       947
Goodwill
Goldstrike		$          —			$          —			$730
Zaldívar		—			—			427
Pueblo Viejo		—			—			412
Cortez		—			—			355
Lagunas Norte		—			—			247
Total goodwill impairment charges		$          —			$          —			$       2,171
Tax effects and NCI		(205	)		(104	)		779
Total impairment charges (reversals) (100%)		$        (212	)		$       (250	)		$       3,897

In 2017, we recognized $7 million (net of tax and non-controlling interests) of net impairment reversals for non-current assets. This was primarily as a result of impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017, combined with impairment reversals at Lumwana due to an increase in reserves. These were partially offset by an impairment taken at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine related to the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania and net impairments taken at Pascua-Lama, mainly attributable to the

reclassification of open-pit reserves to resources after receiving a closure order from the Chilean regulators. This compares to non-current asset impairment reversals of $146 million (net of tax and non-controlling interests) in the prior year primarily relating to net impairment reversals at Veladero and Lagunas Norte as a result of improvements in the cost structure, partially offset by a $49 million write-down of our equity method investment in Zaldívar due to the final purchase price adjustments. Refer to note 21 to the Financial Statements for a full description of impairment charges, including pre-tax amounts and sensitivity analysis.

Loss (Income) on Currency Translation

Loss on currency translation for 2017 decreased $127 million compared to the prior year primarily due to $81 million of currency translation losses recognized during the first quarter of 2016 as a result of the disposal and reorganization of certain Australian entities. This was further impacted by lower unrealized foreign currency translation losses relating to the Argentinean peso, which did not depreciate as quickly in the current year.

Other Expense (Income)

Other income was $799 million in 2017 compared to an expense of $60 million in the prior year. The increase primarily relates to 2017 gains of $718 million connected to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and $193 million on the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project. This was partially offset by an increase at Acacia relating to Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs combined with higher litigation expense. This compares to a $42 million loss, primarily relating to Zaldívar, as a result of the final purchase price adjustments recorded in 2016. For a further breakdown of other expense (income), refer to note 9 to the Financial Statements.

Income Tax Expense

Income tax expense was $1,231 million in 2017. The underlying effective tax rate for ordinary income in 2017 was 44% after adjusting for the net impact of foreign currency translation losses on deferred tax balances; the impact of impairment (reversals) charges; the impact of debt extinguishment costs; the impact of asset sales and non-hedge derivatives; the impact of non-deductible foreign exchange losses; the impact of United States tax reform; the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations; and the impact of US withholding taxes. The unadjusted tax rate for income in 2017 was 45% of the income before income taxes.

We record deferred tax charges or credits if changes in facts or circumstances affect the estimated tax basis of assets and therefore the amount of deferred tax assets or liabilities to reflect changing expectations in our ability to realize deferred tax assets. The interpretation of tax regulations and legislation and their application to our business is complex and subject to change. We have

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 45 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

significant amounts of deferred tax assets, including tax loss carry forwards, and also deferred tax liabilities. Potential changes of any of these amounts, as well as our ability to realize deferred tax assets, could significantly affect net income or cash flow in future periods.

Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
At 26.5% statutory rate	$	728		$	471
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions1		(96	)		(134	)
Impact of foreign tax rates2		215			113
Expenses not tax deductible		24			54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets		(241	)		—
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets		66			—
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances		10			23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments		(7	)		(5	)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets		21			35
United States tax reform		(203	)		—
Non-recognition of US AMT credits		—			13
Adjustments in respect of prior years		(6	)		(4	)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities		172			70
Impact of tax rate changes		—			(13	)
United States withholding taxes		252			—
Other withholding taxes		18			11
Mining taxes		266			267
Other items		12			16
Income tax expense	$	1,231		$	917

1 We are able to claim certain allowances and tax deductions unique to extractive industries that result in a lower effective tax rate.

2 We operate in multiple foreign tax jurisdictions that have tax rates different than the Canadian statutory rate.

The more significant items impacting income tax expense in 2017 and 2016 include the following:

Currency Translation

Deferred tax balances are subject to remeasurement for changes in currency exchange rates each period. The most significant balances are Argentinean deferred tax liabilities. In 2017 and 2016, tax expense of $10 million and $23 million, respectively, primarily arose from translation losses due to the weakening of the Argentinean peso against the US dollar. These losses are included within deferred tax expense/recovery.

United States Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017 Tax Reform was enacted in the United States. The significant changes include: (i) a reduction from 35% to 21% in the corporate income tax rate effective January 1, 2018, which resulted in a deferred tax recovery of $343 million on our net deferred tax liability in the US, (ii) a repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) effective January 1, 2018, (iii) the mandatory repatriation of earnings and

profits of specified foreign corporations effective December 31, 2017, which resulted in an estimated onetime 2017 toll charge of $228 million, offset by (iv) the recognition of our previously unrecognized deferred tax asset on AMT credits in the amount of $88 million, which can be used to offset the one-time toll charge. The net one-time 2017 toll charge payable amount of $140 million is payable over 8 years. $129 million of this amount has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (refer to note 29 to the Financial Statements). The impact of the United States Tax Reform may differ from this estimate due to changes in interpretations and assumptions we have made and guidance that may be issued.

Proposed Framework for Acacia Operations in Tanzania and the Increase to Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities in Tanzania

The terms of the Proposed Framework for Acacia Mining Operations in Tanzania were announced on October 19, 2017. The Proposed Framework indicates that in support of ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, on terms to be settled by a working group. A tax provision of $128 million had been recorded prior to December 31, 2016 in respect of tax disputes related to Acacia. Of this amount, $70 million was recorded in 2016. In the third quarter of 2017, an additional amount of $172 million was recorded as current tax expense. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for further information with respect to these matters.

United States Withholding Taxes

Prior to fourth quarter 2017, we had not previously recorded withholding tax related to the undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries because our intention was to reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries indefinitely. During fourth quarter 2017, we reassessed our intentions regarding those undistributed earnings. As a result of our reassessment, we concluded that it was no longer our intent to indefinitely reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries, and therefore in fourth quarter 2017, we recognized an increase in our income tax provision in the amount of $252 million, representing withholding tax on the undistributed United States earnings. $150 million was recorded in the tax charge for the year, and $102 million was recorded as deferred tax expense. Of the $150 million, $130 million has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (refer to note 29 to the Financial Statements).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 46 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

FINANCIAL CONDITION REVIEW

Summary Balance Sheet and Key Financial Ratios
($ millions, except ratios and share amounts)	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		As at December 31, 2015
Total cash and equivalents		$2,234		$2,389		$2,455
Current assets		2,450		2,485		3,013
Non-current assets		20,624		20,390		20,840
Total Assets		$25,308		$25,264		$26,308
Current liabilities excluding short-term debt		$1,688		$1,676		$1,644
Non-current liabilities excluding long-term debt1		6,130		5,344		5,241
Debt (current and long-term)		6,423		7,931		9,968
Total Liabilities		$14,241		$14,951		$16,853
Total shareholders’ equity		9,286		7,935		7,178
Non-controlling interests		1,781		2,378		2,277
Total Equity		$11,067		$10,313		$9,455
Total common shares outstanding (millions of shares)2		1,167		1,166		1,165
Key Financial Ratios:
Current ratio3		2.68:1		2.68:1		2.77:1
Debt-to-equity4		0.58:1		0.77:1		1.05:1

1 Non-current financial liabilities as at December 31, 2017 were $6,844 million (2016: $8,002 million; 2015: $10,068 million).

2 Total common shares outstanding do not include 1.0 million stock options.

3 Represents current assets (excluding assets held-for-sale) divided by current liabilities (including short-term debt and excluding liabilities held-for-sale) as at December 31, 2017, December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

4 Represents debt divided by total shareholders’ equity (including minority interest) as at December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

Balance Sheet Review

Total assets were $25.3 billion at December 31, 2017, in line with the balance at December 31, 2016, as the sale of 50% percent of our Veladero mine in Argentina and 25% of the Cerro Casale project in Chile, combined with impairment charges at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and our Pascua-Lama project, were offset by the remeasurement of our remaining interest in the Veladero mine and the Cerro Casale project, combined with asset impairment reversals, mainly at Lumwana. The proceeds from the Veladero transaction were a primary source of funding for debt repayments, and were combined with a portion of our existing cash balance, which further reduced total assets. Our asset base is primarily comprised of non-current assets such as property, plant and equipment and goodwill, reflecting the capital-intensive nature of the mining business and our history of growth through acquisitions. Other significant assets include production inventories, indirect taxes recoverable and receivable, concentrate sales receivables, other government transaction and joint venture related receivables, and cash and equivalents. Total liabilities at December 31, 2017 totaled $14.2 billion, approximately $0.7 billion lower than at December 31, 2016, reflecting $1.5 billion of debt repayments made during the year, partially offset by increases in our provisions for environmental rehabilitation of $0.8 billion.

Shareholders’ Equity
As at February 6, 2018	Number of shares
Common shares		1,166,577,478
Stock options		999,467

Financial Position and Liquidity

Total cash and cash equivalents as at December 31, 2017 was $2.2 billion³. Our capital structure comprises a mix of debt and shareholders’ equity. As at December 31, 2017, our total debt was $6.4 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $4.2 billion) and our debt-to-equity ratio was 0.58:1. This compares to debt as at December 31, 2016 of $7.9 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $5.5 billion), and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.77:1.

At the beginning of 2017, we set a target to reduce our total debt by $2.9 billion, to around $5 billion, by the end of 2018 – half of which was targeted in 2017. We exceeded our 2017 target, reducing total debt by $1.5 billion in 2017. We currently have less than $100 million² in debt due before 2020, and approximately $5 billion of our outstanding debt matures after 2032.

In 2018, we have capital commitments of $79 million and expect to incur attributable sustaining and project capital expenditures of approximately $1,400 to $1,600 million in 2018 based on our guidance range on page 33. In 2018, we have contractual obligations and commitments of $ 548 million in purchase obligations for supplies and consumables and $30 million in derivative liabilities which will form part of operating costs. In addition, we have

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 47 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

$362 million in interest payments and other amounts as detailed in the table on page 66. We expect to fund these commitments through operating cash flow, which is our primary source of liquidity, as well as existing cash balances.

Our operating cash flow is dependent on the ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows. The market prices of gold and, to a lesser extent, copper are the primary drivers of our operating cash flow. Other options to enhance liquidity include further portfolio optimization and the creation of new joint ventures and partnerships; issuance of debt or equity securities in the public markets or to private investors, which could be undertaken for liquidity enhancement and/or in connection with establishing a strategic partnership; and drawing the $4.0 billion available under our undrawn credit facility (subject to compliance with covenants and the making of certain representations and warranties, this facility is available for drawdown as a source of financing).

Many factors, including but not limited to general market conditions and then prevailing metals prices, could impact our ability to issue securities on acceptable terms, as could our credit ratings. Moody’s and S&P currently rate our long-term debt as investment grade, with ratings of Baa3 and BBB-, respectively. In August 2016, S&P affirmed the Company’s BBB- rating and raised its outlook to positive from stable. Also in August 2016, Moody’s affirmed the Company’s Baa3 rating and revised its outlook to stable from negative. In September 2017, Moody’s and S&P each released reports affirming their existing ratings and outlooks. Further changes in our ratings could affect the trading prices of our securities and our cost of capital. If we were to borrow under our credit facility, the applicable interest rate on the amounts borrowed would be based, in part, on our credit ratings at the time. The key financial covenant in our undrawn credit facility requires Barrick to maintain a net debt to total capitalization ratio of less than 0.60:1. Barrick’s net debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.27:1 as at December 31, 2017 (0.35:1 as at December 31, 2016).

 Summary of Cash Inflow (Outflow)

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016
Net cash provided by operating activities		$2,065			$2,640
Investing activities
Capital expenditures		($1,396	)		($1,126	)
Divestitures		990			588
Other		69			126
Total investing inflows/(outflows)		($337	)		($412	)
Financing activities
Net change in debt1		($1,533	)		($2,057	)
Dividends2		(125	)		(86	)
Other		(228	)		(154	)
Total financing inflows/(outflows)		($1,886	)		($2,297	)
Effect of exchange rate		3			3
Increase/(decrease) in cash and  equivalents		($155	)		($66	)

1 The difference between the net change in debt on a cash basis and the net change on the balance sheet is due to changes in non-cash charges, specifically the unwinding of discounts and amortization of debt issue costs.

2 In 2017 we declared and paid dividends in US dollars totaling $0.12 per share (2016: $0.08 per share; 2015: $0.14 per share).

In 2017, we generated $2,065 million in operating cash flow, compared to $2,640 million of operating cash flow in the prior year. The decrease of $575 million was due to lower gold sales as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017, lower gold sales volume at Pueblo Viejo, Hemlo, Turquoise Ridge, Lagunas Norte and Acacia, partially offset by higher sales at Barrick Nevada attributed to higher grades and Best-in-Class initiatives positively impacting throughput. This was further impacted by working capital outflows reflecting the buildup of metals inventory at Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte and Acacia combined with an increase in exploration, evaluation and project expenses. Operating cash flow was also affected by lower cash flows attributed to non-controlling interest, combined with higher cash taxes paid. These outflows were partially offset by higher gold and copper prices as well as lower direct mining costs.

The ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows within the parameters of a reduced production profile, as well as future changes in gold and copper market prices, either favorable or unfavorable, will continue to have a material impact on our cash flow and liquidity.

Cash outflows from investing activities in 2017 amounted to $337 million compared to $412 million of cash inflows in the prior year. The decrease of $75 million compared to 2016 is primarily due to $402 million of additional proceeds from the divestitures in the current year relating to $990 million from the divestiture of a 50% interest in Veladero in 2017 compared to $588 million of proceeds

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 48 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

from the sale of Bald Mountain and our 50% interest in Round Mountain in 2016. This was partially offset by a planned increase in capital expenditures on a cash basis of $270 million in the current period.

Net financing cash outflows for 2017 amounted to $1,886 million, compared to $2,297 million in the prior year. The net financing cash outflows in 2017 and 2016

primarily consist of net debt repayments including non-cash items of $1,533 million and $2,057 million, respectively, as we achieved our debt reduction goals. This was combined with higher outflows associated with non-controlling interests and dividends, partially offset by a reduction in debt extinguishment costs.

 Summary of Financial Instruments¹

As at December 31, 2017
Financial Instrument	Principal/Notional Amount				Associated Risks
					●  Interest rate
Cash and equivalents			$2,234	million	●  Credit
					●  Credit
Accounts receivable			$239	million	●  Market
					●  Market
Other investments			$33	million	●  Liquidity
Accounts payable			$1,059	million	●  Liquidity
Debt			$6,456	million	●  Interest rate
Restricted share units			$41	million	●  Market
Deferred share units			$12	million	●  Market
Derivative instruments - currency contracts		AUD	21	million	●  Market/liquidity
		CAD	8	million
		PGK	32	million
Derivative instruments - gold contracts			105	thousand oz	●  Market/liquidity
Derivative instruments - copper contracts			60	million lbs	●  Credit
					●  Interest rate
Derivative instruments - energy contracts		Diesel	1	million bbls	●  Market/liquidity
					●  Credit
					●  Interest rate
Derivative instruments - interest rate contracts		Receive float interest rate swaps	$71	million	●  Market/liquidity

1 Refer to note 25 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding financial instruments.

OPERATING SEGMENTS PERFORMANCE

Review of Operating Segments Performance

In the first quarter of 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. Barrick’s business is now organized into eleven individual minesites, one grouping of two minesites, one publicly traded company and one project. Barrick’s Chief Operating Decision Maker, the President, reviews the operating results, assesses performance and makes capital allocation decisions at the minesite, grouping, Company and/or project level. Therefore, each individual minesite, with the exception of Barrick Nevada, Acacia and the Pascua-Lama project, is an operating segment for financial reporting purposes. Our updated presentation of our reportable

operating segments is now four individual gold mines (Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge), Barrick Nevada, Acacia and our Pascua-Lama project. The remaining operating segments, our remaining gold and copper mines, have been grouped into an “other” category and will not be reported on individually. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. Segment performance is evaluated based on a number of measures including operating income before tax, production levels and unit production costs. Certain costs are managed on a consolidated basis and are therefore not reflected in segment income.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 49 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Barrick Nevada¹, Nevada USA

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Total tonnes mined (000s)		211,090		192,753		10 %		223,661
Open pit		208,240		189,941		10 %		221,501
Underground		2,850		2,812		1 %		2,160
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		2.73		1.74		57 %		1.87
Underground mined		10.58		11.39		(7)%		13.40
Processed		3.50		2.62		34 %		2.72
Ore tonnes processed (000s)		23,894		32,473		(26)%		29,158
Oxide mill		4,562		4,197		9 %		3,476
Roaster		4,902		4,789		2 %		5,050
Autoclave		4,258		3,503		22 %		2,605
Heap leach		10,172		19,984		(49)%		18,027
Gold produced (000s/oz)		2,312		2,155		7 %		2,052
Oxide mill		957		569		68 %		530
Roaster		929		1,115		(17)%		1,177
Autoclave		248		242		2 %		204
Heap leach		178		229		(22)%		141
Gold sold (000s/oz)		2,357		2,162		9 %		1,981
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$2,961		$2,703		10 %		$2,272
Cost of sales ($ millions)		1,869		1,896		(1)%		1,551
Segment income ($ millions)		1,052		771		36 %		678
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		1,845		1,578		17 %		1,215
Capital expenditures ($ millions)3		584		328		78 %		339
Minesite sustaining		360		217		66 %		211
Project		224		111		102 %		128
Cost of sales (per oz)		792		876		(10)%		782
Cash costs (per oz)2		455		502		(9)%		504
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		624		618		1 %		631
All-in costs (per oz)2		$722		$678		6 %		$715

1 Includes our 60% share of South Arturo.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

3 2015 figures exclude capitalized interest.

Financial Results

Barrick Nevada’s segment income for 2017 was 36% higher than the prior year primarily due to an increase in sales volume combined with higher realized gold prices¹ and a decrease in cost of sales.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 7% higher than the prior year primarily due to higher grades mined and processed from Cortez Hills open pit (“CHOP”) coupled with higher throughput at the oxide mill as a result of Best-in-Class process improvements and an increased permit limit. These improvements resulted in the highest annual throughput level ever achieved at the oxide mill. This was partially offset by lower Goldstrike open pit stockpile grades available for processing at the roaster compared to higher stockpile grades in the prior year, fewer Goldstrike underground ounces processed due to a decrease in long-hole stoping and available stopes to mine, and fewer leach tonnes mined and placed in the current year at Cortez. Lower grades at Cortez Hills underground (“CHUG”) as it advances deeper into the mine were partially offset by higher mining rates as a result of digitization initiatives such as short interval control and automation. For 2017, gold sales were higher

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 50 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

than production due to a drawdown of work in process inventory in the current year as a result of Best-in-Class process improvements.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ for 2017 was $84 per ounce lower than the prior year primarily due to the impact of higher sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher capitalized waste stripping activity at Crossroads and lower depreciation associated with South Arturo as mining ended in July 2017 and which had a high depreciation per ounce impact due to the short mine life. These decreases in cost of sales per ounce⁴ were partially offset by lower grades mined and processed from CHUG, Goldstrike underground and Goldstrike open pit, as well as higher autoclave production in the current year, which is the highest cost per tonne processing facility for Barrick Nevada. This was further impacted by inventory write-downs in the prior year which were not experienced in the current year.

All-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $6 per ounce from the prior year primarily due to higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures, partially offset by lower direct mining costs combined with a higher sales volume. Lower direct mining costs were mainly due to higher capitalized waste stripping at Crossroads, which is classified as project capital expenditures.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 78% from the prior year due to higher minesite sustaining capital combined with higher project expenditures. Higher minesite sustaining capital is attributed to higher capitalized stripping relating to the 3rd and 4th northwest laybacks at the Goldstrike open pit; underground cooling and ventilation project to allow mining below 3,600 feet at the Goldstrike underground; tailings expansions; the

autoclave thiosulfate water treatment plant conversion which significantly improved water balances and the consumption of fresh reagent; the roaster oxygen plant upgrade to increase plant availability; and digitization initiatives to enhance productivity and efficiency. Investment in digitization initiatives resulted in a significant increase in mining rates at CHUG and increased oxide mill performance. Project capital expenditures in 2017 increased compared to the prior year as a result of capitalized stripping and dewatering at Crossroads combined with underground development at Cortez Hills Lower Zone, the range front declines, and Goldrush project drilling. These were partially offset by a decrease in pre-production stripping at the South Arturo pit, which entered commercial production in August 2016.

Outlook

At Barrick Nevada we expect gold production to be in the range of 2,000 to 2,255 thousand ounces, which is lower than 2017 production levels. Lower production is expected at CHOP and CHUG. At Cortez Hills open pit, mining will transition from purely oxide ore to a mix of oxide, refractory, and transitional ores. Grade mined from Cortez Hills underground is expected to be lower as we progress deeper in the mine. This is partially offset by increased throughput at the oxide mill, increased grades at Goldstrike open pit from processing the 3rd northwest layback compared to stockpile processing in the prior year, and higher grades at Goldstrike underground. Throughput initiatives at the autoclave are expected to more than offset lower autoclave recovery as we transition primarily from an all acid blend to an alkaline/acid blend.

In 2018, we expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to remain in the range of $760 to $810 per ounce as lower production is offset by lower CHOP depreciation. We expect cash costs¹ to be in the range of $470 to $530, which is higher than 2017 due to lower ounces sold. CHUG is expected to exceed its increased mining rates achieved in the fourth quarter of 2017 driven by digital initiatives such as short interval control and automation, and continued transition to bulk mining, which is significantly lowering its overall expected cost per tonne in 2018. This is offset by an increase in Goldstrike open pit’s expected cost per tonne as we mine ore at the bottom of the pit and continue to strip the 4th northwest layback, increased CHOP dewatering costs, and major roaster maintenance planned mid-2018. All-in sustaining costs¹ are expected to remain in the range of $610 to $660 per ounce as lower production is offset by lower sustaining capital expenditures for tailings expansions, process improvements, and Goldstrike underground projects to enable mining deeper in the mine.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 51 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Pueblo Viejo (60% basis)¹, Dominican Republic

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Open pit tonnes mined (000s)		23,430		23,278		1 %		22,736
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		3.07		3.13		(2) %		3.35
Processed		4.57		5.29		(14) %		4.94
Autoclave ore tonnes processed (000s)		4,791		4,527		6 %		4,150
Gold produced (000s/oz)		650		700		(7) %		572
Gold sold (000s/oz)		637		700		(9) %		597
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$850		$925		(8) %		$757
Cost of sales ($ millions)		445		395		13 %		525
Segment income ($ millions)		395		528		(25) %		230
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		538		621		(13) %		390
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		69		61		13 %		61
Minesite sustaining		69		61		13 %		61
Project		—		—		— %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		699		564		24 %		881
Cash costs (per oz)2		405		395		3 %		467
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		525		490		7 %		597
All-in costs (per oz)2		$525		$490		7 %		$597

1 Pueblo Viejo is accounted for as a subsidiary with a 40% non-controlling interest. The results in the table and the discussion that follows are based on our 60% share only.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Pueblo Viejo’s segment income for 2017 was 25% lower than the prior year primarily due to a decrease in sales volumes attributed to lower ore grades combined with higher cost of sales, partially offset by higher gold prices.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 7% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower ore grades processed in the current year as compared to higher grades processed from the Moore pit in the prior year, partially offset by higher recovery rates. Improvements in carbon management and reagent cyanide addition have improved recoveries compared to the prior year. Higher throughput for 2017 was due to optimization of autoclave operations and fewer descaling shutdowns as a result of Best-in-Class initiatives.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was $135 per ounce higher than the prior year primarily due to the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher depreciation expense relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment and higher fuel prices. 2016 cost of sales per ounce⁴ was also lower due

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 52 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

to one-time insurance proceeds recorded in the third quarter of 2016 relating to the 2015 oxygen plant motor failure. This was partially offset by higher equipment rental costs in the prior year as a result of the oxygen plant motor failure.

In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $35 per ounce compared to the prior year due to higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures combined with the higher cost of sales per ounce⁴. All-in sustaining costs¹ were not impacted by the aforementioned insurance proceeds and depreciation adjustment as the insurance benefit was excluded from our calculation and depreciation does not form part of all-in sustaining costs¹.

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 13% compared to the prior year primarily attributed to the timing of mining equipment replacements, increased capitalization of costs related to the process plant and construction of the Bonao III power substation. This was partially offset by a decrease in capitalized stripping costs as a result of planned mine plan sequencing.

Outlook

At Pueblo Viejo, we expect our equity share of 2018 gold production to be in the range of 585 to 615 thousand ounces, below 2017 production levels, driven by reduced gold head grade, partially offset by increased autoclave throughput resulting from improved maintenance strategies and small-scale pre-oxidation and flotation concentrate pre-processing expansions.

In 2018, we expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to be in the range of $720 to $750 per ounce, cash costs¹ to be $425 to $450 per ounce and all-in-sustaining costs¹ to be $590 to $620 per ounce. All three measures are expected to be higher than 2017 primarily due to a reduction in total ounces produced and sold, higher fuel prices and higher sustaining capital expenditures related mainly to increased capitalized waste stripping, tailings dam construction, Quisqueya power station gas conversion and Bonao sub-station construction capital projects. Byproduct credits are expected to be higher than 2017, reflecting increased metal prices, ore grades and recoveries for both silver and copper.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 53 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Lagunas Norte, Peru

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Open pit tonnes mined (000s)		32,859		40,847		(20)%		49,126
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		1.41		1.18		19%		1.10
Processed		1.05		1.12		(6)%		1.02
Heap leach ore tonnes processed (000s)		17,874		17,253		4%		21,880
Gold produced (000s/oz)		387		435		(11)%		560
Gold sold (000s/oz)		397		425		(7)%		565
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$514		$548		(6)%		$673
Cost of sales ($ millions)		245		276		(11)%		378
Segment income ($ millions)		259		260		— %		285
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)1		327		356		(8)%		454
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		25		56		(55)%		67
Minesite sustaining		20		51		(61)%		67
Project		5		5		— %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		617		651		(5)%		669
Cash costs (per oz)1		405		383		6 %		329
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)1		483		529		(9)%		509
All-in costs (per oz)1		$497		$540		(8)%		$509

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Lagunas Norte’s segment income for 2017 was in line with the prior year primarily due to lower sales volumes, offset by higher realized gold prices¹ combined with lower depreciation expense.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 11% lower than the prior year as a result of processing harder material with lower grades and slower recovery rates combined with a higher percentage of older stock material, in line with expectations as the mine matures. Productivity for 2017 was further impacted by heavy rains causing road closures and power outages early in the year combined with lower efficiency with the loading and hauling equipment.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ for 2017 was $34 per ounce lower than the prior year mainly due to lower depreciation expense and realized cost savings from the Best-in-Class program, such as initiatives to improve efficiencies in the carbon in column circuit, implementation of short interval control and improvements in planned maintenance. These were partially offset by the impact of lower sales

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 54 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

volume and higher direct mining costs, resulting from lower capitalized waste stripping and higher processing costs driven by higher tonnage processed and increased supplies consumption given the treatment of different ore types in the mine plan. In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ decreased by $46 per ounce compared to the prior year primarily due to the decrease in minesite sustaining capital expenditures, partially offset by higher direct mining costs.

In 2017, capital expenditures decreased by 55% compared to the prior year due to lower minesite sustaining capital relating to the construction of phase 6 of the leach pad, which was completed in the prior year period, combined with lower capitalized stripping. Project expenditures relate to ongoing studies for the sequenced life-of-mine extension which involves the potential construction of a grinding and carbon-in-leach processing circuit to treat carbonaceous oxides ore which may be expanded later with flotation and pressure oxidation circuits to treat refractory material.

Outlook

At Lagunas Norte we expect 2018 production to be in the range of 230 to 270 thousand ounces, lower than 2017 production levels, as a result of the progressive depletion of oxide ores, which are being replaced with harder ore material with lower kinetics and recoveries.

We expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to be in the range of $780 to $910 per ounce. This increase, in comparison with 2017, is mainly driven by the impact of lower gold sales combined with an increase in depreciation expense and higher corporate social responsibility expenses. We expect cash costs¹ to be in the range of $420 to $490 per ounce and all-in sustaining costs¹ to be in the range of $670 to $780 per ounce. The increase in all-in sustaining costs¹ in comparison with 2017 is driven mainly by the decrease in production and increase in sustaining capital expenditures in 2018. Operational costs are expected to decrease aligned to the reduced mine production plan compared to 2017. Best-in-Class operational initiatives for 2018 will be focused on getting gold ounces from injection wells and slag processing.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 55 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Veladero, Argentina¹

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Open pit tonnes mined (000s)		48,376		62,227		(22)%		83,409
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		1.00		0.82		22 %		0.81
Processed		1.02		0.82		24 %		0.82
Heap leach ore tonnes processed (000s)		21,190		28,028		(24)%		28,385
Gold produced (000s/oz)		432		544		(21)%		602
Gold sold (000s/oz)		458		532		(14)%		629
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$591		$685		(14)%		$720
Cost of sales ($ millions)		410		464		(12)%		499
Segment income ($ millions)		173		220		(21)%		216
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		292		338		(14)%		324
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		173		95		82 %		242
Minesite sustaining		173		95		82 %		242
Project		—		—		— %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		897		872		3 %		792
Cash costs (per oz)2		598		582		3 %		552
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		987		769		28 %		946
All-in costs (per oz)2		$987		$769		28 %		$946

1 We sold 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017; therefore these represent results on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Veladero’s segment income for 2017 was 21% lower than the prior year primarily due to the impact of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017, partly offset by higher realized gold prices¹. This was further impacted by an increase in depreciation expense as a result of the fair value increments applied to our remaining 50% interest, which was required to be fair valued because of the change in control.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 21% lower compared to the prior year due to the divestment of 50% of the mine as at June 30, 2017. Excluding the impact of the divestment, gold production increased 18% in the current year primarily as a result of higher grades processed combined with higher tonnes placed on the leach pad, partially offset by lower recovery reflecting the impact of the temporary restriction due to the March 28,

2017 incident with the leach pumping system. The prior year was negatively impacted by the temporary suspension of operations late in the third quarter of 2016 combined with severe weather conditions.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was $25 per ounce higher than the prior year primarily due to the impact of higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense as a result of the impact of the fair value increments relating to the revaluation of our remaining 50% of the Veladero mine, partially offset by a lack of depreciation in the second quarter of 2017 as Veladero was classified as held-for-sale pending the close of the sale on June 30, 2017. The increase in direct mining costs primarily related to consulting services, camp costs, mining costs due to additional fleet, maintenance and labor and contractors due to the impact of inflation in Argentina. These increases were partially offset by higher

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 56 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

capitalized waste stripping costs in the current year as there was no capitalized waste stripping in the third quarter of 2016 as a result of severe weather conditions. In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $218 per ounce compared to the prior year primarily due to an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures combined with an increase in cost of sales per ounce⁴.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 82% compared to the prior year primarily due to higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures relating to the construction of phases 4B and 5B of the leach pad expansion, leach pad improvements and equipment purchases combined with higher capitalized stripping costs.

On April 6, 2017, we announced the sale to Shandong Gold of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine, which reflects the first step in our strategic partnership with Shandong. The transaction closed on June 30, 2017 and we received total cash consideration of $990 million, which reflected working capital adjustments of $30 million in the fourth quarter of 2017. Refer to note 4 to the Financial Statements for more information.

On December 30, 2016, the San Juan provincial mining authority approved the fifth update to the Veladero mine’s environmental impact study (“EIS”), which as submitted by the Company had included a request for approval of the leach pad expansion for Phases 6 to 9. Environmental approval for Phases 6 to 9 of the leach pad expansion was confirmed on May 19, 2017 by the San Juan Mining Minister.

March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution

On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at the Company’s Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. This solution was contained within the operating site; no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. All affected soil was promptly excavated and placed on the leach pad. The Company notified regulatory authorities of the situation, and San Juan provincial authorities inspected the site on March 29, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, the San Juan provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against Minera Argentina Gold SRL (“MAG”) (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold S.A. or MAGSA) in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following inspection of corrective actions.

On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. The Company filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.    Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Provincial Amparo Action

On March 30, 2017, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit, called an “amparo” protection action, filed in the Jachal First Instance Court (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine. The plaintiffs sought an injunction as part of the lawsuit, requesting, among other things, the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the leaching process at the mine. On March 30, 2017, the Jachal Court rejected the request for an injunction to cease all activities at the Veladero mine, but ordered, among other things, the suspension of the leaching process at the Veladero mine and for MAG and the San Juan Provincial mining authority to provide additional information to the Jachal Court in connection with the incident.

The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 57 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Federal Amparo Action

On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident. The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAG submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAG also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial Court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court and a decision on the matter is pending. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Veladero experienced operational incidents in 2015 and 2016 which also resulted in regulatory and legal proceedings as summarized below.

September 2015 Release of Cyanide-bearing Process Solution

On March 11, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso/$ exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On December 29, 2016, the request for reconsideration was rejected by the Provincial mining authority. On July 11, 2017, the San

Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts.    MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the San Juan mining authority. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution

Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding

On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad at the Veladero mine damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the mine site and returned to the leach pad. Extensive water monitoring in the area conducted by MAG has confirmed that the incident did not result in any environmental impacts. A temporary suspension of operations at the Veladero mine was ordered by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a San Juan Provincial court on September 15, 2016 and September 22, 2016, respectively, as a result of this incident. On October 4, 2016, following, among other matters, the completion of certain urgent works required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a judicial inspection of the mine, the San Juan Provincial court lifted the suspension of operations and ordered that mining activities be resumed.

On September 14, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority commenced an administrative proceeding in connection with this incident that included, in addition to the issue of the suspension order, an infringement proceeding against MAG. On December 2, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code. A new criminal judicial investigation has also been commenced by the Provincial prosecutor’s office in the same San Juan Provincial court that is hearing the Provincial Action. The court in this proceeding issued the orders suspending and resuming the operations at the Veladero mine described above.

On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated the administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident.

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 58 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the valley leach facility (“VLF”). In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution incident described above. The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Outlook

At Veladero we expect 2018 production to be in the range of 275 to 330 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share), lower than 2017 production levels. The decrease is a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017. This is combined with slightly lower ore grade to the leach pad in 2018, offset by ongoing soluble inventory drawdown with improved solution management.

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ is expected to be in the range of $970 to $1,110 per ounce which is higher than 2017, mainly due to higher depreciation expense reflecting the effect of the fair value increments applied to our remaining 50% interest. We expect cash costs¹ in 2018 to be in the range of $560 to $620 per ounce, lower than 2017 levels mainly due to lower direct operating costs, partly offset by the impact of higher charges from the production inventory movements. All-in sustaining costs¹ are expected to be between $960 and $1,100 per ounce, aligned with 2017 as lower cash costs¹ are offset by higher capitalized waste stripping. Operating costs at Veladero are also highly sensitive to local inflation and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. We have assumed an average ARS:USD exchange rate of ARS18.3: $1.00 and a local inflation rate of 15% for the purposes of preparing our cash costs¹ and all-in sustaining costs¹ guidance for 2018.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 59 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Turquoise Ridge (75% basis), Nevada USA

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		%  Change		2015
Underground tonnes mined (000s)		643		598		8 %		349
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Underground mined		15.45		16.85		(8)%		18.34
Gold produced (000s/oz)		211		266		(21)%		217
Gold sold (000s/oz)		222		257		(14)%		202
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$280		$322		(13)%		$235
Cost of sales ($ millions)		159		155		3 %		141
Segment income ($ millions)		119		166		(28)%		92
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)1		147		193		(24)%		115
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		36		32		13 %		32
Minesite sustaining		32		32		— %		32
Project		4		—		100 %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		715		603		19 %		697
Cash costs (per oz)1		589		498		18 %		581
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)1		733		625		17 %		742
All-in costs (per oz)1		$753		$625		20 %		$742

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Turquoise Ridge’s segment income for 2017 was 28% lower than the prior year primarily due to a decrease in sales volume combined with higher cost of sales, partially offset by higher realized gold prices¹.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 21% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower grades combined with issues related to higher organic carbon content and the subsequent decision to process 17 thousand ounces at Barrick Nevada, which was recognized as Barrick Nevada production. Lower grades in the current year were due to the planned mining of the south zone to control organic carbon content in the ore. This was partially offset by higher tonnes mined resulting from Best-in-Class initiatives driving increased equipment availability combined with improved mine engineering to take advantage of the larger ore geometry. These activities resulted in a 22% increase in tonnes mined per employee from the prior year.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was $112 per ounce higher than the prior year mainly reflecting the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher processing costs associated with processing lower grade ore and higher organic carbon content ore. In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $108 per ounce compared to the prior year primarily reflecting the impact of higher cost of sales per ounce⁴.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 60 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 13% compared to the prior year as a result of higher project capital expenditures relating to the construction of the third shaft. Minesite sustaining capital expenditures were in line with the prior year as higher expenditures relating to the timing of spending combined with the construction of the water treatment plant, were offset by lower capitalized underground development costs.

Outlook

At Turquoise Ridge we expect 2018 production to be in the range of 240 to 270 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share), exceeding 2017 production levels, as mine productivity continues to improve. Turquoise Ridge has completely transitioned to standardized equipment allowing for greater mining flexibility, increased reliability, and a reduced truck fleet and we continue to incorporate mechanical cutting as a mining method and short interval control. Capital and waste development requirements are in line with 2017 mining rates.

The cost of sales per ounce⁴ is expected to be in the range of $670 to $720 per ounce which is in line with 2017. We expect cash costs¹ in 2018 to be in the range of $580 to $620 per ounce, consistent with 2017, and all-in sustaining costs¹ to be in the range of $650 to $730 per ounce. All-in sustaining costs¹ in 2018 are expected to be lower than 2017 due to a reduction in sustaining capital as the construction of the third shaft is included in project capital.

In February 2018, Barrick and Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) reached a new, seven-year toll milling agreement for the processing of Turquoise Ridge ore at Newmont’s Twin Creeks facility. The agreement supports plans to expand production and unlock the full potential of Turquoise Ridge by increasing processing capacity. It provides for throughput of 850,000 tons per year in 2018 and 2019, rising to 1.2 million tons per year between 2020 and 2024. Processing costs are in line with market rates, and are reflected in our guidance for Turquoise Ridge.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 61 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Acacia Mining plc (100% basis), Africa

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Total tonnes mined (000s)		31,917		38,491		(17)%		41,390
Open pit		30,666		37,141		(17)%		40,099
Underground		1,251		1,350		(7)%		1,291
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		1.45		1.48		(2)%		1.65
Underground mined		8.32		9.62		(14)%		9.02
Processed1		3.00		3.00		— %		2.80
Ore tonnes processed (000s)		8,719		9,818		(11)%		9,268
Gold produced (000s/oz)		768		830		(7)%		732
Gold sold (000s/oz)		593		817		(27)%		721
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$751		$1,045		(28)%		$860
Cost of sales ($ millions)		469		719		(35)%		837
Segment income ($ millions)		191		299		(36)%		(1)
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		298		465		(36)%		142
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		148		191		(23)%		177
Minesite sustaining		137		190		(28)%		178
Project		11		1		(1,000)%		(1)
Cost of sales (per oz)		791		880		(10)%		1,161
Cash costs (per oz)2		587		640		(8)%		772
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		875		958		(9)%		1,112
All-in costs (per oz)2		$894		$960		(7)%		$1,111

1 Includes processing of tailings retreatment.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Barrick holds a 63.9 percent equity interest in Acacia Mining plc, a publicly traded company listed on the London Stock Exchange that is operated independently of Barrick.

Financial Results

Acacia’s segment income for 2017 was 36% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower sales volume as a result of the concentrate export ban, affecting sales from Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi combined with higher costs related to the Bulyanhulu reduced operations, partially offset by higher realized gold prices¹ and lower cost of sales.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 7% lower than the prior year primarily caused by a decrease at Bulyanhulu due to the decision to transition to reduced operations in the third quarter of 2017 and droughts experienced in the Kahama district combined with lower production from North Mara as a result of lower grades at the Gokona underground mine and Nyabirama pit. These were partially offset by an increase at Buzwagi as a result of higher grade ore from the main ore zone at the bottom of the open pit and higher ore tonnes mined. Gold ounces sold were lower than ounces produced primarily as a result of the ban on concentrate exports, as described below.

Production (100%)

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was 10% lower than the prior year primarily reflecting the impact of the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 62 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

buildup in inventory due to the ban on concentrate exports combined with lower depreciation expense. These decreases were partially offset by lower capitalized underground development costs at Bulyanhulu and lower waste stripping at North Mara’s Nyabirama pit combined with the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs. All-in sustaining costs¹ were 9% lower than the prior year due to lower cost of sales per ounce⁴ combined with lower stock-based compensation expense and a decrease in minesite sustaining capital expenditures.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

In 2017, capital expenditures decreased by 23% compared to the prior year due mostly to a reduction in minesite sustaining capital expenditures primarily at Bulyanhulu attributed to reduced operations combined with lower capitalized waste stripping at North Mara relating to Nyabirama Stage 4. This was partially offset by an increase in project capital expenditures mainly relating to capitalized drilling at North Mara’s Gokona underground.

Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes with the Government of Tanzania

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (“Ban”) following a directive made by the President to promote the creation of a domestic smelting industry. Following the directive, Acacia ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate (“concentrate”) including containers previously approved for export prior to the ban which are located in Dar es Salaam.

The prevention of exports impacts Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi which produce gold in both doré and in concentrate form due to the mineralogy of the ore. North Mara is unaffected due to 100% of its production being doré. Since the export ban was imposed, impacting approximately 25% of 2017 production, Acacia has seen a buildup of approximately $264 million of concentrate inventory in Tanzania, based on current prices, with approximately 186 thousand ounces of gold, 12.1 million pounds of copper and 159 thousand ounces of silver contained in the unsold concentrate. As a result of the transition to a reduced operations program at Bulyanhulu, and the changes to the process flowsheet at Buzwagi, all of Acacia’s mines are now solely producing

doré and, as such, will no longer see a further buildup of concentrate.

During the second quarter of 2017, investigations were conducted on behalf of the Tanzanian Government by two Tanzanian Government Presidential Committees, which have resulted in allegations of historical undeclared revenue and unpaid taxes being made against Acacia and its predecessor companies. Acacia considers these findings to be implausible and has fully refuted the findings of both Presidential Committees. Acacia has requested copies of the reports issued by the two Presidential Committees and called for independent verification of the findings, but has not yet received a response to these requests.

On July 4, 2017, Acacia’s subsidiaries, Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited (“BGML”), the owner of the Bulyanhulu mine, and Pangea Minerals Limited (“PML”), the owner of the Buzwagi mine, each commenced international arbitrations against the Government of Tanzania in accordance with the dispute resolution processes agreed by the Government of Tanzania in the Mineral Development Agreements (“MDAs”) with BGML and PML. These arbitrations remain ongoing.

In July 2017, Acacia received adjusted assessments for the tax years 2000-2017 from the Tanzania Revenue Authority (the “TRA”) for a total amount of approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. These assessments are being disputed and the underlying allegations are included in the matters that have been referred to international arbitration.

In addition, following the end of the third quarter, Acacia was served with notices of conflicting adjusted corporate income tax and withholding tax assessments for tax years 2005 to 2011 with respect to Acacia’s former Tulawaka joint venture, and demands for payment, for a total amount of approximately $3 billion. Interest and penalties represent the vast majority of the new assessments. The TRA has not provided Acacia with any explanations or reasons for the adjusted assessments, or with the TRA’s position on how the assessments have been calculated or why they have been issued. Acacia disputes these assessments and has requested supporting calculations, which have not yet been received. Acacia is objecting to these assessments and defending this matter through the Tanzanian tax appeals process.

In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 63 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. In January 2018, new Mining Regulations were announced by the Tanzanian Government introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations, the scope and effect of which remain under review by Acacia. Acacia continues to monitor the impact of all new legislation in light of its MDAs with the Government of Tanzania. However, to minimize further disruptions to its operations Acacia will, in the interim, satisfy the requirements imposed as regards the increased royalty rate in addition to the recently imposed 1% clearing fee on exports. Acacia is making these payments under protest, without prejudice to its legal rights under its MDAs.

Acacia has been looking to address all issues in respect of the Ban along with other ongoing disputes through dialogue with the Tanzanian Government. Acacia remains of the view that a negotiated resolution is the preferable outcome to the current disputes and Acacia will continue to work to achieve this. During the third quarter of 2017, Barrick and the Government of Tanzania engaged in discussions for the potential resolution of the disputes. Acacia did not participate directly in these discussions as the Government of Tanzania had informed Barrick that it wished to continue dialogue solely with Barrick.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the Government of Tanzania on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the Government of Tanzania include (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to manage Acacia’s Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara mines and all future operations in the country with key officers located in Tanzania and Tanzanian representation on the board of directors; (ii) maximization

of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the Government’s share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Negotiations concerning the proposed framework remain ongoing and the definitive terms of any final proposal for the implementation of the framework remain outstanding. Barrick is targeting completion of discussions aimed at agreeing to and documenting the details of the announced framework by the first half of 2018. Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia.

Outlook

Acacia successfully managed through a challenging environment to deliver a year of resilient performance in 2017. As a result of Bulyanhulu’s transition to reduced operations and the planned transition of Buzwagi to a stockpile processing operation in 2018, we expect to see a decrease in production from 2017 levels to 275 to 305 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share).

We expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to be in the range of $970 to $1,020 per ounce, cash costs¹ of $690 to $720 per ounce and all-in sustaining costs¹ of $935 to $985 per ounce. The increase in all three measures from 2017 is mainly due to the negative impact of approximately $50 per ounce due to increased inventory costs at Buzwagi as Acacia processes ore stockpiles previously classified as ore inventory. We expect production to be broadly stable through the year, although due to the roll-over of cost from the movement to reduced operations in the first quarter of 2018, we expect increased cash flow in the second half of the year. All gold produced in 2018 is expected to be in doré form.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 64 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Pascua-Lama, Argentina/Chile

The Pascua-Lama project, located on the border between Chile and Argentina, contains 21.3 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources.

As described below, in January 2018 we received a resolution of closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”). The resolution does not affect the Company’s ongoing evaluation of an underground, block-caving operation at Pascua-Lama, which would require additional permitting and regulatory approvals in both Argentina and Chile, unconnected to the recent SMA decision. In any underground scenario, Barrick would also close site facilities and surface disturbance in Chile not necessary for an underground mine. As a result, we have increased our provision for environmental remediation at Pascua-Lama by $644 million in the fourth quarter of 2017.

In light of the order to close surface facilities in Chile, and current plans to evaluate an underground mine, Barrick is reclassifying Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves of approximately 14 million ounces⁶, which are based on an open pit mine plan, as measured and indicated resources. As a result, we have recorded an impairment of $429 million at Pascua-Lama in the fourth quarter of 2017.

We have formed a working group with Shandong Gold to study a potential partnership at Pascua-Lama, building on our existing joint venture at the nearby Veladero mine. Our Investment Committee will continue to scrutinize the project as it advances, applying a high degree of consistency and rigor — as we do for all capital allocation decisions at the Company — before further review by the Executive Committee and the Board at each stage of advancement.

SMA Regulatory Sanctions

On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against Compańía Minera Nevada (“CMN”) into a single proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the original resolution issued by the SMA in May 2013 in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the Project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.

On January 17, 2018, CMN received the revised resolution (the “Revised Resolution”) from the SMA, in which the environmental regulator reduced the original administrative fine from approximately $16 million to $11.5 million and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the Project in addition to certain monitoring activities. The Revised Resolution does not revoke the Project’s environmental approval. CMN filed an appeal of the Revised Resolution on February 3,

2018. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Constitutional Protection Action

On August 12, 2016, the court ruled in favor of CMN and Sernageomin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Temporary Closure Plan for the Pascua-Lama project. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the Chilean Supreme Court and on March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the Temporary Closure Plan, ruling that additional information regarding the SMA regulatory sanction process was required from the environmental regulator, and ordering Sernageomin to issue a new resolution on the Temporary Closure Plan after receiving such information. On August 29, 2017, Sernageomin issued a new resolution in which it reapproved the Temporary Closure Plan as originally issued. This approval is valid through September 2019. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Water Quality Review

CMN initiated a review of the baseline water quality of the Rio Estrecho in August 2013 as required by a July 15, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals of Copiapo, Chile. The purpose of the review was to establish whether the water quality baseline has changed since the Pascua-Lama project received its environmental approval in February 2006 and, if so, to require CMN to adopt the appropriate corrective measures. As a result of that study, CMN requested certain modifications to its environmental permit water quality requirements. On June 6, 2016, the responsible agency approved a partial amendment of the environmental permit to better reflect the water quality baseline from 2009. That approval was appealed by certain water users and indigenous residents of the Huasco Valley. On October 19, 2016, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over claims of this nature, voted to uphold the permit amendments. On January 27, 2017, the Environmental Court agreed to consider an appeal of the Chilean Committee’s decision brought by CMN and the water users and indigenous residents. A hearing took place on July 25, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the water users withdrew their appeal. The Environmental Court dismissed that appeal on January 5, 2018. A decision of the Environmental Court on the remaining appeals is still pending. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Water Treatment Plant

The water treatment plant on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project was damaged during the second quarter of 2016 as a result of heavy snowfall. The water treatment plant consists of two main components, the high density sludge unit followed by the reverse osmosis unit. In June 2017, repairs were completed and the water treatment plant resumed normal operations. CMN has reviewed its contingency plan with Chilean regulatory authorities.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 65 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Claims

We are currently subject to various litigation proceedings as disclosed in note 36 to the Financial Statements, and we may be involved in disputes with other parties in the future that may result in litigation. If we are unable to resolve these disputes favorably, it may have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, cash flow and results of operations.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts that give rise to commitments for future minimum payments. The following table summarizes the remaining contractual maturities of our financial liabilities and operating and capital commitments shown on an undiscounted basis:

					Payments due
($ millions)					as at December 31, 2017
											2023
	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		and thereafter		Total
Debt1
Repayment of principal		$32		$33		$263		$636		$337		$5,109		$6,410
Capital leases		27		11		4		1		1		2		46
Interest		362		360		356		331		311		5,042		6,762
Provisions for environmental rehabilitation2		141		145		212		262		228		2,812		3,800
Operating leases		21		19		11		8		8		1		68
Restricted share units		9		27		5		—		—		—		41
Pension benefits and other post-retirement benefits		15		15		14		14		13		205		276
Derivative liabilities3		30		2		—		—		—		—		32
Purchase obligations for supplies and consumables4		548		305		181		109		4		—		1,147
Capital commitments5		79		5		4		4		4		22		118
Social development costs6		7		11		3		1		1		204		227
Total		$1,271		$933		$1,053		$1,366		$907		$13,397		$18,927

1 Debt and Interest - Our debt obligations do not include any subjective acceleration clauses or other clauses that enable the holder of the debt to call for early repayment, except in the event that we breach any of the terms and conditions of the debt or for other customary events of default. We are not required to post any collateral under any debt obligations. Projected interest payments on variable rate debt were based on interest rates in effect at December 31, 2017. Interest is calculated on our long-term debt obligations using both fixed and variable rates.

2 Provisions for Environmental Rehabilitation - Amounts presented in the table represent the undiscounted uninflated future payments for the expected cost of provisions for environmental rehabilitation.

3 Derivative Liabilities - Amounts presented in the table relate to derivative contracts disclosed under note 25C to the Financial Statements. Payments related to derivative contracts may be subject to change given variable market conditions.

4 Purchase Obligations for Supplies and Consumables - Includes commitments related to new purchase obligations to secure a supply of acid, tires and cyanide for our production process.

5 Capital Commitments - Purchase obligations for capital expenditures include only those items where binding commitments have been entered into.

6 Social Development Costs – Includes a commitment of $157 million related to the potential funding of a power transmission line in Argentina, the majority of which is not expected to be paid prior to 2023.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 66 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

REVIEW OF QUARTERLY RESULTS

Quarterly Information¹

	2017										2016
($ millions, except where indicated)	Q4			Q3			Q2		Q1		Q4		Q3		Q2		Q1
Revenues		$2,228			$1,993			$2,160		$1,993		$2,319		$2,297		$2,012		$1,930
Realized price per ounce – gold2		1,280			1,274			1,258		1,220		1,217		1,333		1,259		1,181
Realized price per pound – copper2		3.34			3.05			2.60		2.76		2.62		2.18		2.14		2.18
Cost of sales		1,411			1,270			1,277		1,342		1,454		1,291		1,336		1,324
Net earnings (loss)		(314	)		(11	)		1,084		679		425		175		138		(83	)
Per share (dollars)3		(0.27	)		(0.01	)		0.93		0.58		0.36		0.15		0.12		(0.07	)
Adjusted net earnings2		253			200			261		162		255		278		158		127
Per share (dollars)2,3		0.22			0.17			0.22		0.14		0.22		0.24		0.14		0.11
Operating cash flow		590			532			448		495		711		951		527		451
Cash capital expenditures		350			307			405		334		326		277		253		270
Free cash flow2		$240			$225			$43		$161		$385		$674		$274		$181

1 Sum of all the quarters may not add up to the annual total due to rounding.

2 Realized price, adjusted net earnings, adjusted net earnings per share and free cash flow are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

3 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share.

Our recent financial results reflect our emphasis on cost control and growing operating cash flow and free cash flow. While gold prices have fluctuated around $1,200 per ounce, we are consistently generating positive free cash flow¹. This free cash flow, combined with the proceeds from various divestitures, have allowed us to strengthen our balance sheet over the past two years. In the fourth quarter of 2017, we recorded $521 million (net of tax effects and non-controlling interest) of net asset impairments primarily relating to impairments at the Pascua-Lama project and Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine, partially offset by an impairment reversal at Lumwana. In the third quarter of 2017, we recognized a $172 million tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania. In the second quarter of 2017, we recorded $858 million (net of tax effects) of gains on the disposition of 50% of the Veladero mine and a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project. In the first quarter of 2017, we recorded a net asset impairment reversal of $522 million (net of tax effects and non-controlling interest) primarily relating to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we recorded a net asset impairment reversal of $199 million (net of tax effects) primarily relating to impairment reversals at Veladero and Lagunas Norte.

Fourth Quarter Results

In the fourth quarter of 2017, we reported a net loss of $314 million and adjusted net earnings¹ of $253 million, compared to net earnings of $425 million and adjusted net earnings¹ of $255 million in the fourth quarter of 2016. The net loss in the fourth quarter of 2017 reflects the recording of $521 million (net of tax effects and non-controlling interests) in net impairment charges

compared to net impairment reversals of $199 million (net of tax effects) recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. The lower net earnings in the fourth quarter of 2017 primarily reflects the recognition of impairment charges rather than impairment reversals in the prior year period combined with lower gold sales volumes, partially offset by an increase in realized gold and copper prices¹. The decrease in adjusted net earnings¹ primarily reflects higher income tax expense combined with a decrease in gold sales volume, partially offset by higher realized gold and copper prices¹ compared to the fourth quarter of 2016.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, gold and copper sales were 1.37 million ounces and 107 million pounds, respectively, compared to 1.52 million ounces (1.42 million ounces excluding the impact of divestments) and 107 million pounds, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2016. The decrease in gold sales was primarily due to lower grades at Barrick Nevada combined with lower sales at Acacia due to reduced operations at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine, partially offset by higher sales at Porgera and Lagunas Norte. Revenues in the fourth quarter of 2017 were lower than the same prior year period, reflecting lower gold sales volumes, partially offset by higher market prices for gold and copper.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, cost of sales was $1.4 billion, a decrease of $43 million compared to the same prior year period, primarily due to lower sales volume, which have contributed to a decrease in direct mining costs and royalty expense. This was partially offset by an increase in depreciation expense, as discussed below. Cost of sales per ounce⁴ was $801 per ounce, an increase of $17 per ounce, primarily due to higher direct mining

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 67 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

costs mainly due to higher consumables and power at Pueblo Viejo, partially offset by higher capitalized waste stripping activity at Barrick Nevada and higher depreciation expense mainly as a result of higher depreciation at Pueblo Viejo relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment, partially offset by lower depreciation at Barrick Nevada associated with the South Arturo pit. The increase was further partially offset by a positive change in our sales mix with lower relative sales volume from the higher cost Bulyanhulu mine at Acacia. Cost of sales per pound⁴ was $1.79, an increase of $0.36 per pound from the same prior year period due to higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana, partially offset by a positive sales mix impact of lower sales volume at Lumwana compared to the same prior year period. This was further impacted by higher direct mining costs at Zaldívar primarily related to higher fuel and labor costs.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, operating cash flow was $590 million, compared to $711 million in the same prior year period. The decrease in operating cash flow primarily

reflects lower gold sales volume combined with unfavorable working capital movements mainly related to the timing of accounts receivable balances, partially offset by higher realized gold and copper prices, a decrease in income tax payments and a decrease in interest paid.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, free cash flow¹ was $240 million, lower than the $385 million in the same prior year period. The decrease was caused by lower operating cash flow generated in the fourth quarter of 2017 compared to the same prior year period combined with slightly higher cash capital expenditures of $350 million, compared to $326 million in the fourth quarter of 2016. The higher cash capital expenditures were primarily a result of higher project capital expenditures, partially offset by a reduction in capitalized development primarily at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and North Mara mines.

INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Internal control over financial reporting is a framework designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with IFRS. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting framework includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with IFRS, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Disclosure controls and procedures form a broader framework designed to provide reasonable assurance that other financial information disclosed publicly fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the periods presented in this MD&A and Barrick’s Annual Report. The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures framework includes processes designed to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to management by others within those entities to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Together, the internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures frameworks provide internal control over financial reporting and disclosure. Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting and disclosure may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Further, the effectiveness of internal control is subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may change.

The management of Barrick, at the direction of our President and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the period covered by this report based on the framework and criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on that evaluation, management concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as at December 31, 2017.

There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Barrick’s annual management report on internal control over financial reporting and the integrated audit report of Barrick’s auditors for the year ended December 31, 2017 will be included in Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report and its 2017 Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 68 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

IFRS CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

Management has discussed the development and selection of our critical accounting estimates with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, and the Audit Committee has reviewed the disclosure relating to such estimates in conjunction with its review of this MD&A. The accounting policies and methods we utilize determine how we report our financial condition and results of operations, and they may require management to make estimates or rely on assumptions about matters that are inherently uncertain. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) under the historical cost convention, as modified by revaluation of certain financial assets, derivative contracts and post-retirement assets. Our significant accounting policies are disclosed in note 2 of the Financial Statements, including a summary of current and future changes in accounting policies.

Critical Accounting Estimates and Judgments

Certain accounting estimates have been identified as being “critical” to the presentation of our financial condition and results of operations because they require us to make subjective and/or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain; or there is a reasonable likelihood that materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions and estimates. Our significant accounting judgments, estimates and assumptions are disclosed in note 3 of the accompanying Financial Statements.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

Adjusted net earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure which excludes the following from net earnings:

● Impairment charges (reversals) related to intangibles, goodwill, property, plant and equipment, and investments;

● Acquisition/disposition gains/losses;

● Foreign currency translation gains/losses;

● Significant tax adjustments;

● Unrealized gains/losses on non-hedge derivative instruments; and

● Tax effect and non-controlling interest of the above items.

Management uses this measure internally to evaluate our underlying operating performance for the reporting periods presented and to assist with the planning and forecasting of future operating results. Management believes that adjusted net earnings is a useful measure of our performance because impairment charges, acquisition/disposition gains/losses and significant tax adjustments do not reflect the underlying operating performance of our core mining business and are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. Furthermore, foreign currency translation gains/losses and unrealized gains/losses from non-hedge derivatives are not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the reporting periods presented. The tax effect and non-controlling interest of the adjusting items are also excluded to reconcile the amounts to Barrick’s share on a post-tax basis, consistent with net earnings.

As noted, we use this measure for internal purposes. Management’s internal budgets and forecasts and public guidance do not reflect the types of items we adjust for. Consequently, the presentation of adjusted net earnings enables investors and analysts to better understand the underlying operating performance of our core mining business through the eyes of management. Management periodically evaluates the components of adjusted net earnings based on an internal assessment of performance measures that are useful for evaluating the operating performance of our business segments and a review of the non-GAAP measures used by mining industry analysts and other mining companies.

Adjusted net earnings is intended to provide additional information only and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measures are not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate these measures differently. The following table reconciles these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 69 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Net Earnings to Net Earnings per Share, Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

										For the three months ended
($ millions, except per share amounts in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss) attributable to equity holders of the Company		$1,438			$655			($2,838	)		($314	)		$425
Impairment charges (reversals) related to long-lived assets1		(212	)		(250	)		3,897			916			(304	)
Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses2		(911	)		42			(187	)		(29	)		7
Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses		72			199			120			12			18
Significant tax adjustments3		244			43			134			61			(16	)
Other expense adjustments4		178			114			135			17			39
Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments		(1	)		(32	)		11			5			(9	)
Tax effect and non-controlling interest5		68			47			(928	)		(415	)		95
Adjusted net earnings		$876			$818			$344			$253			$255
Net earnings (loss) per share6		1.23			0.56			(2.44	)		(0.27	)		0.36
Adjusted net earnings per share6		0.75			0.70			0.30			0.22			0.22

1 Net impairment reversals for the current year primarily relate to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017 and impairment reversals at Lumwana during the fourth quarter of 2017, partially offset by net impairments at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project during the fourth quarter of 2017.

2 Disposition gains for the current year primarily relate to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project.

3 Significant tax adjustments for the current year primarily relate to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform.

4 Other expense adjustments for the current year primarily relate to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine.

5 Tax effect and non-controlling interest for the current year primarily relates to the impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project, tax provision at Acacia and Pueblo Viejo depreciation adjustment discussed above.

6 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share.

Free Cash Flow

Free cash flow is a measure that excludes capital expenditures from net cash provided by operating activities. Management believes this to be a useful indicator of our ability to operate without reliance on additional borrowing or usage of existing cash.

Free cash flow is intended to provide additional information only and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS, and should not be considered in

isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measure is not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate this measure differently. The following table reconciles this non-GAAP measure to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

Reconciliation of Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

($ millions)				For the years ended December 31						For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net cash provided by operating activities		$2,065			$2,640			$2,794			$590			$711
Capital expenditures		(1,396	)		(1,126	)		(1,713	)		(350	)		(326	)
Free cash flow		$669			$1,514			$1,081			$240			$385

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 70 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, C1 cash costs per pound and All-in sustaining costs per pound

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce are non-GAAP financial measures which are calculated based on the definition published by the World Gold Council (“WGC”) (a market development organization for the gold industry comprised of and funded by 23 gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick). The WGC is not a regulatory organization. Management uses these measures to monitor the performance of our gold mining operations and its ability to generate positive cash flow, both on an individual site basis and an overall company basis.

Cash costs start with our cost of sales related to gold production and removes depreciation, the non-controlling interest of cost of sales and includes byproduct credits. All-in sustaining costs start with cash costs and include sustaining capital expenditures, general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs and reclamation cost accretion and amortization. These additional costs reflect the expenditures made to maintain current production levels.

All-in costs starts with all-in sustaining costs and adds additional costs that reflect the varying costs of producing gold over the life-cycle of a mine, including: project capital expenditures (capital expenditures at new projects and discrete projects at existing operations intended to increase production capacity and will not benefit production for at least 12 months) and other non-sustaining costs (primarily exploration and evaluation costs, community relations costs and general and administrative costs that are not associated with current operations). These definitions recognize that there are different costs associated with the life-cycle of a mine, and that it is therefore appropriate to distinguish between sustaining and non-sustaining costs.

We believe that our use of cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and all-in costs will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in understanding the costs associated with producing gold, understanding the economics of gold mining, assessing our operating performance and also our ability to generate free cash flow from current operations and to generate free cash flow on an overall company basis. Due to the capital-intensive nature of the industry and the long useful lives over which these items are depreciated, there can be a significant timing difference between net earnings calculated in accordance with IFRS and the amount of free cash flow that is being generated by a mine and therefore we believe these measures are useful non-

GAAP operating metrics and supplement our IFRS disclosures. These measures are not representative of all of our cash expenditures as they do not include income tax payments, interest costs or dividend payments. These measures do not include depreciation or amortization.

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs and all-in costs are intended to provide additional information only and do not have standardized definitions under IFRS, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. These measures are not equivalent to net income or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Although the WGC has published a standardized definition, other companies may calculate these measures differently.

In addition to presenting these metrics on a by-product basis, we have calculated these metrics on a co-product basis. Our co-product metrics remove the impact of other metal sales that are produced as a by-product of our gold production from cost per ounce calculations, but does not reflect a reduction in costs for costs associated with other metal sales.

C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound are non-GAAP financial measures related to our copper mine operations. We believe that C1 cash costs per pound enables investors to better understand the performance of our copper operations in comparison to other copper producers who present results on a similar basis. C1 cash costs per pound excludes royalties and non-routine charges as they are not direct production costs. All-in sustaining costs per pound is similar to the gold all-in sustaining costs metric and management uses this to better evaluate the costs of copper production. We believe this measure enables investors to better understand the operating performance of our copper mines as this measure reflects all of the sustaining expenditures incurred in order to produce copper. All-in sustaining costs per pound includes C1 cash costs, corporate general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs, royalties, environmental rehabilitation costs and write-downs taken on inventory to net realizable value.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 71 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)			For the years ended December 31						For the three months ended December 31
	Footnote		2017		2016		2015		2017		2016
Cost of sales related to gold production				$4,836		$4,980		$5,906		$1,292		$1,347
Depreciation				(1,529)		(1,504)		(1,615)		(404)		(396)
By-product credits		1		(135)		(184)		(214)		(30)		(41)
Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives		2		23		89		128		4		18
Non-recurring items		3		—		24		(210)		—		—
Other		4		(106)		(44)		25		(35)		(20)
Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)		5		(299)		(358)		(394)		(81)		(91)
Cash costs				$2,790		$3,003		$3,626		$746		$817
General & administrative costs				248		256		233		62		39
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6		47		44		47		8		18
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		7		1,109		944		1,359		279		298
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)		8		64		59		145		13		18
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other		9		(273)		(287)		(362)		(74)		(78)
All-in sustaining costs				$3,985		$4,019		$5,048		$1,034		$1,112
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		6		307		193		308		90		64
Community relations costs not related to current operations				4		8		12		1		2
Project capital expenditures		7		273		175		133		81		51
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (non-operating sites)		8		20		11		12		4		4
Non-controlling interest and copper operations		9		(21)		(42)		(43)		(9)		(4)
All-in costs				$4,568		$4,364		$5,470		$1,201		$1,229
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)		10		5,302		5,503		6,083		1,372		1,519
Cost of sales per ounce		11,12		$794		$798		$859		$801		$784
Cash costs per ounce		12		$526		$546		$596		$545		$540
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$544		$569		$619		$561		$557
All-in sustaining costs per ounce		12		$750		$730		$831		$756		$732
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$768		$753		$854		$772		$749
All-in costs per ounce		12		$860		$792		$900		$882		$809
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$878		$815		$923		$898		$826

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for our gold and copper mines for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $30 million (2016: $41 million) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $135 million (2016: $151 million; 2015: $140 million) and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives

Includes realized hedge losses of $5 million and $27 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $14 million and $73 million, respectively; 2015: $106 million), and realized non-hedge gains of $1 million and $4 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $4 million and $16 million losses, respectively; 2015: $22 million losses). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

3 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of our cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

4 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $nil and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $4 million and $16 million, respectively; 2015: $14 million). 2016 and 2017 includes the removal of cash costs associated with our Pierina mine, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure, of $35 million and $108 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $24 million and $66 million, respectively).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 72 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

5 Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)

Non-controlling interests include non-controlling interests related to gold production of $137 million and $454 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $127 million and $508 million, respectively; 2015: $681 million). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

6 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects. Refer to page 44 of this MD&A.

7 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to our gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush. Refer to page 43 of this MD&A.

8 Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

9 Non-controlling interest and copper operations

Removes general & administrative costs related to non-controlling interests and copper based on a percentage allocation of revenue. Also removes exploration, evaluation and project costs, rehabilitation costs and capital expenditures incurred by our copper sites and the non-controlling interest of our Acacia and Pueblo Viejo operating segment and South Arturo. In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. The impact is summarized as the following:

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31							For the three months ended December 31
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other		2017		2016		2015			2017		2016
General & administrative costs		($21	)	($36	)	($53	)		($8	)	($5	)
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		(12	)	(9	)	(8	)		1		(3	)
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)		(10	)	(9	)	(13	)		(2	)	(4	)
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		(230	)	(233	)	(288	)		(65	)	(66	)
All-in sustaining costs total		($273	)	($287	)	($362	)		($74	)	($78	)
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		(17	)	(12	)	(11	)		(8	)	(4	)
Project capital expenditures		(4	)	(30	)	(32	)		(1	)	—
All-in costs total		($21	)	($42	)	($43	)		($9	)	($4	)

10 Ounces sold - equity basis

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

11 Cost of sales per ounce

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the cost of sales impact of Pierina of $55 million and $174 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $30 million and $82 million, respectively), which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. Cost of sales per ounce excludes non-controlling interest related to gold production. Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

12 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

13 Co-product costs per ounce

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce presented on a co-product basis remove the impact of by-product credits of our gold production (net of non-controlling interest) calculated as:

($ millions)			For the years ended December 31					For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016		2015			2017		2016
By-product credits	$135			$184		$214			$30		$41
Non-controlling interest	(30	)		(53	)	(62	)		(6	)	(13	)
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$105			$131		$152			$24		$28

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 73 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis, by operating segment

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																	For the three months ended December 31, 2017
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo  Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight		Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to   gold production			$428			$241			$75			$108			$55			$114			$53			$14		$69			$79
Depreciation			(155	)		(107	)		(18	)		(33	)		(10	)		(25	)		(8	)		—		(12	)		(16	)
By-product credits	1		(1	)		(14	)		(4	)		(5	)		—			—			—			—		(1	)		—
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Other	3		—			—			—			—			—			1			—			—		—			—
Non-controlling interests			(1	)		(49	)		—			—			—			(31	)		—			—		—			—
Cash costs			$271			$71			$53			$70			$45			$59			$45			$14		$56			$63
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			9			—			—		—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		4			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		1			3
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		94			30			8			39			8			18			10			—		16			8
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		4			3			1			—			—			1			1			—		(1	)		—
Non-controlling interests			—			(13	)		—			—			—			(12	)		—			—		—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$373			$91			$62			$109			$53			$75			$56			$14		$72			$74
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		4			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		63			—			—			—			4			3			—			—		—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			(1	)		—			—		—			—
All-in costs			$440			$91			$62			$109			$57			$77			$56			$14		$72			$74
Ounces sold - equity basis   (000s ounces)			539			182			114			114			81			94			64			11		80			93
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$794			$795			$659			$953			$672			$774			$831			1,221		864			850
Cash costs per ounce	8		$506			$388			$461			$609			$550			$581			$690			$1,218		$705			$675
Cash costs per ounce (on a   co-product basis)	8,9		$507			$490			$508			$618			$550			$587			$695			$1,228		$715			$680
All-in sustaining costs per   ounce	8		$696			$498			$547			$950			$638			$779			$864			$1,262		$897			$796
All-in sustaining costs per   ounce (on a co-product   basis)	8,9		$697			$600			$594			$959			$638			$785			$869			$1,272		$907			$801
All-in costs per ounce	8		$818			$498			$553			$950			$692			$803			$878			$1,267		$897			$796
All-in costs per ounce (on a   co-product basis)	8,9		$819			$600			$600			$959			$692			$809			$883			$1,277		$907			$801

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 74 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																	For the three months ended December 31, 2016
	Footnote	Barrick     Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$504			$144			$60			$173			$41			$195			$53			$17			$54			$76
Depreciation			(224	)		(21	)		(19	)		(42	)		(8	)		(44	)		(7	)		(2	)		(9	)		(15	)
By-product credits	1		(1	)		(17	)		(4	)		(7	)		—			(10	)		—			—			—			—
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			1			—			—			—			1			—			—			—			2
Non-controlling interests			—			(39	)		—			—			—			(52	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$279			$68			$37			$124			$33			$90			$46			$15			$45			$63
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			(1	)		—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		8			—			—			1			—			1			—			—			1			2
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		74			32			3			49			9			56			14			1			13			6
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		9			2			2			1			—			2			—			—			—			1
Non-controlling interests			(4	)		(13	)		—			—			—			(21	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$366			$89			$42			$175			$42			$127			$60			$16			$59			$72
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		6			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		34			—			1			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$406			$89			$43			$175			$42			$127			$60			$16			$59			$72
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			582			198			98			194			69			134			74			13			59			99
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$864			$450			$612			$892			$595			$935			$728			$1,264			$912			$772
Cash costs per ounce	8		$478			$341			$379			$642			$484			$679			$625			$1,162			$765			$638
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$479			$471			$418			$716			$484			$713			$630			$1,173			$775			$631
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$630			$443			$436			$905			$610			$952			$822			$1,245			$981			$731
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$631			$573			$475			$979			$610			$986			$827			$1,256			$991			$724
All-in costs per ounce	8		$696			$443			$447			$905			$610			$953			$822			$1,245			$981			$731
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$697			$573			$486			$979			$610			$987			$827			$1,256			$991			$724

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 75 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																				For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$1,869			$730			$245			$410			$159			$469			$193			$55			$239			$292
Depreciation			(793	)		(229	)		(68	)		(119	)		(28	)		(107	)		(27	)		(3	)		(39	)		(58	)
By-product credits	1		(3	)		(72	)		(16	)		(17	)		—			(7	)		(1	)		—			(3	)		(2	)
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			—			—			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(1	)		(171	)		—			—			—			(127	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$1,072			$258			$161			$274			$131			$229			$165			$52			$197			$232
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			21			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		16			—			4			3			—			—			—			—			1			9
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		360			114			20			173			32			137			44			—			55			20
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		25			13			7			2			1			6			5			2			(2	)		3
Non-controlling interests			(3	)		(51	)		—			—			—			(61	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$1,470			$334			$192			$452			$164			$332			$214			$54			$251			$264
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		8			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		224			—			5			—			4			11			5			1			—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			(4	)		—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$1,702			$334			$197			$452			$168			$339			$219			$55			$251			$264
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			2,357			637			397			458			222			379			196			41			253			362
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$792			$699			$617			$897			$715			$791			$986			$1,334			$944			$806
Cash costs per ounce	8		$455			$405			$405			$598			$589			$587			$841			$1,265			$781			$642
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$456			$475			446			$636			$589			$598			$846			$1,270			$791			$647
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$624			$525			$483			$987			$733			$875			$1,092			$1,329			$993			$729
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co- product basis)	8,9		$625			$595			$524			$1,025			$733			$886			$1,097			$1,334			$1,003			$734
All-in costs per ounce	8		$722			$525			$497			$987			$753			$894			$1,119			$1,349			$993			$729
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$723			$595			$538			$1,025			$753			$905			$1,124			$1,354			$1,003			$734

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 76 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																				For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$1,896			$644			$276			$464			$155			$719			$188			$54			$203			$289
Depreciation			(807	)		(147	)		(96	)		(118	)		(27	)		(166	)		(26	)		(5	)		(34	)		(56	)
By-product credits	1		(2	)		(90	)		(17	)		(27	)		—			(39	)		(1	)		—			(2	)		(2	)
Non-recurring items	2		—			34			—			(10	)		—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			5			—			—			—			8			—			—			—			7
Non-controlling interests			—			(170	)		—			—			—			(188	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$1,087			$276			$163			$309			$128			$334			$161			$49			$167			$238
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			55			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		10			—			2			1			—			3			—			—			1			5
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		217			101			51			95			32			190			37			2			43			21
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		26			10			8			4			1			6			1			2			(2	)		4
Non-controlling interests			(4	)		(44	)		—			—			—			(88	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$1,336			$343			$224			$409			$161			$500			$199			$53			$209			$268
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		19			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		141			—			5			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(30	)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$1,466			$343			$229			$409			$161			$501			$199			$53			$209			$268
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			2,162			700			425			532			257			522			237			36			243			380
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$876			$564			$651			$872			$603			$880			$795			$1,512			$836			$762
Cash costs per ounce	8		$502			$395			$383			$582			$498			$640			$679			$1,376			$689			$627
Cash costs per ounce (on a co- product basis)	8,9		$503			$473			$423			$632			$498			$677			$683			$1,385			$697			$615
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$618			$490			$529			$769			$625			$958			$839			$1,493			$858			$706
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$619			$568			$569			$819			$625			$995			$843			$1,502			$866			$694
All-in costs per ounce	8		$678			$490			$540			$769			$625			$960			$839			$1,493			$858			$706
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$679			$568			$580			$819			$625			$997			$843			$1,502			$866			$694

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 77 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																	For the year ended December 31, 2015
		Barrick			Pueblo			Lagunas						Turquoise									Golden
	Footnote	Nevada			Viejo			Norte			Veladero			Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$1,551			$904			$378			$499			$141			$837			$192			$134			$375			$306
Depreciation			(537	)		(277	)		(169	)		(108	)		(23	)		(143	)		(38	)		(38	)		(37	)		(74	)
By-product credits	1		(2	)		(120	)		(18	)		(22	)		—			(36	)		(1	)		(2	)		(1	)		(1	)
Non-recurring items	2		(12	)		(47	)		(5	)		(21	)		(1	)		(109	)		—			(11	)		—			—
Other	3		—			13			—			—			—			8			—			—			—			6
Non-controlling interests			—			(194	)		—			—			—			(200	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$1,000			$279			$186			$348			$117			$357			$153			$83			$337			$237
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			42			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		12			1			3			2			—			2			1			2			2			2
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		211			102			67			242			32			178			38			7			93			34
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		27			25			32			4			1			9			1			13			2			7
Non-controlling interests			—			(51	)		—			—			—			(75	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$1,250			$356			$288			$596			$150			$513			$193			$105			$434			$280
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		40			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		159			—			—			—			—			(1	)		39			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(31	)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$1,418			$356			$288			$596			$150			$512			$232			$105			$434			$280
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			1,981			597			565			629			202			461			216			76			426			315
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$782			$881			$669			$792			$697			$1,161			$887			$1,768			$881			$973
Cash costs per ounce	8		$504			$467			$329			$552			$581			$772			$708			$1,098			$791			$752
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$505			$595			$361			$587			$581			$810			$711			$1,121			$794			$738
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$631			$597			$509			$946			$742			$1,112			$895			$1,379			$1,018			$886
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$632			$725			$541			$981			$742			$1,150			$898			$1,402			$1,021			$872
All-in costs per ounce	8		$715			$597			$509			$946			$742			$1,111			$1,075			$1,379			$1,018			$886
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$716			$725			$541			$981			$742			$1,149			$1,078			$1,402			$1,021			$872

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for our gold mines and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of our cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

3 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $1 million and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $2 million and $9 million, respectively; 2015: $8 million).

4 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects. Refer to page 44 of this MD&A.

5 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to our gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush. Refer to page 43 of this MD&A.

6 Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 78 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

7 Cost of sales per ounce

Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

8 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

9 Co-product costs per ounce

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

($ millions)												For the three months ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	1	$	14		$	4	$	5	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
Non-controlling interest		—		(6	)		—		—		—		—			—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	1	$	8		$	4	$	5	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
												For the three months ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	1	$	17		$	4	$	7	$	—	$	10		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Non-controlling interest		—		(9	)		—		—		—		(4	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	1	$	8		$	4	$	7	$	—	$	6		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
															For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	3	$	72		$	16	$	17	$	—	$	7		$	1	$	—	$	3	$	2
Non-controlling interest		—		(28	)		—		—		—		(3	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	3	$	44		$	16	$	17	$	—	$	4		$	1	$	—	$	3	$	2
															For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	2	$	90		$	17	$	27	$	—	$	39		$	1	$	—	$	2	$	2
Non-controlling interest		—		(39	)		—		—		—		(14	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	2	$	51		$	17	$	27	$	—	$	25		$	1	$	—	$	2	$	2
															For the year ended December 31, 2015
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	2	$	120		$	18	$	22	$	—	$	36		$	1	$	2	$	1	$	1
Non-controlling interest		—		(49	)		—		—		—		(13	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	2	$	71		$	18	$	22	$	—	$	23		$	1	$	2	$	1	$	1

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 79 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months       ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Cost of sales		$399			$319			$814			$107			$84
Depreciation/amortization		(83	)		(45	)		(104	)		(24	)		(15	)
Treatment and refinement charges		157			167			178			41			43
Cash cost of sales applicable to equity method investments		245			203			23			75			53
Less: royalties		(38	)		(41	)		(101	)		(11	)		(9	)
By-product credits		(5	)		—			(1	)		(1	)		—
Other		—			—			72			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales		$675			$603			$881			$187			$156
General & administrative costs		12			14			21			3			3
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		12			7			6			3			2
Royalties		38			41			101			11			9
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6			—			—			1			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		204			169			177			67			48
All-in sustaining costs		$947			$834			$1,186			$272			$218
Pounds sold - consolidated basis (millions pounds)		405			405			510			107			107
Cost of sales per pound1,2		$1.77			$1.41			$1.65			$1.79			$1.43
C1 cash cost per pound1		$1.66			$1.49			$1.73			$1.72			$1.47
All-in sustaining costs per pound1		$2.34			$2.05			$2.33			$2.51			$2.04

1 Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

2 Cost of sales per pound related to copper is calculated using cost of sales including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 80 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis, by operating site

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)										For the three months ended December 31
	2017												2016
	Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid
Cost of sales		73			104			23			59			84			11
Depreciation/amortization		(16	)		(24	)		(5	)		(13	)		(15	)		(3	)
Treatment and refinement charges		—			37			4			—			41			2
Less: royalties		—			(11	)		—			—			(9	)		—
By-product credits		—			—			—			—			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales		57			106			22			46			101			10
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		—			3			—			—			3			—
Royalties		—			11			—			—			9			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		1			—			—			—			—			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		21			43			3			16			27			6
All-in sustaining costs		79			163			25			62			140			16
Pounds sold - consolidated basis (millions pounds)		32			65			10			31			70			6
Cost of sales per pound1,2		2.29			1.60			2.15			1.87			1.20			1.89
C1 cash cost per pound1		1.78			1.63			2.05			1.46			1.45			1.79
All-in sustaining costs per pound1		2.45			2.52			2.41			1.97			1.99			2.73

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)																			For the years ended December 31
				2017									2016									2015
	Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid
Cost of sales	$	243		$	396		$	75		$	221		$	319		$	33		$	424		$	418		$	—
Depreciation/amortization		(55	)		(83	)		(17	)		(44	)		(45	)		(6	)		(50	)		(59	)		—
Treatment and refinement charges		—			144			14			—			161			6			—			178			—
Less: royalties		—			(38	)		—			—			(41	)		—			—			(101	)		—
By-product credits		—			—			(5	)		—			—			—			(1	)		—			—
Other		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			72			—
C1 cash cost of sales	$	188		$	419		$	67		$	177		$	394		$	33		$	373		$	508		$	—
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		—			12			—			—			7			—			1			5			—
Royalties		—			38			—			—			41			—			—			101			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		4			2			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		58			123			23			56			96			17			78			99			—
All-in sustaining costs	$	250		$	594		$	90		$	233		$	538		$	50		$	452		$	713		$	—
Pounds sold - consolidated basis  (millions pounds)		113			253			39			114			274			17			215			295			—
Cost of sales per pound1,2	$	2.15		$	1.57		$	1.90		$	1.93		$	1.16		$	1.98		$	1.97		$	1.42		$	—
C1 cash cost per pound1	$	1.66		$	1.66		$	1.70		$	1.55		$	1.44		$	1.97		$	1.74		$	1.72		$	—
All-in sustaining costs per  pound1	$	2.21		$	2.35		$	2.30		$	2.05		$	1.97		$	2.98		$	2.11		$	2.42		$	—

¹  Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

² Cost of sales per pound applicable to copper is calculated using cost of sales including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 81 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA

EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure, which excludes the following from net earnings:

● Income tax expense;

● Finance costs;

● Finance income; and

● Depreciation.

Management believes that EBITDA is a valuable indicator of our ability to generate liquidity by producing operating cash flow to fund working capital needs, service debt obligations, and fund capital expenditures. Management uses EBITDA for this purpose. EBITDA is also frequently used by investors and analysts for valuation purposes whereby EBITDA is multiplied by a factor or “EBITDA multiple” that is based on an observed or inferred relationship between EBITDA and market values to determine the approximate total enterprise value of a company.

Adjusted EBITDA removes the effect of “impairment charges” and starting in the second quarter 2017 MD&A, we began including additional adjusting items in the Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation to provide a greater level of consistency with the adjusting items included in our Adjusted Net Earnings reconciliation. These new items include: acquisition/disposition gains/losses; foreign

currency translation gains/losses; other expense adjustments; and unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments. These amounts are adjusted to remove any impact on finance costs/income, income tax expense and/or depreciation as they do not affect EBITDA. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. We believe this additional information will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in better understanding our ability to generate liquidity from operating cash flow, by excluding these amounts from the calculation as they are not indicative of the performance of our core mining business and not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the periods presented.

EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA are intended to provide additional information to investors and analysts and do not have any standardized definition under IFRS, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA exclude the impact of cash costs of financing activities and taxes, and the effects of changes in operating working capital balances, and therefore are not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA differently.

Reconciliation of Net Earnings to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA

($ millions)				For the years ended December 31						For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss)		$1,516			$861			($3,113	)		($467	)		$512
Income tax expense		1,231			917			(31	)		51			223
Finance costs, net1		624			725			663			115			200
Depreciation		1,647			1,574			1,771			434			418
EBITDA		$5,018			$4,077			($710	)		$133			$1,353
Impairment charges (reversals) of long-lived assets2		(212	)		(250	)		3,897			916			(304	)
Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses3		(911	)		42			(187	)		(29	)		7
Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses		72			199			120			12			18
Other expense adjustments4		51			(15	)		203			17			(20	)
Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments		(1	)		(32	)		11			5			(9	)
Adjusted EBITDA		$4,017			$4,021			$3,334			$1,054			$1,045

1 Finance costs exclude accretion.

2 Net impairment reversals for the current year primarily relate to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017 and impairment reversals at Lumwana during the fourth quarter of 2017, partially offset by net impairments at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project during the fourth quarter of 2017.

3 Disposition gains for the current year primarily relate to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project.

4 Other expense adjustments primarily consist of reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 82 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Segment Income to Segment EBITDA

($ millions)					For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick Nevada	Pueblo Viejo  (60%)		Lagunas Norte	Veladero	Turquoise Ridge	Acacia (100%)
Segment Income	$1,052		$              395	$              259	$              173	$              119		$              191
Depreciation	793		143	68	119	28		107
Segment EBITDA	$            1,845		$              538	$              327	$              292	$              147		$              298
					For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick Nevada	Pueblo Viejo (60%)		Lagunas Norte	Veladero	Turquoise Ridge	Acacia (100%)
Segment Income	$771		$528	$260	$220	$166		$299
Depreciation	807		93	96	118	27		166
Segment EBITDA	$1,578		$621	$356	$338	$193		$465
					For the year ended December 31, 2015
	Barrick Nevada	Pueblo Viejo (60%)		Lagunas Norte	Veladero	Turquoise Ridge	Acacia (100%)
Segment Income	$678		$230	$285	$216	$92		($1	)
Depreciation	537		160	169	108	23		143
Segment EBITDA	$1,215		$390	$454	$324	$115		$142

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 83 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Realized Price

Realized price is a non-GAAP financial measure which excludes from sales:

● Unrealized gains and losses on non-hedge derivative contracts;

● Unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses on provisional pricing from copper and gold sales contracts;

● Sales attributable to ore purchase arrangements;

● Treatment and refining charges; and

● Export duties.

This measure is intended to enable Management to better understand the price realized in each reporting period for gold and copper sales because unrealized mark-to-market values of non-hedge gold and copper derivatives are subject to change each period due to changes in market factors such as market and forward gold and copper prices, so that prices ultimately realized may differ from those recorded. The exclusion of such unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses from the presentation of this performance measure enables investors to understand performance based on the realized proceeds of selling gold and copper production.

The gains and losses on non-hedge derivatives and receivable balances relate to instruments/balances that

mature in future periods, at which time the gains and losses will become realized. The amounts of these gains and losses reflect fair values based on market valuation assumptions at the end of each period and do not necessarily represent the amounts that will become realized on maturity. We also exclude export duties that are paid upon sale and netted against revenues as well as treatment and refining charges that are paid to the refiner on gold and copper concentrate sales that are netted against revenues. We believe this provides investors and analysts with a more accurate measure with which to compare to market gold prices and to assess our gold sales performance. For those reasons, management believes that this measure provides a more accurate reflection of our Company’s past performance and is a better indicator of its expected performance in future periods.

The realized price measure is intended to provide additional information, and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measure is not necessarily indicative of sales as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate this measure differently. The following table reconciles realized prices to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

Reconciliation of Sales to Realized Price per ounce/pound

For the years ended December 31
($ millions, except per ounce/pound information in dollars)				Gold								Copper
	2017			2016			2015			2017		2016		2015
Sales		$7,631			$7,908			$7,813			$608		$466		$1,002
Sales applicable to non-controlling interests		(810	)		(948	)		(826	)		—		—		—
Sales applicable to equity method investments1,2		—			—			—			427		293		26
Realized non-hedge gold/copper derivative (losses) gains		3			(2	)		—			—		—		—
Sales applicable to Pierina3		(153	)		(112	)		—			—		—		—
Treatment and refinement charges		1			16			14			157		167		178
Export duties		—			2			34			—		—		—
Revenues - as adjusted		$6,672			$6,864			$7,035			$1,192		$926		$1,206
Ounces/pounds sold (000s ounces/millions pounds)3		5,302			5,503			6,083			405		405		510
Realized gold/copper price per ounce/pound4		$1,258			$1,248			$1,157			$2.95		$2.29		$2.37

1 Represents sales of $325 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $259 million; 2015: $26 million) applicable to our 50% equity method investment in Zaldívar and $116 million (2016: $40 million; 2015: $nil) applicable to our 50% equity method investment in Jabal Sayid.

2 Sales applicable to equity method investments are net of treatment and refinement charges.

3 Figures exclude Pierina from the calculation of realized price per ounce, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

4 Realized price per ounce/pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 84 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The scientific and technical information contained in this MD&A has been reviewed and approved by Steven Haggarty, P. Eng., Senior Director, Metallurgy of Barrick; Rick Sims, Registered Member SME, Vice President, Reserves and Resources of Barrick; and Patrick Garretson, Registered Member SME, Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning of Barrick who are each a “Qualified Person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

ENDNOTES

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 Amount excludes capital leases and includes Acacia (100% basis).

3 Includes $87 million cash primarily held at Acacia, which may not be readily deployed.

4 Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales related to gold on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces. Cost of sales related to copper per pound is calculated using cost of sales related to copper including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

5 Total reportable incident frequency rate (TRIFR) is a ratio calculated as follows: number of reportable injuries x 200,000 hours divided by the total number of hours worked. Reportable injuries include fatalities, lost time injuries, restricted duty injuries, and medically treated injuries.

6 Estimated in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Estimates are as of December 31, 2017, unless otherwise noted. Proven reserves of 398.2 million tonnes grading 1.91 g/t, representing 24.4 million ounces of gold, and 170.7 million tonnes grading 0.556%, representing 2.095 billion pounds of copper. Probable reserves of 0.9 billion tonnes grading 1.39 g/t, representing 40.0 million ounces of gold, and 456.7 million tonnes grading 0.592%, representing 5.956 billion pounds of copper. Measured resources of 400.0 million tonnes grading 0.92 g/t, representing 11.8 million ounces of gold, and 90.9 million tonnes grading 0.401%, representing 803.1 million pounds of copper. Indicated resources of 1.6 billion tonnes grading 1.54 g/t, representing 76.8 million ounces of gold, and 581.2 million tonnes grading 0.506%, representing 6.484 billion pounds of copper. Inferred resources of 795.4 million tonnes grading 1.21 g/t, representing 30.8 million ounces of gold, and 125.4 million tonnes grading 0.482%, representing 1.331 billion pounds of copper. Pascua-Lama measured resources of 42.8 million tonnes grading 1.86 g/t representing 2.6 ounces of gold, and indicated resources of 391.7 tonnes grading 1.49 g/t, representing 18.8 ounces of gold. Goldrush probable reserves of 5.7 tonnes grading 8.12 g/t, representing 1.5 ounces of gold. Norte Abierto (formerly known as the Cerro Casale project, comprised of the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits) proven reserves of 114.9 million tonnes grading 0.65 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 2.4 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis), and probable reserves of 484.0 million tonnes grading 0.59 g/t (50 percent basis), representing 9.2 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis). Norte Abierto measured resources of 310.1 million tonnes grading 0.57 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 5.7 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis, indicated resources of 391.8 million tonnes grading 0.47 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 6.0 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis), and inferred resources of 99.1 million tonnes grading 0.29 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 0.9 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis). Complete mineral reserve and mineral resource data for all mines and projects referenced in this MD&A, including tonnes, grades, and ounces, can be found on pages 87-92 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2017 Report.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 85 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTS: A measure of cost per ounce/pound for gold/copper. Refer to page 72 of this MD&A for further information and a reconciliation of the measure.

AUTOCLAVE: Oxidation process in which high temperatures and pressures are applied to convert refractory sulfide mineralization into amenable oxide ore.

BY-PRODUCT: A secondary metal or mineral product recovered in the milling process such as silver.

C1 CASH COSTS: A measure of cost per pound for copper. Refer to page 80 of this MD&A for further information and a reconciliation of the measure.

CASH COSTS: A measure of cost per ounce for gold. Refer to page 72 of this MD&A for further information and a reconciliation of the measure.

CONCENTRATE: A very fine, powder-like product containing the valuable ore mineral from which most of the waste mineral has been eliminated.

CONTAINED OUNCES: Represents ounces in the ground before reduction of ounces not able to be recovered by the applicable metallurgical process.

DEVELOPMENT: Work carried out for the purpose of opening up a mineral deposit. In an underground mine this includes shaft sinking, crosscutting, drifting and raising. In an open pit mine, development includes the removal of overburden.

DILUTION: The effect of waste or low-grade ore which is unavoidably included in the mined ore, lowering the recovered grade.

DORÉ: Unrefined gold and silver bullion bars usually consisting of approximately 90 percent precious metals that will be further refined to almost pure metal.

DRILLING:

Core: drilling with a hollow bit with a diamond cutting rim to produce a cylindrical core that is used for geological study and assays. Used in mineral exploration.

In-fill: any method of drilling intervals between existing holes, used to provide greater geological detail and to help establish reserve estimates.

EXPLORATION: Prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond-drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

FREE CASH FLOW: A measure that reflects our ability to generate cash flow. Refer to page 70 of this MD&A for a definition.

GRADE: The amount of metal in each tonne of ore, expressed as troy ounces per ton or grams per tonne for precious metals and as a percentage for most other metals.

Cut-off grade: the minimum metal grade at which an ore body can be economically mined (used in the calculation of ore reserves).

Mill-head grade: metal content of mined ore going into a mill for processing.

Recovered grade: actual metal content of ore determined after processing.

Reserve grade: estimated metal content of an ore body, based on reserve calculations.

HEAP LEACHING: A process whereby gold/copper is extracted by “heaping” broken ore on sloping impermeable pads and continually applying to the heaps a weak cyanide solution/sulfuric acid which dissolves the contained gold/copper. The gold/copper-laden solution is then collected for gold/copper recovery.

HEAP LEACH PAD: A large impermeable foundation or pad used as a base for ore during heap leaching.

MERRILL-CROWE PROCESS: A separation technique for removing gold from a cyanide solution.

MILL: A processing facility where ore is finely ground and thereafter undergoes physical or chemical treatment to extract the valuable metals.

MINERAL RESERVE: See pages 87 to 92 – Summary Gold/Copper Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources.

MINERAL RESOURCE: See pages 87 to 92 – Summary Gold/Copper Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources.

MINING RATE: Tonnes of ore mined per day or even specified time period.

OPEN PIT: A mine where the minerals are mined entirely from the surface.

ORE: Rock, generally containing metallic or non-metallic minerals, which can be mined and processed at a profit.

ORE BODY: A sufficiently large amount of ore that can be mined economically.

OUNCES: Troy ounces of a fineness of 999.9 parts per 1,000 parts.

RECLAMATION: The process by which lands disturbed as a result of mining activity are modified to support beneficial land use. Reclamation activity may include the removal of buildings, equipment, machinery and other physical remnants of mining, closure of tailings storage facilities, leach pads and other mine features, and contouring, covering and re-vegetation of waste rock and other disturbed areas.

RECOVERY RATE: A term used in process metallurgy to indicate the proportion of valuable material physically recovered in the processing of ore. It is generally stated as a percentage of the material recovered compared to the total material originally present.

REFINING: The final stage of metal production in which impurities are removed from the molten metal.

STRIPPING: Removal of overburden or waste rock overlying an ore body in preparation for mining by open pit methods. Expressed as the total number of tonnes mined or to be mined for each ounce of gold or pound of copper.

TAILINGS: The material that remains after all economically and technically recoverable precious metals have been removed from the ore during processing.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 86 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources

GOLD MINERAL RESERVES ^(1,2)

As at December 31, 2017	PROVEN						PROBABLE						TOTAL
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs
Based on attributable ounces	(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		50,013		2.82		4,537		9,198		3.78		1,117		59,211		2.97		5,654
Goldstrike Underground		3,982		11.49		1,471		4,599		8.75		1,294		8,581		10.02		2,765
Goldstrike Property Total		53,995		3.46		6,008		13,797		5.44		2,411		67,792		3.86		8,419
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		2.67		5,335		19,222		3.06		1,889		81,359		2.76		7,224
Cortez		19,145		1.46		898		148,775		1.92		9,188		167,920		1.87		10,086
Goldrush		—		—		—		5,671		8.12		1,481		5,671		8.12		1,481
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		7,082		15.56		3,544		4,689		15.48		2,334		11,771		15.53		5,878
South Arturo (60.00%)		2,267		3.28		239		1,557		2.52		126		3,824		2.97		365
Hemlo		935		3.66		110		23,993		2.16		1,664		24,928		2.21		1,774
Golden Sunlight		270		1.15		10		182		3.42		20		452		2.06		30
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (3)		114,851		0.65		2,391		483,950		0.59		9,232		598,801		0.60		11,623
Veladero (50.00%) (4)		14,198		0.72		330		99,716		0.78		2,486		113,914		0.77		2,816
Lagunas Norte		25,719		2.23		1,840		29,711		2.27		2,165		55,430		2.25		4,005
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		635		9.21		188		12,620		4.56		1,850		13,255		4.78		2,038
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		75,145		0.89		2,161		23,915		2.21		1,697		99,060		1.21		3,858
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		1,864		10.66		639		10,716		6.86		2,362		12,580		7.42		3,001
North Mara (63.90%)		5,298		2.40		408		11,628		2.89		1,080		16,926		2.73		1,488
Buzwagi (63.90%)		9,108		0.92		269		—		—		—		9,108		0.92		269
OTHER		5,556		0.21		38		6,282		0.25		51		11,838		0.23		89
TOTAL		398,205		1.91		24,408		896,424		1.39		40,036		1,294,629		1.55		64,444
COPPER MINERAL RESERVES (1)
As at December 31, 2017	PROVEN						PROBABLE						TOTAL
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs
Based on attributable pounds	(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)
Zaldívar (50.00%)		132,477		0.493		1,440.3		81,757		0.538		970.4		214,234		0.510		2,410.7
Lumwana		32,711		0.503		362.9		368,685		0.572		4,651.1		401,396		0.567		5,014.0
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		5,556		2.380		291.5		6,282		2.418		334.9		11,838		2.400		626.4
TOTAL		170,744		0.556		2,094.7		456,724		0.592		5,956.4		627,468		0.582		8,051.1

⁽¹⁾  See accompanying endnote #1.

⁽²⁾  See accompanying endnote #2.

⁽³⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 87 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

GOLD MINERAL RESOURCES ^(1,2)

As at December 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs
Based on attributable ounces	(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		1,764		2.61		148		3,840		2.89		357		505		267		2.80		24
Goldstrike Underground		1,519		9.91		484		2,379		7.75		593		1,077		1,192		9.37		359
Goldstrike Property Total		3,283		5.99		632		6,219		4.75		950		1,582		1,459		8.16		383
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		2.39		598		93,913		2.47		7,456		8,054		27,637		2.43		2,155
Cortez		2,586		1.88		156		28,837		1.85		1,712		1,868		9,874		2.01		638
Goldrush		140		10.44		47		31,379		9.27		9,351		9,398		8,817		8.24		2,335
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		2,944		9.03		855		2,162		9.37		651		1,506		1,697		13.03		711
South Arturo (60.00%)		2,927		1.19		111.6		8,365		1.12		301		412.6		749		0.46		11
Hemlo		1,107		2.67		95		40,232		1.36		1,763		1,858		4,949		2.78		442
Golden Sunlight		121		1.54		6		3,013		1.79		173		179		2,442		2.17		170
Donlin Gold (50.00%)		3,865		2.52		313		266,803		2.24		19,190		19,503		46,108		2.02		2,997
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (3)		11,478		0.30		112		136,846		0.36		1,574		1,686		247,720		0.38		2,995
Caspiche (50.00%) (3)		310,050		0.57		5,655		391,750		0.47		5,965		11,620		99,050		0.29		921
Pascua-Lama (4)		42,809		1.86		2,564		391,734		1.49		18,783		21,347		15,400		1.74		863
Veladero (50.00%) (5)		3,324		0.48		51		66,771		0.57		1,225		1,276		33,486		0.43		464
Lagunas Norte		1,925		0.87		54		29,017		0.96		896		950		1,857		0.92		55
Alturas		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		210,965		1.00		6,793
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		149		5.22		25		12,316		4.62		1,828		1,853		11,879		4.15		1,584
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		3,166		0.96		98		12,120		1.21		473		571		1,252		2.48		100
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		11.53		324		8,334		8.78		2,352		2,676		15,469		9.75		4,848
North Mara (63.90%)		1,291		2.63		109		6,522		2.77		581		690		4,112		4.15		548
Buzwagi (63.90%)		13		2.39		1		2,878		1.04		96		97		31,898		0.77		790
Nyanzaga (57.51%)		—		—		—		12,520		3.45		1,389		1,389		2,933		3.49		329
Tankoro (31.95%)		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		13,739		1.52		671
OTHER		216		0.29		2		2,404		0.61		47		49		1,860		0.25		15
TOTAL		400,041		0.92		11,809		1,554,135		1.54		76,756		88,565		795,352		1.21		30,818
COPPER MINERAL RESOURCES (1,2)
As at December 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs
Based on attributable pounds	(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)
Zaldívar (50.00%)		62,629		0.402		555.5		25,248		0.389		216.4		771.9		4,408		0.511		49.7
Lumwana		28,041		0.388		239.9		553,524		0.505		6,161.3		6,401.2		119,094		0.452		1,187.4
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		216		1.617		7.7		2,404		2.004		106.2		113.9		1,860		2.300		94.3
TOTAL		90,886		0.401		803.1		581,176		0.506		6,483.9		7,287.0		125,362		0.482		1,331.4

⁽¹⁾  Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾  See accompanying endnote #1.

⁽³⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #5.

⁽⁵⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 88 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

SUMMARY GOLD MINERAL RESERVES AND MINERAL RESOURCES ^(1,2,3,4)

For the years ended December 31				2017						2016
Based on attributable ounces		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Ounces (000 ’s)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Ounces (000 ’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit	(proven and probable)		59,211		2.97		5,654		65,000		3.00		6,271
	(mineral resource)		5,604		2.80		505		5,225		2.66		447
Goldstrike Underground	(proven and probable)		8,581		10.02		2,765		5,685		9.88		1,806
	(mineral resource)		3,898		8.59		1,077		3,006		10.44		1,009
Goldstrike Property Total	(proven and probable)		67,792		3.86		8,419		70,685		3.55		8,077
	(mineral resource)		9,502		5.18		1,582		8,231		5.50		1,456
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)	(proven and probable)		81,359		2.76		7,224		85,821		2.93		8,087
	(mineral resource)		101,686		2.46		8,054		105,642		2.33		7,910
Cortez	(proven and probable)		167,920		1.87		10,086		151,002		2.11		10,220
	(mineral resource)		31,423		1.85		1,868		31,336		2.13		2,143
Goldrush	(proven and probable)		5,671		8.12		1,481		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		31,519		9.27		9,398		30,998		9.61		9,576
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)	(proven and probable)		11,771		15.53		5,878		8,291		15.11		4,029
	(mineral resource)		5,106		9.17		1,506		50,790		5.81		9,485
South Arturo (60.00%)	(proven and probable)		3,824		2.97		365		980		3.87		122
	(mineral resource)		11,292		1.14		413		29		1.07		1
Hemlo	(proven and probable)		24,928		2.21		1,774		25,782		1.92		1,588
	(mineral resource)		41,339		1.40		1,858		58,897		0.91		1,720
Golden Sunlight	(proven and probable)		452		2.06		30		827		2.67		71
	(mineral resource)		3,134		1.78		179		15,145		1.38		671
Donlin Gold (50.00%)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		270,668		2.24		19,503		270,668		2.24		19,503
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (5)	(proven and probable)		598,801		0.60		11,623		898,202		0.60		17,434
	(mineral resource)		148,324		0.35		1,686		222,485		0.35		2,529
Caspiche (50.00%) (5)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		701,800		0.51		11,620		—		—		—
Pascua-Lama (6)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		277,870		1.57		14,050
	(mineral resource)		434,543		1.53		21,347		156,673		1.45		7,297
Veladero (50.00%) (7)	(proven and probable)		113,914		0.77		2,816		252,125		0.83		6,749
	(mineral resource)		70,095		0.57		1,276		212,335		0.48		3,303
Lagunas Norte	(proven and probable)		55,430		2.25		4,005		70,670		1.86		4,218
	(mineral resource)		30,942		0.95		950		57,445		0.63		1,168
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)	(proven and probable)		13,255		4.78		2,038		14,455		4.75		2,207
	(mineral resource)		12,465		4.62		1,853		13,775		4.07		1,802
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)	(proven and probable)		99,060		1.21		3,858		100,073		1.29		4,140
	(mineral resource)		15,286		1.16		571		14,114		0.89		402
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		12,580		7.42		3,001		13,958		7.29		3,271
	(mineral resource)		9,208		9.04		2,676		8,885		8.91		2,544
North Mara (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		16,926		2.73		1,488		15,202		2.47		1,209
	(mineral resource)		7,813		2.75		690		12,888		2.36		979
Buzwagi (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		9,108		0.92		269		9,624		1.27		392
	(mineral resource)		2,891		1.04		97		16,532		1.23		654
Nyanzaga (57.51%)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		12,520		3.45		1,389		14,205		3.49		1,594
Golden Ridge (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		—		—		—		5,076		2.78		454
OTHER	(proven and probable)		11,838		0.23		89		11,331		0.24		86
	(mineral resource)		2,620		0.58		49		2,621		0.52		44
TOTAL	(proven and probable)		1,294,629		1.55		64,444		2,006,898		1.33		85,950
	(mineral resource)		1,954,176		1.41		88,565		1,308,770		1.79		75,235

⁽¹⁾  Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #1.

⁽³⁾  Measured plus indicated resources.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #2.

⁽⁵⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽⁶⁾  See accompanying endnote #5.

⁽⁷⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 89 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

CONTAINED SILVER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESERVES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN PROVEN GOLD RESERVES						IN PROBABLE GOLD RESERVES						TOTAL
					Contained						Contained						Contained		Process
	Tonnes		Grade		ozs		Tonnes		Grade		ozs		Tonnes		Grade		ozs		recovery %
Based on attributable ounces	(000s)		(gm/t)		(000s)		(000s)		(gm/t)		(000s)		(000s)		(gm/t)		(000s)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		17.97		35,909		19,222		15.55		9,612		81,359		17.40		45,521		77.8	%
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		114,851		1.91		7,043		483,950		1.43		22,300		598,801		1.52		29,343		69.0	%
Lagunas Norte		24,648		4.36		3,455		29,711		5.94		5,670		54,359		5.22		9,125		37.7	%
Veladero (50.00%) (3)		7,466		12.69		3,047		99,716		14.77		47,359		107,182		14.63		50,406		10.0	%
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%) (4)		1,864		5.59		335		7,402		8.44		2,009		9,266		7.87		2,344		65.0	%
TOTAL		210,966		7.34		49,789		640,001		4.23		86,950		850,967		5.00		136,739		48.0	%

⁽¹⁾  Silver is accounted for as a by-product credit against reported or projected gold production costs.

⁽²⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽³⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #6.

CONTAINED COPPER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESERVES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN PROVEN GOLD RESERVES						IN PROBABLE GOLD RESERVES						TOTAL
					Contained						Contained						Contained		Process
	Tonnes		Grade		lbs		Tonnes		Grade		lbs		Tonnes		Grade		lbs		recovery %
Based on attributable pounds	(000s)		(%)		(millions)		(000s)		(%)		(millions)		(000s)		(%)		(millions)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		0.097		132.3		19,222		0.100		42.5		81,359		0.097		174.8		47.9	%
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		114,851		0.190		480.9		483,950		0.226		2,408.8		598,801		0.219		2,889.7		87.4	%
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%) (3)		1,864		0.436		17.9		7,402		0.567		92.5		9,266		0.540		110.4		90.0	%
Buzwagi (63.90%)		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—	%
TOTAL		178,852		0.160		631.1		510,574		0.226		2,543.8		689,426		0.209		3,174.9		85.4	%

 ⁽¹⁾ Copper is accounted for as a by-product credit against reported or projected gold production costs.

 ⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #3.

 ⁽³⁾ See accompanying endnote #6.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 90 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

CONTAINED SILVER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESOURCES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable ounces	Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000 ’s)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000 ’s)		Ounces (000 ’s)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000 ’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		14.25		3,561		93,913		13.61		41,095		44,656		27,637		10.81		9,605
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		11,478		1.20		441		136,846		1.06		4,656		5,097		247,720		1.04		8,253
Caspiche (50.00%) (2)		310,050		1.20		11,976		391,750		1.20		15,147		27,123		99,050		0.91		2,909
Pascua-Lama (3)		42,809		57.21		78,747		391,734		52.22		657,718		736,465		15,400		17.83		8,830
Lagunas Norte		1,925		2.71		168		29,017		2.83		2,642		2,810		1,857		3.35		200
Veladero (50.00%) (4)		3,324		8.95		956		66,771		12.25		26,287		27,243		33,486		10.99		11,830
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		7.15		201		8,334		6.55		1,755		1,956		15,469		6.96		3,461
TOTAL		378,233		7.90		96,050		1,118,365		20.84		749,300		845,350		440,619		3.18		45,088

⁽¹⁾ Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽³⁾ See accompanying endnote #5.

⁽⁴⁾ See accompanying endnote #4.

CONTAINED COPPER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESOURCES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN MEASURED (M) GOLD RESOURCES						IN INDICATED (I) GOLD RESOURCES						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable pounds	Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		0.067		11.5		93,913		0.081		167.6		179.1		27,637		0.086		52.3
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		11,478		0.132		33.4		136,846		0.164		495.9		529.3		247,720		0.192		1,046.8
Caspiche (50.00%) (2)		277,100		0.230		1,405.1		363,950		0.180		1,444.3		2,849.4		97,800		0.120		258.7
Pascua-Lama (3)		42,809		0.101		95.7		391,734		0.082		704.6		800.3		15,400		0.049		16.5
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		0.405		7.8		8,334		0.441		81.0		88.8		15,469		0.632		215.5
Buzwagi (63.90%)		13		0.349		0.1		2,878		0.109		6.9		7.0		31,898		0.081		56.9
TOTAL		340,047		0.207		1,553.6		997,655		0.132		2,900.3		4,453.9		435,924		0.171		1,646.7

⁽¹⁾ Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽³⁾ See accompanying endnote #5.

NICKEL MINERAL RESOURCES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017

MEASURED (M)

INDICATED (I)

(M) + (I)

INFERRED

Based on attributable pounds

Tonnes (000 ’s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

Tonnes (000 ’s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

Contained lbs (millions)

Tonnes (000 ’s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

AFRICA

Kabanga (50.00%)

6,905

2.490

379.0

11,705

2.720

701.9

1,080.9

10,400

2.600

596.1

⁽¹⁾  Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 91 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

Mineral Reserves and Resources Endnotes

1. Mineral reserves (“reserves”) and mineral resources (“resources”) have been estimated as at December 31, 2017 in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, Industry Guide 7 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (as interpreted by Staff of the SEC), applies different standards in order to classify mineralization as a reserve. In addition, while the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources are required pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize such terms. Canadian standards differ significantly from the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and mineral resource information contained herein is not comparable to similar information regarding mineral reserves disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. U.S. investors should understand that “inferred” mineral resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. In addition, U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of Barrick’s mineral resources constitute or will be converted into reserves. Calculations have been prepared by employees of Barrick, its joint venture partners or its joint venture operating companies, as applicable, under the supervision of Rick Sims, Vice President, Resources and Reserves, of Barrick, Steven Haggarty, Senior Director, Metallurgy, of Barrick and Patrick Garretson, Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning, of Barrick. Except as noted below, reserves have been estimated based on an assumed gold price of US$1,200 per ounce, an assumed silver price of US$16.50 per ounce, and an assumed copper price of US$2.75 per pound and long-term average exchange rates of 1.25 CAD/US$ and 0.75 US$/AUD. Reserves at Kalgoorlie assumed a gold price of AUD$1,600 and Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi assumed a gold price of US$1,100. Reserve estimates incorporate current and/or expected mine plans and cost levels at each property. Varying cut-off grades have been used depending on the mine and type of ore contained in the reserves. Barrick’s normal data verification procedures have been employed in connection with the calculations. Verification procedures include industry-standard quality control practices. Resources as at December 31, 2017 have been estimated using varying cut-off grades, depending on both the type of mine or project, its maturity and ore types at each property. For a breakdown of reserves and resources by category and for a more detailed description of the key assumptions, parameters, and methods used in estimating Barrick’s reserves and resources, see Barrick’s most recent Annual Information Form/Form 40-F on file with Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

2. In confirming our annual reserves for each of our mineral properties, projects, and operations, we conduct a reserve test on December 31 of each year to verify that the future undiscounted cash flow from reserves is positive. The cash flow ignores all sunk costs and only considers future operating and closure expenses as well as any future capital costs.

3. On June 9, 2017, the Company sold 25% of its interest in Cerro Casale to Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”). Goldcorp concurrently purchased Kinross Gold Corporation’s 25% interest in Cerro Casale, resulting in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50% interest in the joint operation. In connection with this transaction, Goldcorp also acquired the Caspiche Project from Exeter Resource Corporation, which was also contributed to the joint operation. Moving forward, the joint venture will be referred to as Norte Abierto, which includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits. For additional information, see page 116 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End Report 2017.

4. On June 30, 2017, the Company sold 50 percent of its interest in the Veladero mine to Shandong Gold Group Co., Ltd. For additional information regarding this matter, see page 116 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End Report 2017.

5. On January 17, 2018, Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (SMA) ordered the closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project. As a result, the Company has reclassified Pascua- Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources. For additional information, see page 158 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End Report 2017.

6. Silver and copper probable reserve tonnage at the Bulyanhulu mine is less than the gold probable reserve tonnage because the gold reserve includes 3.3 million tonnes of tailings material which are being separately reprocessed for recovery of gold only.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 92 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

EX-99.5

Exhibit 99.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold Corporation (the company), and to the incorporation by reference on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099) of the company, of our report dated February 14, 2018 relating to the company’s 2017 and 2016 consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP                                    

Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed
Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

March 23, 2018

EX-99.6

Exhibit 99.6

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Rick Sims, hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the references to scientific and technical information relating to mineral properties of Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) in the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “AIF”) and the related Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company.

I do also hereby consent to the use of my name and the incorporation by reference of the information contained in the AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F into the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099).

Yours very truly,
/s/ Rick Sims
Name:	Rick Sims
Title:	Vice President, Reserves and Resources
Dated:	March 23, 2018

EX-99.7

Exhibit 99.7

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Steven Haggarty, hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the references to scientific and technical information relating to mineral properties of Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) in the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “AIF”) and the related Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company.

I do also hereby consent to the use of my name and the incorporation by reference of the information contained in the AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F into the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099).

Yours very truly,
/s/ Steven Haggarty
Name:	Steven Haggarty
Title:	Senior Director, Metallurgy
Dated:	March 23, 2018

EX-99.8

Exhibit 99.8

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Patrick Garretson, hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the references to scientific and technical information relating to mineral properties of Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) in the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “AIF”) and the related Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company.

I do also hereby consent to the use of my name and the incorporation by reference of the information contained in the AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F into the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099).

Yours very truly,
/s/ Patrick Garretson
Name:	Patrick Garretson
Title:	Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning
Dated:	March 23, 2018

EX-99.9

Exhibit 99.9

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Robert Krcmarov, hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the references to scientific and technical information relating to mineral properties of Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) in the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “AIF”) and the related Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company.

I do also hereby consent to the use of my name and the incorporation by reference of the information contained in the AIF and Annual Report on Form 40-F into the Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099).

Yours very truly,
/s/ Robert Krcmarov
Name:	Robert Krcmarov
Title:	Executive Vice President, Exploration and Growth
Dated:	March 23, 2018

EX-99.10

Exhibit 99.10

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 23, 2018

/s/ Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky
Name:	Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky
Title:	President

EX-99.11

Exhibit 99.11

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Catherine P. Raw, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 23, 2018

/s/ Catherine P. Raw
Name:	Catherine P. Raw
Title:	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

EX-99.12

Exhibit 99.12

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”).

I, Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 23, 2018
/s/ Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky
Name:	Kelvin P.M. Dushnisky
Title:	President

EX-99.13

Exhibit 99.13

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”).

I, Catherine P. Raw, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 23, 2018
/s/ Catherine P. Raw
Name:	Catherine P. Raw
Title:	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

EX-99.14

Exhibit 99.14

Dodd-Frank Act Disclosure of Mine Safety and Health Administration Safety Data

Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick”) is committed to the health and safety of its employees and in providing an incident free workplace. Barrick maintains a comprehensive health and safety program that includes extensive training for all employees and contractors, site inspections, emergency response preparedness, crisis communications training, incident investigation, regulatory compliance training and process auditing.

Barrick’s U.S. mining operations are subject to Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) regulation under the U.S. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“FMSH Act”). MSHA inspects Barrick’s mines on a regular basis and issues various citations and orders when it believes a violation has occurred under the FMSH Act. Whenever MSHA issues a citation or order, it also generally proposes a civil penalty, or fine, related to the alleged violation.

The following disclosures are provided pursuant to Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), which requires certain disclosures by companies required to file periodic reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that operate mines regulated under the FMSH Act. The disclosures reflect Barrick’s U.S. mining operations only as the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act do not apply to Barrick’s mines operated outside the United States.

In addition, as required by the reporting requirements regarding mine safety included in section 1503(a)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, for the year ended December 31, 2017, none of the mines operated by Barrick received written notice from MSHA of (a) a pattern of violations of mandatory health or safety standards that are of such nature as could have significantly and substantially contributed to the cause and effect of mine health or safety hazards under section 104(e) of the FMSH Act or (b) the potential to have such a pattern.

The information in the table below reflects citations and orders MSHA issued to Barrick during the year ended December 31, 2017, unless otherwise noted, as reflected in Barrick’s records. The data in Barrick’s system may not match or reconcile with the data MSHA maintains on its public website. In evaluating this information, consideration should also be given to factors such as: (i) the number of citations and orders may vary depending on the size and operation of the mine, (ii) the number of citations issued may vary from inspector to inspector and mine to mine, and (iii) citations and orders may be contested and appealed, and in that process, may be reduced in severity and amount, and may be dismissed.

Mine ID Number(1)	Mine or Operating Name	Section 104(a) Significant and Substantial Citations(2)	Section 104(b) Orders(3)	Section 104(d) Citations and Orders(4)	Section 110(b)(2) Violations(5)	Section 107(a) Orders(6)	Proposed MSHA Assessments in 2017(7)	Fatalities	Pending Legal Action in 2017(8)	Legal Action Instituted During 2017(8)	Legal Action Resolved During 2017
2602246	Meikle Mine	24	2	0	0	1	$73,463	0	0	0	0
2602673	Roaster Operations	2	0	0	0	0	$3,670	0	0	0	0
2602674	Mill/Autoclave Operations	6	0	0	0	0	$25,357	0	0	0	0
2602286	Turquoise Ridge Mine	33	1	3	0	0	$63,552	0	0	0	1
2600827	Barrick Cortez	11	0	0	0	0	$34,243	0	0	0	0
2602573	Barrick Cortez Underground	4	0	0	0	0	$4,069	0	0	0	0
2401417	Golden Sunlight Mine Inc.	1	0	0	0	0	$1,304	0	0	0	0
2402286	Golden Sunlight Underground	0	0	0	0	0	$812	0	0	1	1
2601089	Goldstrike Mine	6	0	0	0	0	$7,710	0	0	0	0
2602767	Arturo	0	0	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	0

(1) MSHA assigns an identification number to each mine or operation and may or may not assign separate identification numbers to related facilities. The information provided in this table is presented by mine identification number.

(2) Represents the total number of citations issued by MSHA for violation of health or safety standards that could significantly and substantially contribute to a serious injury if left unabated.

(3) Represents the total number of orders issued, which represents a failure to abate a citation under section 104(a) within the period prescribed by MSHA. This results in an order of immediate withdrawal from the area of the mine affected by the condition until MSHA determines that the violation has been abated.

(4) Represents the total number of citations and orders issued by MSHA for unwarrantable failure to comply with mandatory health or safety standards. These types of violations could significantly and substantially contribute to a serious injury; however, the conditions do not cause imminent danger (see note 6 below).

(5) Represents the total number of flagrant violations identified.

(6) Represents the total number of imminent danger orders issued under section 107(a) of the FMSH Act. Orders issued under section 107(a) of the FMSH Act require the operator of the mine to cause all persons (except authorized persons) to be withdrawn from the mine until the imminent danger and the conditions that caused such imminent danger cease to exist.

(7) Amounts represent the total dollar value of proposed assessments received from MSHA and do not necessarily relate to the citations or orders issued by MSHA during the period, or to the pending legal actions reported below.

(8) Pending legal actions before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) as required to be reported by Section 1503(a)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission is an independent adjudicative agency established by the FMSH Act that provides administrative trial and appellate review of legal disputes arising under the FMSH Act. These cases may involve, among other questions, challenges by operators to citations, orders and penalties they have received from MSHA or complaints of discrimination by miners under Section 105 of the FMSH Act. The following provides additional information of the types of proceedings that may be brought before the Commission:

• Contest Proceedings — a contest proceeding may be filed with the Commission by an operator to challenge the issuance of a citation or order issued by MSHA;

0 Contest Proceedings Pending

• Civil Penalty Proceedings — a civil penalty proceeding may be filed with the Commission by an operator to challenge a civil penalty MSHA has proposed for a violation contained in a citation or order;

7 Civil Penalty Proceedings Pending

• Discrimination Proceedings — a discrimination proceeding involves a miner’s allegation that he or she has suffered adverse employment action because he or she engaged in activity protected under the FMSH Act, such as making a safety complaint;

1 Discrimination Proceeding

• Temporary Reinstatement Proceedings — a temporary reinstatement proceeding involves cases in which a miner has filed a complaint with MSHA stating that he or she has suffered discrimination and the miner has lost his or her position; and

0 Temporary Reinstatement Proceedings

• Compensation Proceedings — a compensation proceeding may be filed with the Commission by miners entitled to compensation when a mine is closed by certain closure orders issued by MSHA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine the amount of compensation, if any, due to miners idled by the orders.

0 Compensation Proceedings

XML

Document and Entity Information	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 shares
Document And Entity Information [Abstract]
Entity Registrant Name	BARRICK GOLD CORP
Entity Central Index Key	0000756894
Entity Current Reporting Status	Yes
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2017
Document Fiscal Period Focus	FY
Document Type	40-F
Document Period End Date	Dec. 31, 2017
Amendment Flag	false
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding (shares)	1,166,577,478

XML

Consolidated Statements of Income - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Profit or loss [abstract]
Revenue (notes 5 and 6)	$ 8,374	$ 8,558
Costs and expenses
Cost of sales (notes 5 and 7)	5,300	5,405
General and administrative expenses (note 11)	248	256
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses (notes 5 and 8)	354	237
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212)	(250)
Loss on currency translation (note 9b)	72	199
Closed mine rehabilitation (note 27b)	55	130
Income from equity investees (note 16)	(76)	(20)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)	(6)	(12)
Other expense (income) (note 9a)	(799)	60
Income before finance items and income taxes	3,438	2,553
Finance costs, net (note 14)	(691)	(775)
Income before income taxes	2,747	1,778
Income tax expense (note 12)	(1,231)	(917)
Net income	1,516	861
Attributable to:
Equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	1,438	655
Non-controlling interests (note 32)	$ 78	$ 206
Earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation (note 13)
Net income, Basic (in USD per share)	$ 1.23	$ 0.56
Net income, Diluted (in USD per share)	$ 1.23	$ 0.56

XML

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Statement of comprehensive income [abstract]
Net income	$ 1,516	$ 861
Items that may be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss:
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	(16)	16
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	23	64
Currency translation adjustments, net of tax $nil and $nil	9	95
Items that will not be reclassified to profit or loss:
Actuarial gain (loss) on post-employment benefit obligations, net of tax ($6) and ($4)	18	7
Net change on equity investments, net of tax $nil and $nil	4	6
Total other comprehensive income	38	188
Total comprehensive income	1,554	1,049
Attributable to:
Equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	1,476	843
Non-controlling interests	$ 78	$ 206

XML

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Parentheticals) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Statement of comprehensive income [abstract]
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, tax	$ 3	$ (9)
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, tax	(9)	(8)
Currency translation adjustments, tax	0	0
Actuarial gain (loss) on post-employment benefit obligations, tax	(6)	(4)
Net unrealized change on equity investments, tax	$ 0	$ 0

XML

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$ 1,516	$ 861
Adjustments for the following items:
Depreciation	1,647	1,574
Finance costs (note 14)	705	788
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212)	(250)
Income tax expense (note 12)	1,231	917
Currency translation losses (note 9b)	72	199
Loss (gain) on sale of non-current assets/investments (note 9a)	(911)	42
Change in working capital (note 15)	(728)	(428)
Other operating activities (note 15)	(181)	(63)
Operating cash flows before interest and income taxes	3,139	3,640
Interest paid	(425)	(513)
Income taxes paid	(649)	(487)
Net cash provided by operating activities	2,065	2,640
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Capital expenditures (note 5)	(1,396)	(1,126)
Sales proceeds	28	135
Divestitures (note 4)	990	588
Investment purchases	(7)	0
Net funds (invested) received from equity method investments	48	(9)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	(337)	(412)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Debt (note 25b), Proceeds	0	5
Debt (note 25b), Repayments	(1,533)	(2,062)
Dividends (note 31)	(125)	(86)
Funding from non-controlling interests (note 32)	13	70
Disbursements to non-controlling interests (note 32)	(139)	(95)
Debt extinguishment costs	(102)	(129)
Net cash used in financing activities	(1,886)	(2,297)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and equivalents	3	3
Net decrease in cash and equivalents	(155)	(66)
Cash and equivalents at beginning of year (note 25a)	2,389	2,455
Cash and equivalents at the end of year	$ 2,234	$ 2,389

XML

Consolidated Balance Sheets - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Current assets
Cash and equivalents (note 25a)	$ 2,234	$ 2,389
Accounts receivable (note 18)	239	249
Inventories (note 17)	1,890	1,930
Other current assets (note 18)	321	306
Total current assets	4,684	4,874
Non-current assets
Non-current portion of inventory (note 17)	1,681	1,536
Equity in investees (note 16)	1,213	1,185
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	13,806	14,103
Intangible assets (note 20a)	255	272
Goodwill (note 20b)	1,330	1,371
Deferred income tax assets (note 30)	1,069	977
Other assets (note 22)	1,270	946
Total assets	25,308	25,264
Current liabilities
Accounts payable (note 23)	1,059	1,084
Debt (note 25b)	59	143
Current income tax liabilities	298	283
Other current liabilities (note 24)	331	309
Total current liabilities	1,747	1,819
Non-current liabilities
Debt (note 25b)	6,364	7,788
Provisions (note 27)	3,141	2,363
Deferred income tax liabilities (note 30)	1,245	1,520
Other liabilities (note 29)	1,744	1,461
Total liabilities	14,241	14,951
Equity
Capital stock (note 31)	20,893	20,877
Deficit	(11,759)	(13,074)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss	(169)	(189)
Other	321	321
Total equity attributable to Barrick Gold Corporation shareholders	9,286	7,935
Non-controlling interests (note 32)	1,781	2,378
Total equity	11,067	10,313
Contingencies and commitments (notes 2, 17, 19 and 36)
Total liabilities and equity	$ 25,308	$ 25,264

XML

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity - USD ($) shares in Thousands, $ in Millions	Total	Capital stock	Retained earnings (deficit)	Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	[1]	Other	[2]	Total equity attributable to shareholders	Non-controlling interests
Beginning balance (shares) at Dec. 31, 2015		1,165,081
Beginning balance at Dec. 31, 2015	$ 9,455	$ 20,869	$ (13,642)	$ (370)		$ 321		$ 7,178	$ 2,277
Net income	861		655					655	206
Total other comprehensive income	188		7	181				188
Total comprehensive income	1,049		662	181				843	206
Transactions with owners
Dividends	(86)		(86)					(86)
Dividend reinvestment plan (shares)		493
Dividend reinvestment plan		$ 8	(8)
Funding from non-controlling interests	70								70
Other decrease in non-controlling interests	(175)								(175)
Total transactions with owners (shares)		493
Total transactions with owners	(191)	$ 8	(94)					(86)	(105)
Ending balance (shares) at Dec. 31, 2016		1,165,574
Ending balance at Dec. 31, 2016	10,313	$ 20,877	(13,074)	(189)		321		7,935	2,378
Net income	1,516		1,438					1,438	78
Total other comprehensive income	38		18	20				38
Total comprehensive income	1,554		1,456	20				1,476	78
Transactions with owners
Dividends	(125)		(125)					(125)
Dividend reinvestment plan (shares)		1,003
Dividend reinvestment plan		$ 16	(16)
Decrease in non-controlling interest (note 4b)	(493)								(493)
Funding from non-controlling interests	13								13
Other decrease in non-controlling interests	(195)								(195)
Total transactions with owners (shares)		1,003
Total transactions with owners	(800)	$ 16	(141)					(125)	(675)
Ending balance (shares) at Dec. 31, 2017		1,166,577
Ending balance at Dec. 31, 2017	$ 11,067	$ 20,893	$ (11,759)	$ (169)		$ 321		$ 9,286	$ 1,781

[1] Includes cumulative translation adjustments as at December 31, 2017: $73 million loss (2016: $82 million).

[2] Includes additional paid-in capital as at December 31, 2017: $283 million (December 31, 2016: $283 million) and convertible borrowings - equity component as at December 31, 2017: $38 million (December 31, 2016: $38 million).

XML

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity (Parentheticals) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Equity	$ 11,067	$ 10,313
Cumulative translation adjustments
Equity	73	82
Additional paid-in capital
Equity	283	283
Convertible borrowings - equity component
Equity	$ 38	$ 38

XML

CORPORATE INFORMATION

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Corporate Information [Abstract]

CORPORATE INFORMATION

CORPORATE INFORMATION

Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick” or the “Company”) is a corporation governed by the Business Corporations Act (Ontario). The Company’s head and registered office is located at Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower, 161 Bay Street, Suite 3700, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S1. We are principally engaged in the production and sale of gold and copper, as well as related activities such as exploration and mine development. Our producing gold mines are located in Canada, the United States, Peru, and the Dominican Republic and our producing copper mine is in Zambia. Following the sale of 50% of our Veladero gold mine located in Argentina (noted in note 4a), we hold a 50% interest in the Veladero mine. We hold a 50% interest in KCGM, a gold mine located in Australia and hold a 50% equity interest in Barrick Niugini Limited (“BNL”), which owns a 95% interest in Porgera, a gold mine located in Papua New Guinea. We also hold a 63.9% equity interest in Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”), a company listed on the London Stock Exchange that owns gold mines and exploration properties in Africa. We have a 50% interest in Zaldívar, a copper mine located in Chile and a 50% interest in Jabal Sayid, a copper mine located in Saudi Arabia. We also have various gold projects located in South America and North America. We sell our gold and copper production into the world market.

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

a) Statement of Compliance

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) under the historical cost convention, as modified by revaluation of derivative contracts and certain financial assets. Accounting policies are consistently applied to all years presented, unless otherwise stated. These consolidated financial statements were approved for issuance by the Board of Directors on February 14, 2018.

b) Basis of Preparation

Subsidiaries

These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Barrick and its subsidiaries. All intercompany balances, transactions, income and expenses, and profits or losses have been eliminated on consolidation. We consolidate subsidiaries where we have the ability to exercise control. Control of an investee is defined to exist when we are exposed to variable returns from our involvement with the investee and have the ability to affect those returns through our power over the investee. Specifically, we control an investee if, and only if, we have all of the following: power over the investee (i.e., existing rights that give us the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the investee); exposure, or rights, to variable returns from our involvement with the investee; and the ability to use our power over the investee to affect its returns. For non wholly-owned, controlled subsidiaries, the net assets attributable to outside equity shareholders are presented as “non-controlling interests” in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet. Profit or loss for the period that is attributable to non-controlling interests is calculated based on the ownership of the minority shareholders in the subsidiary.

Joint Arrangements

A joint arrangement is defined as one over which two or more parties have joint control, which is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an arrangement. This exists only when the decisions about the relevant activities (being those that significantly affect the returns of the arrangement) require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control. There are two types of joint arrangements: joint operations (“JO”) and joint ventures (“JV”).

A JO is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities, relating to the arrangement. In relation to our interests in joint operations, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

A JV is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the net assets of the joint venture. Our investments in JVs are accounted for using the equity method.

On acquisition, an equity method investment is initially recognized at cost. The carrying amount of equity method investments includes goodwill identified on acquisition, net of any accumulated impairment losses. The carrying amount is adjusted by our share of post-acquisition net income or loss; depreciation, amortization or impairment of the fair value adjustments made on the underlying balance sheet at the date of acquisition; dividends; cash contributions; and our share of post-acquisition movements in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”).

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017: 

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹  Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

²  For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³  We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴  We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶  We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷  Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸  These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

c) Business Combinations

On the acquisition of a business, the acquisition method of accounting is used, whereby the purchase consideration is allocated to the identifiable assets and liabilities on the basis of fair value at the date of acquisition. Provisional fair values allocated at a reporting date are finalized as soon as the relevant information is available, within a period not to exceed 12 months from the acquisition date with retroactive restatement of the impact of adjustments to those provisional fair values effective as at the acquisition date. Incremental costs related to acquisitions are expensed as incurred.

When the cost of the acquisition exceeds the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired, the difference is recorded as goodwill. If the fair value attributable to Barrick’s share of the identifiable net assets exceeds the cost of acquisition, the difference is recognized as a gain in the consolidated statement of income.

Non-controlling interests represent the fair value of net assets in subsidiaries, as at the date of acquisition, that are not held by Barrick and are presented in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet.

d) Non-current Assets and Disposal Groups Held- for-Sale and Discontinued Operations

Non-current assets and disposal groups are classified as assets held-for-sale (“HFS”) if it is highly probable that the value of these assets will be recovered primarily through sale rather than through continuing use. They are recorded at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less cost of disposal. Impairment losses on initial classification as HFS and subsequent gains and losses on remeasurement are recognized in the income statement. Once classified as HFS, property, plant and equipment are no longer amortized. The assets and liabilities are presented as HFS in the consolidated balance sheet when the sale is highly probable, the asset or disposal group is available for immediate sale in its present condition and management is committed to the sale, which should be expected to be completed within one year from the date of classification.

A discontinued operation is a component of the Company that can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the Company and represents a major line of business or geographic area, and the value of this component is expected to be recovered primarily through sale rather than continuing use.

Results of operations and any gain or loss from disposal are excluded from income before finance items and income taxes and are reported separately as income/loss from discontinued operations.

e) Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of the Company, for each subsidiary of the Company, and for joint arrangements and associates, is the currency of the primary economic environment in which it operates. The functional currency of all of our operations is the US dollar. We translate non-US dollar balances for these operations into US dollars as follows:

• Property, plant and equipment (“PP&E”), intangible assets and equity method investments using the rates at the time of acquisition;

• Fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) equity investments using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses permanently recorded in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”);

• Deferred tax assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in income tax expense;

• Other assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in other income/expense; and

• Income and expenses using the average exchange rate for the period, except for expenses that relate to non-monetary assets and liabilities measured at historical rates, which are translated using the same historical rate as the associated non-monetary assets and liabilities.

f) Revenue Recognition

We record revenue when evidence exists that all of the following criteria are met:

• The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the product have been transferred to the buyer;

• Neither continuing managerial involvement to the degree usually associated with ownership, nor effective control over the goods sold, has been retained;

• The amount of revenue can be reliably measured;

• It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the sale will flow to us; and

• The costs incurred or to be incurred in respect of the sale can be reliably measured.

These conditions are generally satisfied when title passes to the customer.

Gold Bullion Sales

Gold bullion is sold primarily in the London spot market. The sales price is fixed on the date of sale based on the gold spot price. Generally, we record revenue from gold bullion sales at the time of physical delivery, which is also the date that title to the gold passes.

Concentrate Sales

Under the terms of concentrate sales contracts with independent smelting companies, gold and copper sales prices are provisionally set on a specified future date after shipment based on market prices. We record revenues under these contracts at the time of shipment, which is also when the risk and rewards of ownership pass to the smelting companies, using forward market gold and copper prices on the expected date that final sales prices will be determined. Variations between the price recorded at the shipment date and the actual final price set under the smelting contracts are caused by changes in market gold and copper prices, which result in the existence of an embedded derivative in accounts receivable. The embedded derivative is recorded at fair value each period until final settlement occurs, with changes in fair value classified as provisional price adjustments and included in revenue in the consolidated statement of income.

g) Exploration and Evaluation (“E&E”)

Exploration expenditures are the costs incurred in the initial search for mineral deposits with economic potential or in the process of obtaining more information about existing mineral deposits. Exploration expenditures typically include costs associated with prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

Evaluation expenditures are the costs incurred to establish the technical and commercial viability of developing mineral deposits identified through exploration activities or by acquisition. Evaluation expenditures include the cost of (i) establishing the volume and grade of deposits through drilling of core samples, trenching and sampling activities in an ore body that is classified as either a mineral resource or a proven and probable reserve; (ii) determining the optimal methods of extraction and metallurgical and treatment processes; (iii) studies related to surveying, transportation and infrastructure requirements; (iv) permitting activities; and (v) economic evaluations to determine whether development of the mineralized material is commercially justified, including scoping, prefeasibility and final feasibility studies.

Exploration and evaluation expenditures are expensed as incurred unless management determines that probable future economic benefits will be generated as a result of the expenditures. Once the technical feasibility and commercial viability of a program or project has been demonstrated with a prefeasibility study, and we have recognized reserves in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101, we account for future expenditures incurred in the development of that program or project in accordance with our policy for Property, Plant and Equipment, as described in note 2n.

h) Production Stage

A mine that is under construction is determined to enter the production stage when the project is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. We use the following factors to assess whether these criteria have been met: (1) the level of capital expenditures compared to construction cost estimates; (2) the completion of a reasonable period of testing of mine plant and equipment; (3) the ability to produce minerals in saleable form (within specifications); and (4) the ability to sustain ongoing production of minerals.

When a mine construction project moves into the production stage, the capitalization of certain mine construction costs ceases and costs are either capitalized to inventory or expensed, except for capitalizable costs related to property, plant and equipment additions or improvements, open pit stripping activities that provide a future benefit, underground mine development or expenditures that meet the criteria for capitalization in accordance with IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.

i) Earnings per Share

Earnings per share as computed by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share reflects the potential dilution that could occur if additional common shares are assumed to be issued under securities that entitle their holders to obtain common shares in the future. For stock options, the number of additional shares for inclusion in diluted earnings per share calculations is determined using the treasury stock method. Under this method, stock options that have an exercise price less than the average market price of our common shares are assumed to be exercised and the proceeds are used to repurchase common shares at the average market price for the period. The incremental number of common shares issued under stock options and repurchased from proceeds is included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share.

j) Taxation

Current tax for each taxable entity is based on the local taxable income at the local statutory tax rate enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date and includes adjustments to tax payable or recoverable in respect of previous periods.

Deferred tax is recognized using the balance sheet method in respect of all temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities, and their carrying amounts for financial reporting purposes, except as indicated below.

Deferred income tax liabilities are recognized for all taxable temporary differences, except:

• Where the deferred income tax liability arises from the initial recognition of goodwill, or the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

• In respect of taxable temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, where the timing of the reversal of the temporary differences can be controlled and it is probable that the temporary differences will not reverse in the foreseeable future.

Deferred income tax assets are recognized for all deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses, to the extent that it is probable that taxable profit will be available against which the deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses can be utilized, except:

• Where the deferred income tax asset relating to the deductible temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

• In respect of deductible temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is probable that the temporary differences will reverse in the foreseeable future and taxable profit will be available against which the temporary differences can be utilized.

The carrying amount of deferred income tax assets is reviewed at each balance sheet date and reduced to the extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profit will be available to allow all or part of the deferred income tax asset to be utilized. To the extent that an asset not previously recognized fulfills the criteria for recognition, a deferred income tax asset is recorded.

Deferred tax is measured on an undiscounted basis at the tax rates that are expected to apply in the periods in which the asset is realized or the liability is settled, based on tax rates and tax laws enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date.

Current and deferred tax relating to items recognized directly in equity are recognized in equity and not in the income statement.

Royalties and Special Mining Taxes

Income tax expense includes the cost of royalties and special mining taxes payable to governments that are calculated based on a percentage of taxable profit whereby taxable profit represents net income adjusted for certain items defined in the applicable legislation.

Indirect Taxes

Indirect tax recoverable is recorded at its undiscounted amount, and is disclosed as non-current if not expected to be recovered within twelve months.

k) Other Investments

Investments in publicly quoted equity securities that are neither subsidiaries nor associates are categorized as fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) pursuant to the irrevocable election available in IFRS 9 for these instruments. FVOCI equity investments (referred to as “other investments”) are recorded at fair value with all realized and unrealized gains and losses recorded permanently in OCI.

l) Inventory

Material extracted from our mines is classified as either ore or waste. Ore represents material that, at the time of extraction, we expect to process into a saleable form and sell at a profit. Raw materials are comprised of both ore in stockpiles and ore on leach pads as processing is required to extract benefit from the ore. Ore is accumulated in stockpiles that are subsequently processed into gold/copper in a saleable form.    The recovery of gold and copper from certain oxide ores is achieved through the heap leaching process.    Work in process represents gold/copper in the processing circuit that has not completed the production process, and is not yet in a saleable form. Finished goods inventory represents gold/copper in saleable form.

Metal inventories are valued at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Cost is determined on a weighted average basis and includes all costs incurred, based on a normal production capacity, in bringing each product to its present location and condition. Cost of inventories comprises direct labor, materials and contractor expenses, including non-capitalized stripping costs; depreciation on PP&E including capitalized stripping costs; and an allocation of general and administrative costs. As ore is removed for processing, costs are removed based on the average cost per ounce/pound in the stockpile. Net realizable value is determined with reference to relevant market prices less applicable variable selling expenses.

Mine operating supplies represent commodity consumables and other raw materials used in the production process, as well as spare parts and other maintenance supplies that are not classified as capital items. Provisions are recorded to reduce mine operating

supplies to net realizable value, which is generally calculated by reference to its salvage or scrap value, when it is determined that the supplies are obsolete. Provisions are reversed to reflect subsequent recoveries in net realizable value where the inventory is still on hand.

m) Royalties

Certain of our properties are subject to royalty arrangements based on mineral production at the properties. The primary type of royalty is a net smelter return (NSR) royalty. Under this type of royalty we pay the holder an amount calculated as the royalty percentage multiplied by the value of gold production at market gold prices less third-party smelting, refining and transportation costs. Royalty expense is recorded on completion of the production or sales process in cost of sales. Other types of royalties include:

• Net profits interest (NPI) royalty to other than a government,

• Modified net smelter return (NSR) royalty,

• Net smelter return sliding scale (NSRSS) royalty,

• Gross proceeds sliding scale (GPSS) royalty,

• Gross smelter return (GSR) royalty,

• Net value (NV) royalty,

• Land tenement (LT) royalty, and a

• Gold revenue royalty.

n) Property, Plant and Equipment

Estimated useful lives of Major Asset Categories

Buildings, plant and equipment	7 – 27 years
Underground mobile equipment	5 - 7 years
Light vehicles and other mobile equipment	2 - 3 years
Furniture, computer and office equipment	2 - 3 years

Buildings, Plant and Equipment

At acquisition, we record buildings, plant and equipment at cost, including all expenditures incurred to prepare an asset for its intended use. These expenditures consist of: the purchase price; brokers’ commissions; and installation costs including architectural, design and engineering fees, legal fees, survey costs, site preparation costs, freight charges, transportation insurance costs, duties, testing and preparation charges.

We capitalize costs that meet the asset recognition criteria. Costs incurred that do not extend the productive capacity or useful economic life of an asset are considered repairs and maintenance expense and are accounted for as a cost of the inventory produced in the period.

Buildings, plant and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line basis over their expected useful life, which commences when the assets are considered available for use. Once buildings, plant and equipment are considered available for use they are measured at cost less accumulated depreciation and applicable impairment losses.

Depreciation on equipment utilized in the development of assets, including open pit and underground mine development, is recapitalized as development costs attributable to the related asset.

Mineral Properties

Mineral properties consist of: the fair value attributable to mineral reserves and resources acquired in a business combination or asset acquisition; underground mine development costs; open pit mine development costs; capitalized exploration and evaluation costs; and capitalized interest. In addition, we incur project costs which are generally capitalized when the expenditures result in a future benefit.

i) Acquired Mining Properties

On acquisition of a mining property, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the proven and probable mineral reserves, mineral resources and exploration potential attributable to the property. The estimated fair value attributable to the mineral reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is depreciated on a units of production (“UOP”) basis whereby the denominator is the proven and probable reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction. The estimated fair value attributable to mineral resources that are not considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is not subject to depreciation until the resources become probable of economic extraction in the future. The estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses is recorded as an intangible asset and is not subject to depreciation until the property enters production.

ii) Underground Mine Development Costs

At our underground mines, we incur development costs to build new shafts, drifts and ramps that will enable us to physically access ore underground. The time over which we will continue to incur these costs depends on the mine life. These underground development costs are capitalized as incurred.

Capitalized underground development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis, whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current life of mine (“LOM”) plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

iii) Open Pit Mine Development Costs

In open pit mining operations, it is necessary to remove overburden and other waste materials to access ore from which minerals can be extracted economically. The process of mining overburden and waste materials is referred to as stripping. Stripping costs incurred in order to provide initial access to the ore body (referred to as pre-production stripping) are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Pre-production stripping costs are capitalized until an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is extracted, after which time such costs are either capitalized to inventory or, if it qualifies as an open pit stripping activity that provides a future benefit, to PP&E. We consider various relevant criteria to assess when an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is produced. Some of the criteria considered would include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the amount of minerals mined versus total ounces in LOM ore; (2) the amount of ore tons mined versus total LOM expected ore tons mined; (3) the current stripping ratio versus the LOM strip ratio; and (4) the ore grade versus the LOM grade.

Stripping costs incurred during the production stage of a pit are accounted for as costs of the inventory produced during the period that the stripping costs are incurred, unless these costs are expected to provide a future economic benefit to an identifiable component of the ore body. Components of the ore body are based on the distinct development phases identified by the mine planning engineers when determining the optimal development plan for the open pit. Production phase stripping costs generate a future economic benefit when the related stripping activity: (1) improves access to a component of the ore body to be mined in the future; (2) increases the fair value of the mine (or pit) as access to future mineral reserves becomes less costly; and (3) increases the productive capacity or extends the productive life of the mine (or pit). Production phase stripping costs that are expected to generate a future economic benefit are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Capitalized open pit mine development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current LOM plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

Construction-in-Progress

Assets under construction are capitalized as construction-in-progress until the asset is available for use. The cost of construction-in-progress comprises its purchase price and any costs directly attributable to bringing it into working condition for its intended use. Construction-in-progress amounts related to development projects are included in the carrying amount of the development project. Construction-in-progress amounts incurred at operating mines are presented as a separate asset within PP&E. Construction-in-progress also includes deposits on long lead items. Construction-in-progress is not depreciated. Depreciation commences once the asset is complete and available for use.

Leasing Arrangements

The determination of whether an arrangement is, or contains, a lease is based on the substance of the arrangement at inception date, including whether the fulfillment of the arrangement is dependent on the use of a specific asset or assets or whether the arrangement conveys a right to use the asset.

Leasing arrangements that transfer substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset to Barrick are classified as finance leases. Assets acquired via a finance lease are recorded as an asset with a corresponding liability at an amount equal to the lower of the fair value of the leased property and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Each lease payment is allocated between the liability and finance costs using the effective interest method, whereby a constant rate of interest expense is recognized on the balance of the liability outstanding. The interest element of the lease is charged to the consolidated statement of income as a finance cost.

PP&E assets acquired under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the asset and the lease term.

All other leases are classified as operating leases. Operating lease payments are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Capitalized Interest

We capitalize interest costs for qualifying assets. Qualifying assets are assets that require a significant amount of time to prepare for their intended use, including projects that are in the exploration and evaluation, development or construction stages. Qualifying assets also include significant expansion projects at our operating mines. Capitalized interest costs are considered an element of the cost of the qualifying asset which is determined based on gross expenditures incurred on an asset. Capitalization ceases when the asset is substantially complete or if active development is suspended or ceases. Where the funds used to finance a qualifying asset form part of general borrowings, the amount capitalized is calculated using a weighted average of rates applicable to the relevant borrowings during the period. Where funds borrowed are directly attributable to a qualifying asset, the amount capitalized represents the borrowing costs specific to those borrowings. Where surplus funds available out of money borrowed specifically to finance a project are temporarily invested, the total capitalized interest is reduced by income generated from short-term investments of such funds.

Insurance

We record losses relating to insurable events as they occur. Proceeds receivable from insurance coverage are recorded at such time as receipt is receivable or virtually certain and the amount receivable is fixed or determinable. For business interruption insurance the amount recoverable is only recognized when receipt is virtually certain, as supported by notification of a minimum or proposed settlement amount from the insurance adjuster.

o) Impairment (and Reversals of Impairment) of Non-Current Assets

We review and test the carrying amounts of PP&E and intangible assets with finite lives when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist. Impairment assessments on PP&E and intangible assets are conducted at the level of the cash generating unit (“CGU”), which is the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and includes most liabilities specific to the CGU. For operating mines and projects, the individual mine/project represents a CGU for impairment testing.

The recoverable amount of a CGU is the higher of Value in Use (“VIU”) and Fair Value Less Costs of Disposal (“FVLCD”). We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU amounts and therefore used as the recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes. An impairment loss is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of a CGU over its recoverable amount where both the recoverable amount and carrying value include the associated other assets and liabilities, including taxes where applicable, of the CGU. Where it is not appropriate to allocate the loss to a separate asset, an impairment loss related to a CGU is allocated to the carrying amount of the assets of the CGU on a pro rata basis based on the carrying amount of its non-monetary assets.

Impairment Reversal

An assessment is made at each reporting date to determine whether there is an indication that previously recognized impairment losses may no longer exist or may have decreased. A previously recognized impairment loss is reversed only if there has been a change in the assumptions used to determine the CGU’s recoverable amount since the last impairment loss was recognized. This reversal is recognized in the consolidated statements of income and is limited to the carrying value that would have been determined, net of any depreciation where applicable, had no impairment charge been recognized in prior years. When an impairment reversal is undertaken, the recoverable amount is assessed by reference to the higher of VIU and FVLCD. We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU amounts and therefore used as recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes.

p) Intangible Assets

Intangible assets acquired by way of an asset acquisition or business combination are recognized if the asset is separable or arises from contractual or legal rights and the fair value can be measured reliably on initial recognition.

On acquisition of a mineral property in the exploration stage, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the exploration licenses acquired, including the fair value attributable to mineral resources, if any, of that property. The fair value of the exploration license is recorded as an intangible asset (acquired exploration potential) as at the date of acquisition. When an exploration stage property moves into development, the acquired exploration potential attributable to that property is transferred to mining interests within PP&E.

We also have water rights associated with our mineral properties. Upon acquisition, they are measured at initial cost and are depreciated when they are being used. They are also subject to impairment testing when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist.

q) Goodwill

Under the acquisition method of accounting, the costs of business combinations are allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on the estimated fair value at the date of acquisition. The excess of the fair value of consideration paid over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. Goodwill is not amortized; instead it is tested for impairment in the fourth quarter and also when there is an indicator of impairment. At the date of acquisition, goodwill is assigned to the CGU or group of CGUs that is expected to benefit from the synergies of the business combination. For the purposes of impairment testing, goodwill is allocated to the Company’s operating segments, which are our individual mine sites and corresponds to the level at which goodwill is internally monitored by the Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President.

The recoverable amount of an operating segment is the higher of VIU and FVLCD. A goodwill impairment is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of the operating segment over its recoverable amount. Goodwill impairment charges are not reversible.

r) Debt

Debt is recognized initially at fair value, net of financing costs incurred, and subsequently measured at amortized cost. Any difference between the amounts originally received and the redemption value of the debt is recognized in the consolidated statements of income over the period to maturity using the effective interest method.

s) Derivative Instruments and Hedge Accounting

Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheet, classified based on contractual maturity. Derivative instruments are classified as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”), hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”) or non-hedge derivatives. Derivatives designated as either a fair value or cash flow hedge that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Derivative assets and derivative liabilities are shown separately in the balance sheet unless there is a legal right to offset and intent to settle on a net basis.

Fair Value Hedges

Changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges are recorded in the consolidated statements of income, together with any changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability or firm commitment that is attributable to the hedged risk.

Cash Flow Hedges

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges is recognized in equity. The gain or loss relating to the ineffective portion is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. Amounts accumulated in equity are transferred to the consolidated statements of income in the period when the forecasted transaction impacts earnings. When the forecasted transaction that is hedged results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability, the gains and losses previously deferred in equity are transferred from equity and included in the measurement of the initial carrying amount of the asset or liability.

When a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge expires or is sold and the forecasted transaction is still expected to occur, any cumulative gain or loss relating to the derivative that is recorded in equity at that time remains in equity and is recognized in the consolidated statements of income when the forecasted transaction occurs. When a forecasted transaction is no longer expected to occur, the cumulative gain or loss that was recorded in equity is immediately transferred to the consolidated statements of income.

Non-Hedge Derivatives

Derivative instruments that do not qualify as either fair value or cash flow hedges are recorded at their fair value at the balance sheet date, with changes in fair value recognized in the consolidated statements of income.

t) Embedded Derivatives

Derivatives embedded in other financial instruments or executory contracts are accounted for as separate derivatives when their risks and characteristics are not closely related to their host financial instrument or contract. In some cases, the embedded derivatives may be designated as hedges and are accounted for as described above.

u) Environmental Rehabilitation Provision

Mining, extraction and processing activities normally give rise to obligations for environmental rehabilitation. Rehabilitation work can include facility decommissioning and dismantling; removal or treatment of waste materials; site and land rehabilitation, including compliance with and monitoring of environmental regulations; security and other site-related costs required to perform the rehabilitation work; and operation of equipment designed to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. The extent of work required and the associated costs are dependent on the requirements of relevant authorities and our environmental policies. Routine operating costs that may impact the ultimate closure and rehabilitation activities, such as waste material handling conducted as an integral part of a mining or production process, are not included in the provision. Abnormal costs arising from unforeseen circumstances, such as the contamination caused by unplanned discharges, are recognized as an expense and liability when the event that gives rise to an obligation occurs and reliable estimates of the required rehabilitation costs can be made.

Provisions for the cost of each rehabilitation program are normally recognized at the time that an environmental disturbance occurs or a new legal or constructive obligation is determined. When the extent of disturbance increases over the life of an operation, the provision is increased accordingly. The major parts of the carrying amount of provisions relate to closure/rehabilitation of tailings ponds, heap leach pads and waste dumps; demolition of buildings/mine facilities; ongoing water treatment; and ongoing care and maintenance and security of closed mines. Costs included in the provision encompass all closure and rehabilitation activity expected to occur progressively over the life of the operation at the time of closure and post-closure in connection with disturbances as at the reporting date. Estimated costs included in the determination of the provision reflect the risks and probabilities of alternative estimates of cash flows required to settle the obligation at each particular operation. The expected rehabilitation costs are estimated based on the cost of external contractors performing the work or the cost of performing the work internally depending on management’s intention.

The timing of the actual rehabilitation expenditure is dependent upon a number of factors such as the life and nature of the asset, the operating license conditions and the environment in which the mine operates. Expenditures may occur before and after closure and can continue for an extended period of time depending on rehabilitation requirements. Rehabilitation provisions are measured at the expected value of future cash flows, which exclude the effect of inflation, discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate. The unwinding of the discount, referred to as accretion expense, is included in finance costs and results in an increase in the amount of the provision. Provisions are updated each reporting period for changes to expected cash flows and for the effect of changes in the discount rate, and the change in estimate is added or deducted from the related asset and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Significant judgments and estimates are involved in forming expectations of future activities, the amount and timing of the associated cash flows and the period over which we estimate those cash flows. Those expectations are formed based on existing environmental and regulatory requirements or, if more stringent, our environmental policies which give rise to a constructive obligation.

When provisions for closure and rehabilitation are initially recognized, the corresponding cost is capitalized as an asset, representing part of the cost of acquiring the future economic benefits of the operation. The capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities is recognized in PP&E and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Adjustments to the estimated amount and timing of future closure and rehabilitation cash flows are a normal occurrence in light of the significant judgments and estimates involved. The principal factors that can cause expected cash flows to change are: the construction of new processing facilities; changes in the quantities of material in reserves and resources with a corresponding change in the life of mine plan; changing ore characteristics that impact required environmental protection measures and related costs; changes in water quality that impact the extent of water treatment required; changes in discount rates; changes in foreign exchange rates; changes in Barrick’s closure policies; and changes in laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment.

Rehabilitation provisions are adjusted as a result of changes in estimates and assumptions. Those adjustments are accounted for as a change in the corresponding cost of the related assets, including the related mineral property, except where a reduction in the provision is greater than the remaining net book value of the related assets, in which case the value is reduced to nil and the remaining adjustment is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. In the case of closed sites, changes in estimates and assumptions are recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of income. For an operating mine, the adjusted carrying amount of the related asset is depreciated prospectively. Adjustments also result in changes to future finance costs.

v) Litigation and Other Provisions

Provisions are recognized when a present obligation exists (legal or constructive), as a result of a past event, for which it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. Provisions are discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate and the accretion expense is included in finance costs.

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued, which may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

If the assessment of a contingency suggests that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reliably estimated, then a loss is recorded. When a contingent loss is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reliably estimated, then details of the contingent loss are disclosed. Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed unless they involve guarantees, in which case we disclose the nature of the guarantee. Legal fees incurred in connection with pending legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. Contingent gains are only recognized when the inflow of economic benefits is virtually certain.

w) Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize the expense related to these plans over the vesting period, beginning once the grant has been approved and announced to the beneficiaries.

Cash-settled awards are measured at fair value initially using the market value of the underlying shares on the day preceding the date of the grant of the award and are required to be remeasured to fair value at each reporting date until settlement. The cost is then recorded over the vesting period of the award. This expense, and any changes in the fair value of the award, is recorded to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs. The cost of a cash-settled award is recorded within liabilities until settled. Barrick offers cash-settled (Restricted Share Units (“RSU”), Deferred Share Units (“DSU”), Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”) and Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

Equity-settled awards are measured at fair value, using the Lattice model for stock options, with market related inputs as of the date of the grant. The cost is recorded over the vesting period of the award to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs (i.e., cost of sales or general and administrative) and the corresponding entry is recorded in equity. Equity-settled awards are not remeasured subsequent to the initial grant date. Barrick offers equity-settled (Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”), Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”) and Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

We use the accelerated method (also referred to as ‘graded’ vesting) for attributing stock option expense over the vesting period. Stock option expense incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”)

Under Barrick’s ESOP, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted to the individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest equally over four years, beginning in the year after granting. The ESOP arrangement has graded vesting terms, and therefore multiple vesting periods must be valued and accounted for separately over their respective vesting periods. The compensation expense of the instruments issued for each grant under the ESOP is calculated using the Lattice model. The compensation expense is adjusted by the estimated forfeiture rate which is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Restricted Share Units (“RSU”)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest within three years and upon vesting the employee will receive either cash or common shares, depending on the terms of the grant. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

A liability for RSUs is measured at fair value on the grant date and is subsequently adjusted for changes in fair value. The liability is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period, with a corresponding charge to compensation expense, as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration. Compensation expenses for RSUs incorporate an estimate for expected forfeiture rates based on which the fair value is adjusted.

Deferred Share Units (“DSU”)

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive at least 75% of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs or cash to purchase common shares that cannot be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of until the Director leaves the Board. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director leaves the Board, at which time the cash value of the DSUs is paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized immediately. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any change in fair value recorded as compensation expense in the period. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. We also allow granting of DSUs to other officers and employees at the discretion of the Board Compensation Committee.

Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”)

Under our PRSU plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. PRSUs vest at the end of a three-year period and are settled in cash on the third anniversary of the grant date. Additional PRSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period. Vesting, and therefore the liability, is based on the achievement of performance goals and the target settlement ranges from 0% to 200% of the original grant of units.

The value of a PRSU reflects the value of a Barrick common share and the number of share units issued is adjusted for its relative performance against certain competitors and other internal financial performance measures. Therefore, the fair value of the PRSUs is determined with reference to the closing stock price at each remeasurement date.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense. The fair value is adjusted for the revised estimated forfeiture rate.

Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)

Under our PGSU plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. Annual PGSU awards are determined based on a multiple ranging from one to six times base salary (depending on position and level of responsibility) multiplied by a performance factor. The number of PGSUs granted to a plan participant is determined by dividing the dollar value of the award by the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant, or if the grant date occurs during a blackout period, by the greater of (i) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant date and (ii) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the first day following the expiration of the blackout. Upon vesting, the after-tax value of the award is used to purchase common shares and generally these shares cannot be sold until the employee retires or leaves Barrick. PGSUs vest at the end of the third year from the date of the grant.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense.

Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”)

Under our ESPP plan, certain Barrick employees can purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. Each year, employees may contribute 1%-6% of their combined base salary and annual short-term incentive, and Barrick will match 50% of the contribution, up to a maximum of C$5,000 per year.

Both Barrick and the employee make the contributions on a semi-monthly basis with the funds being transferred to a custodian who purchases Barrick Common Shares in the open market. Shares purchased with employee contributions have no vesting requirement; however, shares purchased with Barrick’s contributions vest approximately one year from contribution date. All dividend income is used to purchase additional Barrick shares.

Barrick records an expense equal to its semi-monthly cash contribution. No forfeiture rate is applied to the amounts accrued. Where an employee leaves prior to vesting, any accrual for contributions by Barrick during the year related to that employee is reversed.

Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)

Under our GESP plan, Barrick employees are awarded Company Common Shares. These shares vest immediately, but must be held until the employee ceases to be employed by the Company. Barrick recognizes the expense when the award is announced and has no ongoing liability.

x) Post-Retirement Benefits

Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans whereby we contribute up to 6% of the employee’s annual salary. We also have a retirement plan for certain officers of Barrick under which we contribute 15% of the officer’s annual salary and annual short-term incentive. The contributions are recognized as compensation expense as incurred. The Company has no further payment obligations once the contributions have been paid.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on employees’ years of service. Our policy is to fund the amounts necessary on an actuarial basis to provide enough assets to meet the benefits payable to plan members. Independent trustees administer assets of the plans, which are invested mainly in fixed-income and equity securities.

As well as the qualified plans, we have non-qualified defined benefit pension plans covering certain employees and former directors of Barrick. No funding is done on these plans and contributions for future years are required to be equal to benefit payments.

Actuarial gains and losses arising from experience adjustments and changes in actuarial assumptions are charged or credited to equity in OCI in the period in which they arise.

Our valuations are carried out using the projected unit credit method. We record the difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the present value of the plan obligations as an asset or liability on the consolidated balance sheets.

Pension Plan Assets and Liabilities

Pension plan assets, which consist primarily of fixed-income and equity securities, are valued using current market quotations. Plan obligations and the annual pension expense are determined on an actuarial basis and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including the market value of plan assets, estimates of the expected return on plan assets, discount rates, future wage increases and other assumptions.

The discount rate and life expectancy are the assumptions that generally have the most significant impact on our pension cost and obligation.

Other Post-Retirement Benefits

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees. Actuarial gains and losses resulting from variances between actual results and economic estimates or actuarial assumptions are recorded in OCI.

y) New Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Effective

IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

In May 2014, the IASB issued IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which covers principles that an entity shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from a contract with a customer. In September 2015, the IASB deferred the effective date of the standard to annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018, with earlier application permitted. We have not early adopted IFRS 15. In 2017 we completed our assessment of the impact on our consolidated financial statements. Our assessment is as follows:

• Bullion (gold and silver) sales – these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15.

• Concentrate (gold and copper) and cathode (copper) sales – the recognition of these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15, but we will begin separate presentation of the provisional pricing adjustments within our revenue note disclosure.

• Streaming arrangements – IFRS 15 requires us to treat deferred revenue earned on streaming transactions as variable, which must be adjusted each time there is a change in the underlying production profile. As at January 1, 2018, an insignificant opening balance sheet adjustment will be recorded upon transition to retroactively adjust the historical revenue recognized from our streaming transactions, resulting in an increase to our deferred revenue balance and a decrease in retained earnings. The retroactive adjustment reflects the change in the transaction price per unit due to a change in the life of mine production profile of the mines since the inception of the streaming agreements and the corresponding impact on accretion. Going forward, each time we have an update to the life of mine production profile (typically in the fourth quarter of each year) we will record an adjustment to revenue to retroactively adjust for the new number of ounces expected to be delivered to our streaming counterparty.

• We will use the modified retrospective approach of adoption.

IFRS 16 Leases

In January 2016, the IASB issued IFRS 16 Leases, which requires lessees to recognize assets and liabilities for most leases. Application of the standard is mandatory for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019, with earlier application permitted, provided the new revenue standard, IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, has been applied or is applied at the same date as IFRS 16. We are not early adopting IFRS 16. We expect that IFRS 16 will result in an increase in assets and liabilities as fewer leases will be expensed as payments are made. We expect an increase in depreciation and accretion expenses and also an increase in cash flow from operating activities as these lease payments will be recorded as financing outflows in our cash flow statement. We have developed a full implementation plan to determine the impact on our financial statements and internal controls. In fourth quarter 2017, we formed an IFRS 16 working group and began the process of compiling all of our existing operating leases and service contracts. In 2018, we will review the relevant agreements and determine which of the operating leases and service contracts are in scope for IFRS 16.

XML

CRITICAL JUDGMENTS, ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Accounting Judgements and Estimates [Abstract]

CRITICAL JUDGMENTS, ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

CRITICAL JUDGMENTS, ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

Many of the amounts included in the consolidated balance sheet require management to make judgments and/or estimates. These judgments and estimates are continuously evaluated and are based on management’s experience and knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances. Actual results may differ from the estimates. Information about such judgments and estimates is contained in the description of our accounting policies and/or other notes to the financial statements. The key areas where judgments, estimates and assumptions have been made are summarized below.

Life of Mine (“LOM”) Plans and Reserves and Resources

Estimates of the quantities of proven and probable mineral reserves and mineral resources form the basis for our LOM plans, which are used for a number of important business and accounting purposes, including: the calculation of depreciation expense; the capitalization of production phase stripping costs; and forecasting the timing of the payments related to the environmental rehabilitation provision. In addition, the underlying LOM plans are used in the impairment tests for goodwill and non-current assets. In certain cases, these LOM plans have made assumptions about our ability to obtain the necessary permits required to complete the planned activities. We estimate our ore reserves and mineral resources based on information compiled by qualified persons as defined in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects requirements. To calculate our gold reserves, as at December 31, 2017 we have used a per ounce gold price of $1,200, compared to $1,000 short-term and $1,200 long-term as at December 31, 2016. To calculate our measured, indicated, and inferred gold resources, as at December 31, 2017 we have used a gold price assumption of $1,500 per ounce, consistent with the prior year. Refer to notes 19 and 21.

Inventory

The measurement of inventory including the determination of its net realizable value, especially as it relates to ore in stockpiles, involves the use of estimates. Estimation is required in determining the tonnage, recoverable gold and copper contained therein, and in determining the remaining costs of completion to bring inventory into its saleable form. Judgment also exists in determining whether to recognize a provision for obsolescence on mine operating supplies, and estimates are required to determine salvage or scrap value of supplies.

Estimates of recoverable gold or copper on the leach pads are calculated from the quantities of ore placed on the leach pads (measured tons added to the leach pads), the grade of ore placed on the leach pads (based on assay data) and a recovery percentage (based on ore type).

Impairment and Reversal of Impairment for Non-Current Assets and Impairment of Goodwill

Goodwill and non-current assets are tested for impairment if there is an indicator of impairment or reversal of impairment, and in the case of goodwill annually during the fourth quarter, for all of our operating segments. We consider both external and internal sources of information for indications that non-current assets and/or goodwill are impaired. External sources of information we consider include changes in the market, economic and legal environment in which the CGU operates that are not within its control and affect the recoverable amount of mining interests and goodwill. Internal sources of information we consider include the manner in which mining properties and plant and equipment are being used or are expected to be used and indications of economic performance of the assets. Calculating the FVLCD of CGUs for non-current asset and goodwill impairment tests requires management to make estimates and assumptions with respect to future production levels, operating, capital and closure costs in our LOM plans, future metal prices, foreign exchange rates, Net Asset Value (“NAV”) multiples, value of reserves outside LOM plans in relation to the assumptions related to comparable entities and the market values per ounce and per pound and discount rates. Changes in any of the assumptions or estimates used in determining the fair values could impact the impairment analysis. Refer to notes 2o, 2q and 21 for further information.

Provisions for Environmental Rehabilitation Management assesses its provision for environmental rehabilitation on an annual basis or when new information becomes available. This assessment includes the estimation of the future rehabilitation costs, the timing of these expenditures, and the impact of changes in discount rates and foreign exchange rates. The actual future expenditures may differ from the amounts currently provided if the estimates made are significantly different than actual results or if there are significant changes in environmental and/or regulatory requirements in the future. Refer to notes 2u and 27 for further information.

Taxes

Management is required to make estimations regarding the tax basis of assets and liabilities and related deferred income tax assets and liabilities, amounts recorded for uncertain tax positions, the measurement of income tax expense and indirect taxes, and estimates of the timing of repatriation of earnings, which would impact the recognition of withholding taxes and taxes related to the outside basis on subsidiaries/associates. A number of these estimates require management to make estimates of future taxable profit, as well as the recoverability of indirect taxes, and if actual results are significantly different than our estimates, the ability to realize the deferred tax assets and indirect tax receivables recorded on our balance sheet could be impacted. Refer to notes 2j, 12 and 30 for further information.

Contingencies

Contingencies can be either possible assets or possible liabilities arising from past events which, by their nature, will only be resolved when one or more future events not wholly within our control occur or fail to occur. The assessment of such contingencies inherently involves the exercise of significant judgment and estimates of the outcome of future events. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings or regulatory or government actions that may negatively impact our business or operations, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims or actions as well as the perceived merits of the nature and amount of relief sought or expected to be sought, when determining the amount, if any, to recognize as a contingent liability or assessing the impact on the carrying value of assets. Contingent assets are not recognized in the consolidated financial statements. Refer to note 36 for more information.

Pascua-Lama

The Pascua-Lama project received $484 million as at December 31, 2017 ($429 million as at December 31, 2016) in value added tax (“VAT”) refunds in Chile relating to the development of the Chilean side of the project. Under the current arrangement this amount plus interest of $313 million (2016: $236 million) must be repaid if the project does not evidence exports for an amount of $3,538 million within a term that expires on December 31, 2026. The terms of the current VAT arrangement in Chile are applicable to either an open pit or an underground mine design. We have recorded $221 million in VAT recoverable in Argentina as at December 31, 2017 ($255 million as at December 31, 2016) relating to the development of the Argentinean side of the project. These amounts may not be recoverable if the project does not enter into production and are subject to devaluation risk as the amounts are recoverable in Argentinean pesos.

Streaming Transactions

The upfront cash deposit received from Royal Gold on the gold and silver streaming transaction for production linked to Barrick’s 60% interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine has been accounted for as deferred revenue as we have determined that it is not a derivative as it will be satisfied through the delivery of non-financial items (i.e., gold and silver) rather than cash or financial assets. It is our intention to settle the obligations under the streaming arrangement through our own production and if we were to fail to settle the obligations with Royal Gold through our own production, this would lead to the streaming arrangement becoming a derivative. This would cause a change to the accounting treatment, resulting in the revaluation of the fair value of the agreement through profit and loss on a recurring basis. Refer to note 29 for further details.

Our silver sale agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”) (formerly Silver Wheaton Corp.) requires us to deliver 25% of the life of mine silver production from the Pascua-Lama project once it is constructed and 100% of silver from Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines until March 31, 2018. The completion date for Pascua-Lama was originally December 31, 2015 but was subsequently extended to June 30, 2020. Per the terms of the amended silver purchase agreement, if the requirements of the completion guarantee have not been satisfied by June 30, 2020, the agreement may be terminated by Wheaton, in which case, they will be entitled to the return of the upfront cash consideration paid less credit for silver delivered up to the date of that event. The cash liability at December 31, 2017 is $262 million.

Refer to note 28 for a summary of our key financial risks.

Other Notes to the Financial Statements

	Note
Acquisitions and Divestitures	4
Segment information	5
Revenue	6
Cost of sales	7
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	8
Other expense (income)	9
Impairment reversals	10
General and administrative expenses	11
Income tax expense	12
Earnings per share	13
Finance costs, net	14
Cash flow - other items	15
Investments	16
Inventories	17
Accounts receivable and other current assets	18
Property, plant and equipment	19
Goodwill and other intangible assets	20
Impairment and reversal of non-current assets	21
Other assets	22
Accounts payable	23
Other current liabilities	24
Financial instruments	25
Fair value measurements	26
Provisions	27
Financial risk management	28
Other non-current liabilities	29
Deferred income taxes	30
Capital stock	31
Non-controlling interests	32
Remuneration of key management personnel	33
Stock-based compensation	34
Post-retirement benefits	35
Contingencies	36

XML

ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Business Combinations and Discontinued Operations [Abstract]

ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES

ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture
Veladero		$990		$—
Bald Mountain	—		423
Round Mountain	—		165
		$990		$588

a) Sale of 50% of Veladero

On April 6, 2017, we announced a strategic cooperation agreement with Shandong Gold Group Co., Ltd. (“Shandong”) where Shandong agreed to acquire 50 percent of Barrick’s Veladero mine in Argentina. The transaction closed on June 30, 2017 and we received total cash consideration of $990 million, which includes working capital adjustments of $30 million received in the fourth quarter of 2017. The transaction resulted in a gain of $718 million, partially on the sale of 50 percent to Shandong and partially upon remeasurement of our remaining interest in Veladero. We have accounted for our remaining 50 percent interest as a joint operation and consolidated our proportionate share of the assets and liabilities. We have recognized our share of the revenue and expenses of Veladero starting July 1, 2017.

In accordance with the acquisition method of accounting, the acquisition cost has been allocated to the underlying assets acquired and liabilities assumed. We completed the purchase price allocation in the fourth quarter of 2017 and recognized a deferred tax liability for the difference between the fair values and the tax base of those assets and now have an updated goodwill balance of $154 million, which is not deductible for tax purposes.

b) Sale of 25% of Cerro Casale

On March 28, 2017, we announced an agreement with Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”) to form a new partnership at the Cerro Casale Project in Chile. The transaction closed on June 9, 2017. Under the terms of the agreement, Goldcorp agreed to purchase a 25 percent interest in Cerro Casale from Barrick. This transaction, coupled with the concurrent purchase by Goldcorp of Kinross Gold Corporation’s (“Kinross”) 25 percent interest in Cerro Casale, resulted in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50 percent interest in the joint operation.

The total consideration received by Barrick and Kinross implies a fair value of $1.2 billion for 100 percent of Cerro Casale, which resulted in a reversal of impairment of $1.12 billion in the first quarter of 2017. Refer to note 21 to the Financial Statements for further details of the impairment reversal. We are accounting for our remaining 50 percent interest as a joint operation and consolidate our proportionate share of the assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses of Cerro Casale. We recognized a gain of $193 million due to the deconsolidation of the non-controlling interest in Cerro Casale in the second quarter of 2017.

As consideration for the 25 percent interest acquired from Barrick, Goldcorp will fund Barrick’s first $260 million of expenditures on the project and will spend an equivalent amount on its own behalf for a total project investment commitment of $520 million. Under the agreement, Goldcorp must spend a minimum of $60 million in the two-year period following closing, and then $80 million in each successive two-year period. The outstanding funding commitment will accrue interest at an annual rate of 4.75 percent. In the event that Goldcorp does not spend the minimum amount in any two-year period, 50 percent of any shortfall will be paid directly to Barrick in cash.

In addition, Goldcorp also funded Cerro Casale’s acquisition of a 100 percent interest in the adjacent Quebrada Seca property from Kinross upon closing. Upon a construction decision Goldcorp will pay Barrick $40 million in cash and Barrick will receive a 1.25 percent royalty on 25 percent of the gross revenues derived from metal production from both Cerro Casale and Quebrada Seca. The contingent consideration payable to Barrick has been recorded at its estimated fair value in other long-term assets.

Goldcorp entered into a separate agreement for the acquisition of Exeter Resource Corporation, whose sole asset is the Caspiche Project, located approximately 10 kilometers north of Cerro Casale. The acquisition of 100 percent of Exeter was completed in the third quarter and Goldcorp contributed the Caspiche Project into the joint venture at a total acquisition cost of approximately $157 million. The acquisition costs incurred by Goldcorp have been deducted from the $520 million total project investment commitment, but will not count towards the minimum expenditures for the initial two-year period. We have recorded a receivable of $181 million, split $15 million as short-term and $166 million as long-term, in other current assets and other long-term assets, respectively. Moving forward, this joint venture will be referred to as Norte Abierto and includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits.

c) Investment in Reunion Gold

On December 1, 2017, we announced the acquisition of 48 million common shares, representing approximately 15 percent of issued and outstanding common shares of Reunion Gold Corporation, in a non-brokered private placement for total consideration of $9 million. Subsequent to acquisition of the shares, we will be accounting for our interest as other investments with changes in fair value recorded in OCI.

d) Acquisition of Robertson Property in Nevada

On June 7, 2017, we completed the acquisition of the Robertson Property in Nevada from Coral Gold Resources (“Coral”). Consideration paid by Barrick consisted of $16 million, the return of 4.15 million shares (approximate value of $1 million) held by Barrick and a sliding scale royalty on any future production from the Robertson Property.

e) Disposition of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain Mines

On January 11, 2016, we closed the sale of our Bald Mountain mine and our 50% interest in the Round Mountain mine. We received net cash consideration of $588 million, which reflected working capital adjustments of $22 million in the second quarter of 2016. The transactions resulted in a loss of $17 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Operating Segments [Abstract]

SEGMENT INFORMATION

SEGMENT INFORMATION

In the first quarter of 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. Barrick’s business is organized into eleven individual minesites, one grouping of two mine sites, one publicly traded company and one project. Barrick’s Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President, reviews the operating results, assesses performance and makes capital allocation decisions at the minesite, grouping, Company and/or project level. Therefore, each individual minesite, with the exception of Barrick Nevada, Acacia and the Pascua-Lama project, is an operating segment for financial reporting purposes. Our updated presentation of our reportable operating segments is now four individual gold mines (Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge), Barrick Nevada, Acacia and our Pascua-Lama project. The remaining operating segments, our remaining gold and copper mines, have been grouped into an “other” category and will not be reported on individually. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. Segment performance is evaluated based on a number of measures including operating income before tax, production levels and unit production costs. Certain costs are managed on a consolidated basis and are therefore not reflected in segment income.

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31, 2017	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1			Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,961		$1,076		$793		$24		$16			$1,052
Pueblo Viejo2	1,417		501		229		—		16			671
Lagunas Norte	514		177		68		4		6			259
Veladero	591		291		119		3		5			173
Turquoise Ridge	280		131		28		—		2			119
Acacia2	751		362		107		—		91			191
Pascua-Lama	—		—		8		125		(10		)	(123		)
Other Mines3	1,860		1,086		267		12		31			464
		$8,374		$3,624		$1,619		$168		$157			$2,806

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31, 2016	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1		Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,703		$1,089		$807		$19		$17		$771
Pueblo Viejo2	1,548		497		147		—		3		901
Lagunas Norte	548		180		96		3		9		260
Veladero	685		346		118		1		—		220
Turquoise Ridge	322		128		27		—		1		166
Acacia2	1,045		553		166		27		—		299
Pascua-Lama	—		—		7		59		1		(67		)
Other Mines3	1,707		958		188		6		52		503
		$8,558		$3,751		$1,556		$115		$83		$3,053

¹   Includes accretion expense, which is included with finance costs in the consolidated statements of income. For the year ended December 31, 2017, accretion expense was $55 million (2016: $41 million). Refer to note 9a for details of other expenses (income).

²  Includes non-controlling interest portion of revenues, cost of sales and segment income for the year ended December 31, 2017, for Pueblo Viejo, $567 million, $285 million, $276 million (2016: $623 million, $249 million, $373 million) and Acacia, $271 million, $169 million, $69 million (2016: $377 million, $259 million, $108 million).

³  Includes cost of sales of Pierina for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $174 million (2016: $82 million).

Reconciliation of Segment Income to Income from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Segment income		$2,806			$3,053
Other cost of sales/amortization1	(57		)	(98		)
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments	(186		)	(122		)
General and administrative expenses	(248		)	(256		)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments	901			(18		)
Impairment reversals	212			250
Loss on currency translation	(72		)	(199		)
Closed mine rehabilitation	(55		)	(130		)
Income from equity investees	76			20
Finance costs, net (includes non-segment accretion)2	(636		)	(734		)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives3	6			12
Income before income taxes		$2,747			$1,778

¹  Includes all realized hedge losses of $27 million (2016: $73 million).

²  Includes debt extinguishment losses of $127 million (2016: $129 million).

³  Includes unrealized non-hedge gains of $1 million (2016: $32 million).

Geographic Information

	Non-current assets				Revenue1
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		2017		2016
United States		$6,641		$6,768		$3,299		$3,081
Dominican Republic	3,480		3,540		1,417		1,548
Argentina	2,217		2,366		591		685
Chile	2,469		1,945		—		—
Tanzania	1,129		1,673		751		1,045
Peru	734		678		676		663
Australia	463		478		456		472
Zambia	787		473		612		466
Papua New Guinea	351		353		322		304
Saudi Arabia	371		346		—		—
Canada	625		503		250		294
Unallocated	1,357		1,267		—		—
Total		$20,624		$20,390		$8,374		$8,558

¹  Presented based on the location from which the product originated. 

Capital Expenditures Information

	Segment Capital Expenditures1
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Barrick Nevada		$585		$358
Pueblo Viejo	114		101
Lagunas Norte	25		56
Veladero	173		95
Turquoise Ridge	36		32
Acacia	148		191
Pascua-Lama	6		20
Other Mines	259		230
Segment total		$1,346		$1,083
Other items not allocated to segments	36		36
Total		$1,382		$1,119

¹  Segment capital expenditures are presented for internal management reporting purposes on an accrual basis. Capital expenditures in the consolidated statements of cash flow are presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash expenditures were $1,396 million (2016: $1,126 million) and the decrease in accrued expenditures was $14 million (2016: $7 million decrease).

XML

REVENUE

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Revenue [abstract]

REVENUE

REVENUE

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gold bullion sales1
Spot market sales		$7,566		$7,650
Concentrate sales	65		258
		$7,631		$7,908
Copper concentrate sales1		$608		$466
Other sales2		$135		$184
Total		$8,374		$8,558

¹  Revenues include amounts transferred from OCI to earnings for commodity cash flow hedges (see note 25d). Revenue is presented net of direct sales taxes of $nil (2016: $2 million).

²  Revenues include the sale of by-products from our gold and copper mines and energy sales to third parties from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

Principal Products

All of our gold mining operations produce gold in doré form, except Acacia’s gold mines of Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi, which produce both gold doré and gold concentrate. Gold doré is unrefined gold bullion bars usually consisting of 90% gold that is refined to pure gold bullion prior to sale to our customers. Concentrate is a processing product containing the valuable ore mineral from which most of the waste mineral has been eliminated. Our Lumwana and Jabal Sayid mines produce a concentrate that primarily contains copper. Incidental revenues from the sale of by-products, primarily copper, silver and energy at our gold mines, are classified within other sales.

Provisional Copper and Gold Sales

We have provisionally priced sales for which price finalization, referenced to the relevant copper and gold index, is outstanding at the balance sheet date. Our exposure at December 31, 2017 to the impact of movements in market commodity prices for provisionally priced sales is set out in the following table:

	Volumes subject to final pricing Copper (millions) Gold (000s)		Impact on net income before taxation of 10% movement in market price US$
As at December 31	2017	2016	2017		2016
Copper pounds	40	44		$13		$11
Gold ounces	—	13	—		2

For the year ended December 31, 2017, our provisionally priced copper sales included provisional pricing gains of $46 million (2016: $22 million loss) and our provisionally priced gold sales included provisional pricing adjustments of $1 million (2016: $nil).

At December 31, 2017, our provisionally priced copper sales subject to final settlement were recorded at average prices of $3.29/lb (2016: $2.51/lb). At December 31, 2017, there were no provisionally priced gold sales subject to final settlement. At December 31, 2016, our provisionally priced gold sales subject to final settlement were recorded at an average price of $1,152/oz. The sensitivities in the above tables have been determined as the impact of a 10% change in commodity prices at each reporting date, while holding all other variables, including foreign currency exchange rates, constant.

XML

COST OF SALES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Analysis of income and expense [abstract]

COST OF SALES

COST OF SALES

	Gold				Copper				Other5				Total
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016
Direct mining cost1,2,3,4		$3,063		$3,215		$274		$228		$28		$77		$3,365		$3,520
Depreciation	1,529		1,504		83		45		35		25		1,647		1,574
Royalty expense	206		224		38		41		—		—		244		265
Community relations	38		37		4		5		2		4		44		46
Total		$4,836		$4,980		$399		$319		$65		$106		$5,300		$5,405

¹  Direct mining cost includes charges to reduce the cost of inventory to net realizable value of $21 million (2016: $68 million).

²  Direct mining cost includes the costs of extracting by-products.

³  Includes employee costs of $1,051 million (2016: $1,048 million).

⁴  Cost of sales also includes costs associated with power sales to third parties from our Monte Rio power plant in the Dominican Republic up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

⁵  Other includes all realized hedge gains and losses and corporate amortization.

XML

EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT EXPENSES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Exploration For and Evaluation of Mineral Resources [Abstract]

EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT EXPENSES

EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT

EXPENSES

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Minesite exploration and evaluation1		$47		$44
Global exploration and evaluation1	126		88
Advanced project costs:
Pascua-Lama	122		59
Other	14		17
Corporate development	13		14
Business improvement and innovation	32		15
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses		$354		$237

¹  Approximates the impact on operating cash flow.

XML

OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Other Operating Income (Expense) [Abstract]

OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME)

OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME)

a) Other expense (income)

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Other Expense:
Bank charges		$23			$20
Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs1	53			—
Litigation	24			—
Miscellaneous write-offs	11			—
Other	43			15
Total other expense		$154			$35
Other Income:
(Gain) loss on sale of long-lived assets2		($911	)		$42
Office closure	—			(4		)
Other	(42		)	(13		)
Total other income		($953	)		$25
Total		($799	)		$60

¹  Primarily consists of severance, contractor, and inventory write-down costs.

²  2017 includes gains of $718 million from the 50% sale of Veladero and $193 million from the 25% sale of Cerro Casale. 2016 includes losses of $17 million from the sale of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain, and $39 million from the sale of Zaldívar.

b) Loss on currency translation

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Currency translation losses released as a result of the disposal and reorganization of entities		$11		$91
Foreign currency translation losses	61		108
Total		$72		$199

XML

IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Impairment Of Assets [Abstract]

IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS

IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Impairment reversals of long-lived assets1		($224	)		($250	)
Impairment of intangibles1	12			—
Total		($212	)		($250	)

¹  Refer to note 21 for further details.

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

Summary of impairments (reversals)

For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recorded net impairment reversals of $212 million (2016: $250 million) for non-current assets, as summarized in the following table:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Cerro Casale		($1,120	)		$—
Lumwana	(259		)	—
Bulyanhulu	740			—
Veladero	—			(275		)
Lagunas Norte	3			(28		)
Pascua-Lama	407			—
Zaldívar	—			49
Exploration sites	12			—
Other	5			4
Total impairment (reversals) of long-lived assets		($212	)		($250	)

2017 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2017

In the fourth quarter 2017, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note one indicator of potential impairment reversal. Additionally, as a result of events that occurred in the fourth quarter, we identified indicators of impairment at Acacia and Pascua-Lama as discussed below.

Also as a result of an increase in proven and probable reserves, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia that has resulted in a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2014. An impairment reversal in the amount of $259 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017. The recoverable amount based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $747 million.

Pascua-Lama

As described in note 36, on January 17, 2018 the Pascua-Lama project received a revised notice from the Chilean environmental regulators, which reduced the administrative fine and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the project in addition to certain monitoring activities. Given the impact on our ability to advance the project as an open pit operation and the subsequent reclassification of Pascua- Lama’s open-pit reserves to resources, this was determined to be an indicator of impairment in the fourth quarter of 2017 as it was the resolution of a condition that existed at December 31, 2017. We identified that the carrying value of Pascua-Lama exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $429 million, based on a FVLCD of $850 million.

Acacia

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (“Ban”), impacting Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Subsequently, during the second quarter of 2017 two Presidential Committees reported their findings, following investigations, that Acacia and its predecessor companies have historically under-declared the contents of the exports of concentrate, resulting in a significant under-declaration of taxes. Acacia has refuted the findings of these committees, affirming that it has declared everything of commercial value that it has produced since it started operating in Tanzania and has paid all appropriate royalties and taxes on all of the payable minerals that it has produced.

In July 2017, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act.  The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017.

At the beginning of September 2017, as a result of the ongoing concentrate export ban, Bulyanhulu commenced a program to reduce operational activity and expenditure in order to preserve the viability of the mine over the long term.  This decision was identified by management as a potential indicator of impairment in the third quarter of 2017. 

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed on a framework with the Government of Tanzania for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the key terms of the proposed framework was reviewed by Acacia management and independent board members.  Acacia has not yet been provided with a detailed proposal for a decision around the ongoing discussions between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania.

In the fourth quarter of 2017 Barrick identified several indicators of impairment, including but not limited to, the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania, the announcement of new legislation by the Government of Tanzania in respect of the natural resources sector and the resulting decision to reduce operations at Bulyanhulu.  

As a result of the updated LOM plan, which reflects the targeted outcome for a negotiated resolution in line with the proposed framework, we identified that the carrying value of Bulyanhulu exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $740 million, based on a FVLCD of $600 million (100% basis). Refer to note 36 for further details of the proposed framework.

Impairment assessments were also performed in the second and third quarters of 2017 and no impairment charges were recorded.

Cerro Casale - First Quarter 2017

As noted in note 4(b), on March 28, 2017, we announced the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale Project in Chile, which would result in Barrick retaining a 50% interest in the Project and this was deemed to be an indicator of impairment reversal in the first quarter of 2017. As such, in first quarter 2017, we recognized a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $1.12 billion. The recoverable amount, based on the fair value less cost to dispose as implied by the transaction price, was $1.2 billion.

2016 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2016

In the fourth quarter 2016, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note three indicators of potential impairment reversal.

As a result of improvements in the cost structure at our Veladero mine in Argentina, we have expanded the open pit in our LOM plan, increasing our expected production and the number of years in our plan. These changes increased Veladero’s FVLCD which has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2013. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount of $275 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2016. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $1.6 billion.

Also as a result of cost improvements, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lagunas Norte mine in Peru that has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount of $28 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2015. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $630 million.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia completed a new LOM plan incorporating a lower cost structure. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana mine. Based on the level of uncertainty surrounding some of the assumptions in our FVLCD calculation, we determined there existed significant uncertainty as to whether or not a change in FVLCD existed that warranted a reversal in the previously recorded impairment.

Third Quarter 2016

In the third quarter of 2016 we agreed to an adjustment of the purchase price for the 50% interest in our Zaldívar mine. This adjustment resulted in a non-current asset impairment loss of $49 million. This is in addition to the goodwill impairment loss of $427 million we recognized in third quarter 2016, as detailed below. The recoverable amount after the impairment, based on the FVLCD of our 50% equity interest, was $950 million.

Second Quarter2016

In June 2016, the Zambian government passed legislation to amend the royalty tax for mining operations to a variable rate based on the prevailing copper price effective June 1, 2016. These rates are 4% at copper prices below $2.04 per pound; 5% at copper prices between $2.04 per pound and $2.72 per pound; and 6% at copper prices of $2.72 per pound and above. Legislation was also passed to remove the 15% variable profit tax on income from mining companies. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana copper mine and we determined the FVLCD was not in excess of the carrying value and therefore no reversal was recorded.

Key Assumptions

The recoverable amount has been determined based on its estimated FVLCD, which has been determined to be greater than the VIU amounts. The key assumptions and estimates used in determining the FVLCD are related to commodity prices, discount rates, NAV multiples for gold assets, operating costs, exchange rates, capital expenditures, the LOM production profile, continued license to operate, evidence of value from current year disposals and for our projects the expected start of production. In addition, assumptions are related to observable market evaluation metrics, including identification of comparable entities, and associated market values per ounce and per pound of reserves and/or resources, as well as the valuation of resources beyond what is included in LOM plans.

Gold

For the gold segments where a recoverable amount was required to be determined, FVLCD was determined by calculating the net present value (“NPV”) of the future cash flows expected to be generated by the mines and projects within the segments (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). The estimates of future cash flows were derived from the most recent LOM plans and, where the LOM plans exclude a material portion of total reserves and resources, we assign value to reserves and resources not considered in these models. Based on observable market or publicly available data, including forward prices and equity sell-side analyst forecasts, we make an assumption of future gold and silver prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each gold mine are discounted using a real weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”), which reflects specific market risk factors for each mine. Some gold companies trade at a market capitalization greater than the NPV of their expected cash flows. Market participants describe this as a “NAV multiple”, which represents the multiple applied to the NPV to arrive at the trading price. The NAV multiple is generally understood to take account of a variety of additional value factors such as the exploration potential of the mineral property, namely the ability to find and produce more metal than what is currently included in the LOM plan or reserve and resource estimates, and the benefit of gold price optionality. As a result, we applied a specific NAV multiple to the NPV of each CGU within each gold segment based on the NAV multiples observed in the market in recent periods and that we judged to be appropriate to the CGU.

Pascua-Lama

The FVLCD for Pascua-Lama was determined by considering observable market values for comparable assets expressed as dollar per ounce of measured and indicated resources (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). We used the market approach as the LOM for Pascua-Lama has significant uncertainty with respect to the scope and estimated timeline for the project. The observable market values were adjusted, where appropriate, for country risk if the comparable asset was in a different country.

Copper

For our copper operating segments, the FVLCD for each of the CGUs was determined based on the NPV of future cash flows expected to be generated using the most recent LOM plans (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). Based on observable market or publicly available data including spot and forward prices and equity sell-side analyst consensus, we make an assumption of future copper prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each copper mine are discounted using a WACC depending on the location and market risk factors for each mine.

Assumptions

Our gold price assumptions used in our 2017 impairment testing is $1,200 per ounce. Our gold price assumptions used in our 2016 impairment testing were 2017: $1,050 per ounce and 2018+: $1,200 per ounce. The other key assumptions used in our impairment testing, based on the CGUs tested in each year, are summarized in the table below:

	2017			2016
Copper price per lb (long-term)		$2.75			$2.75
WACC - gold (range)	3%-11%			3%-6%
WACC - gold (avg)	6		%	4		%
WACC - copper	9		%	9		%
NAV multiple - gold (avg)	1.2			1.2
LOM years - gold (avg)	17			15
Value per ounce of gold	$30 - $55			n/a
Value per ounce of silver	$0.41 - $0.76			n/a

Sensitivities

Should there be a significant increase or decline in commodity prices, we would take actions to assess the implications on our life of mine plans, including the determination of reserves and resources, and the appropriate cost structure for the operating segments. The recoverable amount of the CGUs would be affected by these changes and also be impacted by other market factors such as changes in net asset value multiples and the value per ounce/pound of comparable market entities.

We performed a sensitivity analysis on each CGU that was tested as part of the goodwill impairment test, as well as those CGUs which have had an impairment or impairment reversal in recent years. We flexed the gold and copper prices and the WACC, which are the most significant assumptions that impact the impairment calculations. We first assumed a +/- $100 per ounce change in our gold price assumptions or a +/- $0.25 per pound change in copper price assumptions, while holding all other assumptions constant. We then assumed a +/- 1% change in our WACC, independent from the change in gold or copper prices, while holding all other assumptions constant. These sensitivities help to determine the theoretical impairment losses or impairment reversals that would be recorded with these changes in gold or copper prices and WACC. If the gold price per ounce was decreased by $100, a further non-current asset impairment of $172 million, net of tax, would be recognized for Bulyanhulu, with a similar increase in the gold price per ounce resulting in a reduction in the impairment of $172 million. The partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment reversal recorded for Lumwana would not be recognized if the copper price per ounce was decreased by $0.25 and would result in the recognition of a further impairment reversal of $303 million if the copper price per ounce was increased by $0.25. Lumwana was otherwise not affected by the sensitivity analysis.

Other results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows:

	(Impairment)/reversal based on
Operating Segment	Gold price	Gold price
	+$100	-$100
Pueblo Viejo	$546	($651)
Lagunas Norte	-	(311)
Veladero	-	(188)

We also performed a sensitivity analysis on our WACC, which is another key input that impacts the impairment calculations. We assumed a +/-1% change on the WACC, while holding all other assumptions constant, to determine the impact on impairment losses recorded, and whether any additional operating segments would be impacted. The results of this analysis are as follows:

A 1% decrease in the WACC would result in a partial reversal of $425 million of the non-current asset impairment recorded in 2015 at Pueblo Viejo. It would also result in the recognition of a further $63 million non-current asset impairment at Bulyanhulu, while a 1% increase in the WACC would result in a reduction of similar value in the impairment recognized at Bulyanhulu.

In addition, for our Pascua-Lama project, we have determined our valuation based on a market approach. The key assumption that impacts the impairment calculations is the value per ounce of gold and per pound of silver based on an analysis of comparable companies. We assumed a negative 10% change for the assumption of gold and silver value per ounce, while holding all other assumptions constant, and based on the results of the impairment testing performed in fourth quarter 2017 for Pascua-Lama, the fair value of the CGU would have been reduced from $850 million to $750 million. We note that this sensitivity identifies the decrease in the value that, in isolation, would cause the carrying value of the CGU to exceed its recoverable amount. For Pascua-Lama, this value decrease is linear to the decrease in value per ounce/pound.

The carrying value of the CGUs that are most sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the FVLCD calculation are:

As at December 31, 2017	Carrying Value
Pueblo Viejo1		$3,077
Veladero2	1,016
Lumwana3	849
Norte Abierto2,4	817
Bulyanhulu3	600
Lagunas Norte5	458
Buzwagi	194
Pascua-Lama3,6,7		$38

¹  This CGU had an impairment loss in 2015. As there have been no indicators of impairment or impairment reversal in 2017, the carrying value would remain sensitive to the key assumptions in the FVLCD model from 2015.

²  As a result of partial divestments that occurred in 2017 (refer to notes 4a and 4b) these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the purchase price allocations.

³  As a result of the impairment/reversal recorded in 2017 these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁴  Norte Abierto is the new name of our joint venture with Goldcorp, comprised of the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  As a result of the reversal recorded in 2016 this CGU was remeasured to fair value and is sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁶  The carrying value of Pascua-Lama includes the deferred revenue liability relating to the Wheaton Precious Metals stream ($812 million).

⁷  This CGU is most sensitive to changes in the value per ounce of comparable market entities.

XML

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

General and Administrative Expenses [Abstract]

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Corporate administration1		$227		$201
Operating segment administration	21		55
Total2		$248		$256

¹  Includes $3 million (2016: $9 million) related to one-time severance payments.

²  Includes employee costs of $98 million (2016: $153 million).

XML

INCOME TAX EXPENSE

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Income Tax [Abstract]

INCOME TAX EXPENSE

INCOME TAX EXPENSE

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Tax on profit
Current tax
Charge for the year		$1,125			$911
Adjustment in respect of prior years	—			(2		)
		$1,125			$909
Deferred tax
Origination and reversal of temporary differences in the current year		$112			$10
Adjustment in respect of prior years	(6		)	(2		)
		$106			$8
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917
Tax expense related to continuing operations
Current
Canada		$7			$7
International	1,118			902
		$1,125			$909
Deferred
Canada		($97	)		($30	)
International	203			38
		$106			$8
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917

Currency Translation

Deferred tax balances are subject to remeasurement for changes in currency exchange rates each period. The most significant balances are Argentinean deferred tax liabilities. In 2017 and 2016, tax expense of $10 million and $23 million, respectively, primarily arose from translation losses due to the weakening of the Argentinean peso against the US dollar. These losses are included within deferred tax expense/recovery.

Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
At 26.5% statutory rate		$728			$471
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions1	(96		)	(134		)
Impact of foreign tax rates2	215			113
Expenses not tax deductible	24			54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets	(241		)	—
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets	66			—
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances	10			23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments	(7		)	(5		)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets	21			35
United States tax reform	(203		)	—
Non-recognition of US AMT credits	—			13
Adjustments in respect of prior years	(6		)	(4		)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities	172			70
Impact of tax rate changes	—			(13		)
United States withholding taxes	252			—
Other withholding taxes	18			11
Mining taxes	266			267
Other items	12			16
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917

¹  We are able to claim certain allowances and tax deductions unique to extractive industries that result in a lower effective tax rate.

²  We operate in multiple foreign tax jurisdictions that have tax rates different than the Canadian statutory rate.

United States Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017 Tax Reform was enacted in the United States.  The significant changes include:  (i) a reduction from 35% to 21% in the corporate income tax rate effective January 1, 2018, which resulted in a deferred tax recovery of $343 million on our net deferred tax liability in the US, (ii) a repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) effective January 1, 2018, (iii) the mandatory repatriation of earnings and profits of specified foreign corporations effective December 31, 2017, which resulted in an estimated one-time 2017 toll charge of $228 million, offset by (iv) the recognition of our previously unrecognized deferred tax asset on AMT credits in the amount of $88 million, which can be used to offset the one-time toll charge.  The net one-time 2017 toll charge payable amount of $140 million is payable over 8 years.  $129 million of this amount has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (see note 29). The impact of the United States Tax Reform may differ from this estimate due to changes in interpretations and assumptions we have made and guidance that may be issued.

Proposed Framework for Acacia Operations in Tanzania and the Increase to Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities in Tanzania

The terms of the Proposed Framework for Acacia Mining Operations in Tanzania were announced on October 19, 2017. The Proposed Framework indicates that in support of ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the government of Tanzania, on terms to be settled by a working group. A tax provision of $128 million had been recorded prior to December 31, 2016 in respect of tax disputes related to Acacia. Of this amount, $70 million was recorded in 2016. In the third quarter of 2017, an additional amount of $172 million was recorded as current tax expense. See note 36 for further information with respect to these matters.

United States Withholding Taxes

Prior to fourth quarter 2017, we had not previously recorded withholding tax related to the undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries because our intention was to reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries indefinitely. During fourth quarter 2017, we reassessed our intentions regarding those undistributed earnings. As a result of our reassessment, we concluded that it was no longer our intent to indefinitely reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries, and therefore in fourth quarter 2017, we recognized an increase in our income tax provision in the amount of $252 million, representing withholding tax on the undistributed United States earnings. $150 million was recorded in the tax charge for the year, and $102 million was recorded as deferred tax expense. Of the $150 million, $130 million has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (see note 29).

XML

EARNINGS PER SHARE

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Earnings per share [abstract]

EARNINGS PER SHARE

EARNINGS PER SHARE

For the years ended December 31 ($ millions, except shares in millions and per share amounts in dollars)	2017						2016
	Basic			Diluted			Basic			Diluted
Net income		$1,516			$1,516			$861			$861
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests	(78		)	(78		)	(206		)	(206		)
Net income attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation		$1,438			$1,438			$655			$655
Weighted average shares outstanding	1,166			1,166			1,165			1,165
Basic and diluted earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation		$1.23			$1.23			$0.56			$0.56

XML

FINANCE COSTS, NET

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Finance Costs [Abstract]

FINANCE COSTS, NET

FINANCE COSTS, NET

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Interest1		$511			$591
Amortization of debt issue costs	5			17
Amortization of discount	1			2
Gain on interest rate hedges	(6		)	(1		)
Accretion	67			50
Loss on debt extinguishment2	127			129
Finance income	(14		)	(13		)
Total		$691			$775

¹  Interest in the consolidated statements of cash flow is presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash interest paid was $425 million (2016: $513 million).

²  2017 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (4.10% notes due 2023, 6.95% notes due 2019, and Pueblo Viejo Project Financing). 2016 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (2.50% notes due 2018, 4.40% notes due 2021, 4.95% notes due 2020, 6.80% notes due 2018 and 6.95% notes due 2019).

XML

CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Cash Flow Statement [Abstract]

CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS

CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS

Operating Cash Flows - Other Items

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Adjustments for non-cash income statement items:
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)		($6	)		($12	)
Stock-based compensation expense	80			82
Income from investment in equity investees (note 16)	(76		)	(20		)
Change in estimate of rehabilitation costs at closed mines	55			130
Net inventory impairment charges (note 17)	21			68
Change in other assets and liabilities	(196		)	(249		)
Settlement of rehabilitation obligations	(59		)	(62		)
Other operating activities		($181	)		($63	)
Cash flow arising from changes in:
Accounts receivable		$8			($5	)
Inventory	(372		)	(190		)
Other current assets	(278		)	(72		)
Accounts payable	(35		)	(190		)
Other current liabilities	(51		)	29
Change in working capital		($728	)		($428	)

XML

INVESTMENTS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Interests In Other Entities [Abstract]

INVESTMENTS

INVESTMENTS

Equity Accounting Method Investment Continuity

	Kabanga			Jabal Sayid		Zaldívar			GNX			Total
At January 1, 2016		$30			$178		$990			$1			$1,199
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1		)	2		27			(8		)	20
Funds invested	1			—		—			8			9
Working capital adjustments	—			—		6			—			6
Impairment charges	—			—		(49		)	—			(49		)
At December 31, 2016		$30			$180		$974			$1			$1,185
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1		)	26		61			(10		)	76
Funds invested	1			—		—			11			12
Dividend	—			—		(60		)	—			(60		)
At December 31, 2017		$30			$206		$975			$2			$1,213
Publicly traded	No			No		No			No

Summarized Equity Investee Financial Information
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Revenue		$214			$80		$649			$518
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	116			65		375			354
Depreciation	33			12		111			87
Finance expense	3			—		1			2
Other expense (income)	2			—		—			(5		)
Income from continuing operations before tax		$60			$3		$162			$80
Income tax expense	(8		)	—		(40		)	(25		)
Income from continuing operations after tax		$52			$3		$122			$55
Total comprehensive income		$52			$3		$122			$55
Summarized Balance Sheet
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Cash and equivalents		$50			$14		$72			$102
Other current assets1	70			56		563			482
Total current assets		$120			$70		$635			$584
Non-current assets	485			473		1,582			1,603
Total assets		$605			$543		$2,217			$2,187
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		$12			$—		$19			$23
Other current liabilities	35			27		110			84
Total current liabilities		$47			$27		$129			$107
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	379			391		20			33
Other non-current liabilities	13			11		99			80
Total non-current liabilities		$392			$402		$119			$113
Total liabilities		$439			$429		$248			$220
Net assets		$166			$114		$1,969			$1,967

¹  Zaldívar other current assets include inventory of $451 million (2016: $429 million).

The information above reflects the amounts presented in the financial information of the joint venture adjusted for differences between IFRS and local GAAP.

Reconciliation of Summarized Financial Information to Carrying Value
	Jabal Sayid1		Zaldívar
Opening net assets		$114		$1,967
Income for the period	52		122
Dividend	—		(120		)
Closing net assets, December 31		$166		$1,969
Barrick's share of net assets (50%)	83		985
Equity earnings adjustment	—		(10		)
Goodwill recognition	123		—
Carrying value		$206		$975

¹  A $165 million non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV is presented as part of Other Assets (see note 22).

XML

INVENTORIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Inventories [Abstract]

INVENTORIES

INVENTORIES

	Gold						Copper
	As at December 31, 2017			As at December 31, 2016			As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Raw materials
Ore in stockpiles		$2,125			$2,067			$102		$72
Ore on leach pads	405			406			—		—
Mine operating supplies	515			585			79		62
Work in process	174			219			—		—
Finished products	168			50			3		5
		$3,387			$3,327			$184		$139
Non-current ore in stockpiles1	(1,681		)	(1,536		)	—		—
		$1,706			$1,791			$184		$139

¹  Ore that we do not expect to process in the next 12 months is classified within other long-term assets.

Inventory Impairment Charges
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Barrick Nevada		$—		$57
Golden Sunlight	6		7
Porgera	4		3
Pierina	11		1
Inventory impairment charges1		$21		$68

¹  Impairment charges in 2017 primarily relate to leach pad inventories at Pierina. Impairment charges in 2016 primarily relate to stockpiles at Cortez.

Ore in Stockpiles
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Gold
Barrick Nevada		$1,040		$1,128
Pueblo Viejo	538		475
Porgera	55		77
Kalgoorlie	138		127
Lagunas Norte	147		91
Buzwagi	109		64
North Mara	47		41
Veladero	22		38
Turquoise Ridge	26		22
Other	3		4
Copper
Lumwana	102		72
		$2,227		$2,139
Ore on Leach pads
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Gold
Veladero		$145		$172
Nevada	105		109
Lagunas Norte	143		97
Pierina	12		28
		$405		$406

Purchase Commitments

At December 31, 2017, we had purchase obligations for supplies and consumables of approximately $1,147 million (2016: $970 million).

XML

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Accounts receivable
Amounts due from concentrate sales		$110		$110
Receivable from Dominican Republic government1	1		30
Other receivables	128		109
		$239		$249
Other current assets
Derivative assets (note 25f)		$2		$1
Goods and services taxes recoverable2	167		239
Prepaid expenses	68		48
Other	84		18
		$321		$306

¹  Amounts receivable from the Dominican Republic government primarily relate to payments made by Pueblo Viejo on behalf of the government.

²  Primarily includes VAT and fuel tax recoverables of $32 million in Tanzania, $49 million in Argentina, $3 million in Chile, $19 million in the Dominican Republic, and $8 million in Peru (Dec. 31, 2016: $124 million, $52 million, $32 million, $10 million and $6 million, respectively).

XML

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Property, plant and equipment [abstract]

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

	Buildings, plant and equipment			Mining property costs subject to depreciation1,3			Mining property costs not subject to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2017
Net of accumulated depreciation		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
Additions4	158			219			1,966			2,343
Disposals	(72		)	(32		)	(1,093		)	(1,197		)
Depreciation	(878		)	(819		)	—			(1,697		)
Impairment reversals	(102		)	(359		)	715			254
Transfers5	551			449			(1,000		)	—
At December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
At December 31, 2017
Cost		$14,209			$21,068			$14,507			$49,784
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,996		)	(14,416		)	(11,566		)	(35,978		)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
	Buildings, plant and equipment			Mining property costs subject to depreciation1,3			Mining property costs not subject to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2016
Cost		$13,782			$19,968			$14,734			$48,484
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,098		)	(12,668		)	(12,284		)	(34,050		)
Net carrying amount – January 1, 2016		$4,684			$7,300			$2,450			$14,434
Additions4	71			272			933			1,276
Disposals	(80		)	—			(37		)	(117		)
Depreciation	(794		)	(995		)	—			(1,789		)
Impairment charges	217			79			3			299
Transfers5	458			538			(996		)	—
At December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
At December 31, 2016
Cost		$14,111			$20,778			$14,634			$49,523
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,555		)	(13,584		)	(12,281		)	(35,420		)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103

¹  Includes capitalized reserve acquisition costs, capitalized development costs and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs other than exploration license costs included in intangible assets.

²  Assets not subject to depreciation includes construction-in-progress, projects and acquired mineral resources and exploration potential at operating mine sites and development projects.

³  Assets subject to depreciation includes the following items for production stage properties: acquired mineral reserves and resources, capitalized mine development costs, capitalized stripping and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs.

⁴  Additions include revisions to the capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities.

⁵  Primarily relates to long-lived assets that are transferred to PP&E once they are placed into service.

a)     Mineral Property Costs Not Subject to Depreciation

	Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2017		Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2016
Construction-in-progress1		$640		$466
Acquired mineral resources and exploration potential	24		24
Projects
Pascua-Lama	1,499		1,263
Norte Abierto	612		444
Donlin Gold	166		156
		$2,941		$2,353

¹  Represents assets under construction at our operating mine sites.

b)     Changes in Gold and Copper Mineral Life of Mine Plan

As part of our annual business cycle, we prepare updated estimates of proven and probable gold and copper mineral reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction for each mineral property. This forms the basis for our LOM plans. We prospectively revise calculations of amortization expense for property, plant and equipment amortized using the UOP method, where the denominator is our LOM ounces. The effect of changes in our LOM on amortization expense for 2017 was a $91 million decrease (2016: $67 million decrease).

c)    Capital Commitments and Operating Leases

In addition to entering into various operational commitments in the normal course of business, we had commitments of approximately $118 million at December 31, 2017 (2016: $103 million) for construction activities at our sites and projects.

Operating leases are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term. At December 31, 2017, we have operating lease commitments totaling $68 million, of which $21 million is expected to be paid within a year, $46 million is expected to be paid within two to five years and the remaining amount to be paid beyond five years.

XML

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets [Abstract]

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

a) Intangible Assets

	Water rights1			Technology2			Supply contracts3			Exploration potential4			Total
Opening balance January 1, 2016		$87			$12			$16			$156			$271
Additions	—			—			—			4			4
Amortization	—			(1		)	(2		)	—			(3		)
Closing balance December 31, 2016		$87			$11			$14			$160			$272
Additions	—			—			—			16			16
Disposals5	(16		)	—			—			—			(16		)
Amortization and impairment losses	—			(2		)	(3		)	(12		)	(17		)
Closing balance December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255
Cost		$71			$17			$39			$298			$425
Accumulated amortization and impairment losses	—			(8		)	(28		)	(134		)	(170		)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255

¹  Relates to water rights in South America, and will be amortized through cost of sales when we begin using these in the future.

²  The amount is amortized through cost of sales using the UOP method over LOM ounces of the Pueblo Viejo mine, with no assumed residual value.

³  Relates to a supply agreement with Michelin North America Inc. to secure a supply of tires and is amortized over the effective term of the contract through cost of sales.

⁴  Exploration potential consists of the estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses acquired as a result of a business combination or asset acquisition. The carrying value of the licenses will be transferred to PP&E when the development of attributable mineral resources commences. See note 21 for details of impairment charges recorded against exploration assets.

⁵  Represents the net disposal as a result of the Cerro Casale sale. Refer to note 4b.

b) Goodwill

	Closing balance December 31, 2016		Disposals			Closing balance December 31, 2017
Barrick Nevada1		$514		$—			$514
Veladero2	195		(41		)	154
Turquoise Ridge	528		—			528
Hemlo	63		—			63
Kalgoorlie	71		—			71
Total		$1,371		($41	)		$1,330

¹  In Q1 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. The prior period has been changed to reflect this presentation.

²  Represents the net disposal as a result of the partial Veladero sale. Refer to note 4a.

On a total basis, the gross amount and accumulated impairment losses are as follows:

Cost		$8,618
Accumulated impairment losses December 31, 2017	(7,288		)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017		$1,330

XML

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Impairment Of Assets [Abstract]

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Impairment reversals of long-lived assets1		($224	)		($250	)
Impairment of intangibles1	12			—
Total		($212	)		($250	)

¹  Refer to note 21 for further details.

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

Summary of impairments (reversals)

For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recorded net impairment reversals of $212 million (2016: $250 million) for non-current assets, as summarized in the following table:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Cerro Casale		($1,120	)		$—
Lumwana	(259		)	—
Bulyanhulu	740			—
Veladero	—			(275		)
Lagunas Norte	3			(28		)
Pascua-Lama	407			—
Zaldívar	—			49
Exploration sites	12			—
Other	5			4
Total impairment (reversals) of long-lived assets		($212	)		($250	)

2017 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2017

In the fourth quarter 2017, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note one indicator of potential impairment reversal. Additionally, as a result of events that occurred in the fourth quarter, we identified indicators of impairment at Acacia and Pascua-Lama as discussed below.

Also as a result of an increase in proven and probable reserves, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia that has resulted in a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2014. An impairment reversal in the amount of $259 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017. The recoverable amount based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $747 million.

Pascua-Lama

As described in note 36, on January 17, 2018 the Pascua-Lama project received a revised notice from the Chilean environmental regulators, which reduced the administrative fine and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the project in addition to certain monitoring activities. Given the impact on our ability to advance the project as an open pit operation and the subsequent reclassification of Pascua- Lama’s open-pit reserves to resources, this was determined to be an indicator of impairment in the fourth quarter of 2017 as it was the resolution of a condition that existed at December 31, 2017. We identified that the carrying value of Pascua-Lama exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $429 million, based on a FVLCD of $850 million.

Acacia

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (“Ban”), impacting Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Subsequently, during the second quarter of 2017 two Presidential Committees reported their findings, following investigations, that Acacia and its predecessor companies have historically under-declared the contents of the exports of concentrate, resulting in a significant under-declaration of taxes. Acacia has refuted the findings of these committees, affirming that it has declared everything of commercial value that it has produced since it started operating in Tanzania and has paid all appropriate royalties and taxes on all of the payable minerals that it has produced.

In July 2017, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act.  The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017.

At the beginning of September 2017, as a result of the ongoing concentrate export ban, Bulyanhulu commenced a program to reduce operational activity and expenditure in order to preserve the viability of the mine over the long term.  This decision was identified by management as a potential indicator of impairment in the third quarter of 2017. 

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed on a framework with the Government of Tanzania for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the key terms of the proposed framework was reviewed by Acacia management and independent board members.  Acacia has not yet been provided with a detailed proposal for a decision around the ongoing discussions between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania.

In the fourth quarter of 2017 Barrick identified several indicators of impairment, including but not limited to, the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania, the announcement of new legislation by the Government of Tanzania in respect of the natural resources sector and the resulting decision to reduce operations at Bulyanhulu.  

As a result of the updated LOM plan, which reflects the targeted outcome for a negotiated resolution in line with the proposed framework, we identified that the carrying value of Bulyanhulu exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $740 million, based on a FVLCD of $600 million (100% basis). Refer to note 36 for further details of the proposed framework.

Impairment assessments were also performed in the second and third quarters of 2017 and no impairment charges were recorded.

Cerro Casale - First Quarter 2017

As noted in note 4(b), on March 28, 2017, we announced the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale Project in Chile, which would result in Barrick retaining a 50% interest in the Project and this was deemed to be an indicator of impairment reversal in the first quarter of 2017. As such, in first quarter 2017, we recognized a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $1.12 billion. The recoverable amount, based on the fair value less cost to dispose as implied by the transaction price, was $1.2 billion.

2016 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2016

In the fourth quarter 2016, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note three indicators of potential impairment reversal.

As a result of improvements in the cost structure at our Veladero mine in Argentina, we have expanded the open pit in our LOM plan, increasing our expected production and the number of years in our plan. These changes increased Veladero’s FVLCD which has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2013. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount of $275 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2016. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $1.6 billion.

Also as a result of cost improvements, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lagunas Norte mine in Peru that has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount of $28 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2015. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $630 million.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia completed a new LOM plan incorporating a lower cost structure. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana mine. Based on the level of uncertainty surrounding some of the assumptions in our FVLCD calculation, we determined there existed significant uncertainty as to whether or not a change in FVLCD existed that warranted a reversal in the previously recorded impairment.

Third Quarter 2016

In the third quarter of 2016 we agreed to an adjustment of the purchase price for the 50% interest in our Zaldívar mine. This adjustment resulted in a non-current asset impairment loss of $49 million. This is in addition to the goodwill impairment loss of $427 million we recognized in third quarter 2016, as detailed below. The recoverable amount after the impairment, based on the FVLCD of our 50% equity interest, was $950 million.

Second Quarter2016

In June 2016, the Zambian government passed legislation to amend the royalty tax for mining operations to a variable rate based on the prevailing copper price effective June 1, 2016. These rates are 4% at copper prices below $2.04 per pound; 5% at copper prices between $2.04 per pound and $2.72 per pound; and 6% at copper prices of $2.72 per pound and above. Legislation was also passed to remove the 15% variable profit tax on income from mining companies. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana copper mine and we determined the FVLCD was not in excess of the carrying value and therefore no reversal was recorded.

Key Assumptions

The recoverable amount has been determined based on its estimated FVLCD, which has been determined to be greater than the VIU amounts. The key assumptions and estimates used in determining the FVLCD are related to commodity prices, discount rates, NAV multiples for gold assets, operating costs, exchange rates, capital expenditures, the LOM production profile, continued license to operate, evidence of value from current year disposals and for our projects the expected start of production. In addition, assumptions are related to observable market evaluation metrics, including identification of comparable entities, and associated market values per ounce and per pound of reserves and/or resources, as well as the valuation of resources beyond what is included in LOM plans.

Gold

For the gold segments where a recoverable amount was required to be determined, FVLCD was determined by calculating the net present value (“NPV”) of the future cash flows expected to be generated by the mines and projects within the segments (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). The estimates of future cash flows were derived from the most recent LOM plans and, where the LOM plans exclude a material portion of total reserves and resources, we assign value to reserves and resources not considered in these models. Based on observable market or publicly available data, including forward prices and equity sell-side analyst forecasts, we make an assumption of future gold and silver prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each gold mine are discounted using a real weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”), which reflects specific market risk factors for each mine. Some gold companies trade at a market capitalization greater than the NPV of their expected cash flows. Market participants describe this as a “NAV multiple”, which represents the multiple applied to the NPV to arrive at the trading price. The NAV multiple is generally understood to take account of a variety of additional value factors such as the exploration potential of the mineral property, namely the ability to find and produce more metal than what is currently included in the LOM plan or reserve and resource estimates, and the benefit of gold price optionality. As a result, we applied a specific NAV multiple to the NPV of each CGU within each gold segment based on the NAV multiples observed in the market in recent periods and that we judged to be appropriate to the CGU.

Pascua-Lama

The FVLCD for Pascua-Lama was determined by considering observable market values for comparable assets expressed as dollar per ounce of measured and indicated resources (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). We used the market approach as the LOM for Pascua-Lama has significant uncertainty with respect to the scope and estimated timeline for the project. The observable market values were adjusted, where appropriate, for country risk if the comparable asset was in a different country.

Copper

For our copper operating segments, the FVLCD for each of the CGUs was determined based on the NPV of future cash flows expected to be generated using the most recent LOM plans (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). Based on observable market or publicly available data including spot and forward prices and equity sell-side analyst consensus, we make an assumption of future copper prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each copper mine are discounted using a WACC depending on the location and market risk factors for each mine.

Assumptions

Our gold price assumptions used in our 2017 impairment testing is $1,200 per ounce. Our gold price assumptions used in our 2016 impairment testing were 2017: $1,050 per ounce and 2018+: $1,200 per ounce. The other key assumptions used in our impairment testing, based on the CGUs tested in each year, are summarized in the table below:

	2017			2016
Copper price per lb (long-term)		$2.75			$2.75
WACC - gold (range)	3%-11%			3%-6%
WACC - gold (avg)	6		%	4		%
WACC - copper	9		%	9		%
NAV multiple - gold (avg)	1.2			1.2
LOM years - gold (avg)	17			15
Value per ounce of gold	$30 - $55			n/a
Value per ounce of silver	$0.41 - $0.76			n/a

Sensitivities

Should there be a significant increase or decline in commodity prices, we would take actions to assess the implications on our life of mine plans, including the determination of reserves and resources, and the appropriate cost structure for the operating segments. The recoverable amount of the CGUs would be affected by these changes and also be impacted by other market factors such as changes in net asset value multiples and the value per ounce/pound of comparable market entities.

We performed a sensitivity analysis on each CGU that was tested as part of the goodwill impairment test, as well as those CGUs which have had an impairment or impairment reversal in recent years. We flexed the gold and copper prices and the WACC, which are the most significant assumptions that impact the impairment calculations. We first assumed a +/- $100 per ounce change in our gold price assumptions or a +/- $0.25 per pound change in copper price assumptions, while holding all other assumptions constant. We then assumed a +/- 1% change in our WACC, independent from the change in gold or copper prices, while holding all other assumptions constant. These sensitivities help to determine the theoretical impairment losses or impairment reversals that would be recorded with these changes in gold or copper prices and WACC. If the gold price per ounce was decreased by $100, a further non-current asset impairment of $172 million, net of tax, would be recognized for Bulyanhulu, with a similar increase in the gold price per ounce resulting in a reduction in the impairment of $172 million. The partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment reversal recorded for Lumwana would not be recognized if the copper price per ounce was decreased by $0.25 and would result in the recognition of a further impairment reversal of $303 million if the copper price per ounce was increased by $0.25. Lumwana was otherwise not affected by the sensitivity analysis.

Other results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows:

	(Impairment)/reversal based on
Operating Segment	Gold price	Gold price
	+$100	-$100
Pueblo Viejo	$546	($651)
Lagunas Norte	-	(311)
Veladero	-	(188)

We also performed a sensitivity analysis on our WACC, which is another key input that impacts the impairment calculations. We assumed a +/-1% change on the WACC, while holding all other assumptions constant, to determine the impact on impairment losses recorded, and whether any additional operating segments would be impacted. The results of this analysis are as follows:

A 1% decrease in the WACC would result in a partial reversal of $425 million of the non-current asset impairment recorded in 2015 at Pueblo Viejo. It would also result in the recognition of a further $63 million non-current asset impairment at Bulyanhulu, while a 1% increase in the WACC would result in a reduction of similar value in the impairment recognized at Bulyanhulu.

In addition, for our Pascua-Lama project, we have determined our valuation based on a market approach. The key assumption that impacts the impairment calculations is the value per ounce of gold and per pound of silver based on an analysis of comparable companies. We assumed a negative 10% change for the assumption of gold and silver value per ounce, while holding all other assumptions constant, and based on the results of the impairment testing performed in fourth quarter 2017 for Pascua-Lama, the fair value of the CGU would have been reduced from $850 million to $750 million. We note that this sensitivity identifies the decrease in the value that, in isolation, would cause the carrying value of the CGU to exceed its recoverable amount. For Pascua-Lama, this value decrease is linear to the decrease in value per ounce/pound.

The carrying value of the CGUs that are most sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the FVLCD calculation are:

As at December 31, 2017	Carrying Value
Pueblo Viejo1		$3,077
Veladero2	1,016
Lumwana3	849
Norte Abierto2,4	817
Bulyanhulu3	600
Lagunas Norte5	458
Buzwagi	194
Pascua-Lama3,6,7		$38

¹  This CGU had an impairment loss in 2015. As there have been no indicators of impairment or impairment reversal in 2017, the carrying value would remain sensitive to the key assumptions in the FVLCD model from 2015.

²  As a result of partial divestments that occurred in 2017 (refer to notes 4a and 4b) these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the purchase price allocations.

³  As a result of the impairment/reversal recorded in 2017 these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁴  Norte Abierto is the new name of our joint venture with Goldcorp, comprised of the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  As a result of the reversal recorded in 2016 this CGU was remeasured to fair value and is sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁶  The carrying value of Pascua-Lama includes the deferred revenue liability relating to the Wheaton Precious Metals stream ($812 million).

⁷  This CGU is most sensitive to changes in the value per ounce of comparable market entities.

XML

OTHER ASSETS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

OTHER ASSETS

OTHER ASSETS

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Derivative assets (note 25f)		$1		$1
Goods and services taxes recoverable1	398		303
Notes receivable2	279		274
Restricted cash3	119		118
Prepayments	42		51
Norte Abierto JV Partner Receivable	166		—
Other	265		199
		$1,270		$946

¹  Includes VAT and fuel tax receivables of $220 million in Argentina, $132 million in Tanzania and $46 million in Chile (Dec. 31, 2016: $255 million, $8 million and $40 million, respectively). The VAT in Argentina is recoverable once Pascua-Lama enters production.

²  Primarily represents the interest bearing promissory note due from NovaGold and the non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV as a result of the divestment of 50 percent interest in Jabal Sayid.

³  Represents cash balance at Pueblo Viejo that is contractually restricted to the disbursements for environmental rehabilitation that are expected to occur near the end of Pueblo Viejo’s mine life.

XML

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Accounts payable		$760		$749
Accruals	299		335
		$1,059		$1,084

XML

OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES

OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Provision for environmental rehabilitation (note 27b)		$152		$67
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)	30		50
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement	85		77
Share-based payments (note 34b)	17		53
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement	7		26
Other	40		36
		$331		$309

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Financial Instruments [Abstract]

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Financial instruments include cash; evidence of ownership in an entity; or a contract that imposes an obligation on one party and conveys a right to a second entity to deliver/receive cash or another financial instrument. Information on certain types of financial instruments is included elsewhere in these consolidated financial statements as follows: accounts receivable (note 18); restricted share units (note 34b).

a) Cash and Equivalents

Cash and equivalents include cash, term deposits, treasury bills and money market investments with original maturities of less than 90 days.

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Cash deposits		$662		$1,009
Term deposits	427		654
Money market investments	1,145		726
		$2,234		$2,389

Of total cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2017, $305 million (2016: $943 million) was held in subsidiaries which have regulatory regulations, contractual restrictions or operate in countries where exchange controls and other legal restrictions apply and are therefore not available for general use by the Company.

b) Debt and Interest¹ 

	Closing balance December 31, 2016			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2017
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$1,467			$—		$—			$1			$1,468
3.85%/5.25% notes	1,078			—		—			1			1,079
5.80% notes4,9	395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9	593			—		—			—			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9	1,607			—		(279		)	(2		)	1,326
Project financing	400			—		(423		)	23			—
Capital leases7	114			—		(68		)	—			46
Other debt obligations	609			—		(4		)	(2		)	603
4.10%/5.75% notes8,9	1,569			—		(731		)	4			842
Acacia credit facility10	99			—		(28		)	—			71
		$7,931			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,423
Less: current portion11	(143		)	—		—			—			(59		)
		$7,788			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,364

	Closing balance December 31, 2015			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2016
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$2,182			$—		($721	)		$6			$1,467
3.85%/5.25% notes	1,077			—		—			1			1,078
5.80% notes4,9	395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9	592			—		—			1			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9	2,451			—		(848		)	4			1,607
Project financing	646			—		(254		)	8			400
Capital leases7	153			2		(41		)	—			114
Other debt obligations	654			3		(46		)	(2		)	609
2.5%/4.10%/5.75% notes8,9	1,690			—		(123		)	2			1,569
Acacia credit facility10	128			—		(29		)	—			99
		$9,968			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,931
Less: current portion11	(203		)	—		—			—			(143		)
		$9,765			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,788

¹  The agreements that govern our long-term debt each contain various provisions which are not summarized herein. These provisions allow Barrick, at its option, to redeem indebtedness prior to maturity at specified prices and also may permit redemption of debt by Barrick upon the occurrence of certain specified changes in tax legislation.

²  Amortization of debt premium/discount and increases (decreases) in capital leases.

³  Consists of $1.5 billion (2016: $1.5 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick North America Finance LLC (“BNAF”). This consists of $629 million (2016: $629 million) of BNAF notes due 2021 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BNAF notes due 2041.

⁴  Consists of $400 million (2016: $400 million) of 5.80% notes which mature in 2034.

⁵  Consists of $600 million (2016: $600 million) of 6.35% notes which mature in 2036.

⁶  Consists of $1.3 billion (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF and our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”). This consists of $248 million (2016: $248 million) of BPDAF notes due 2020, $250 million (2016: $250 million) of BNAF notes due 2038 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BPDAF notes due 2039.

⁷  Consists primarily of capital leases at Pascua-Lama, $13 million and Lagunas Norte, $27 million (2016: $50 million and $56 million, respectively).

⁸  Consists of $850 million (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF.

⁹  We provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on all BNAF, BPDAF, Barrick Gold Finance Company (“BGFC”), and Barrick (HMC) Mining (“BHMC”) notes and generally provide such guarantees on all BNAF, BPDAF, BGFC, and BHMC notes issued, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

¹⁰  Consists of an export credit backed term loan facility.

¹¹  The current portion of long-term debt consists of project financing ($nil; 2016: $72 million), other debt obligations ($4 million; 2016: $5 million), capital leases ($27 million; 2016: $38 million) and Acacia credit facility ($28 million; 2016: $28 million).

1.75%/2.9%/4.4%/5.7% Notes

In June 2011, BNAF issued an aggregate of $4.0 billion in debt securities comprised of: $700 million of 1.75% notes that had an original maturity date in 2014 and $1.1 billion of 2.90% notes that had an original maturity date in 2016 issued by Barrick (collectively, the “Barrick Notes”) as well as $1.35 billion of 4.40% notes that mature in 2021 and $850 million of 5.70% notes that mature in 2041 issued by BNAF (collectively, the “BNAF Notes”). Barrick provides an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the BNAF Notes. The Barrick Notes and the guarantee in respect of the BNAF Notes will rank equally with Barrick’s other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, the entire balance ($700 million) of the 1.75% notes was repaid along with $871 million of the $1.1 billion of 2.9% notes. During 2015, the remainder ($229 million) of the $1.1 billion of 2.9% notes was repaid. During 2016, $721 million of the $1.35 billion of the 4.4% notes was repaid.

3.85% and 5.25% Notes

On April 3, 2012, we issued an aggregate of $2 billion in debt securities comprised of $1.25 billion of 3.85% notes that mature in 2022 and $750 million of 5.25% notes that mature in 2042. During 2015, $913 million of the 3.85% notes was repaid.

Other Fixed Rate Notes

On October 16, 2009, we issued two tranches of debentures totaling $1.25 billion through our wholly-owned indirect subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”) consisting of $850 million of 30-year notes with a coupon rate of 5.95%, and $400 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 4.95%. We also provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of these payments, which rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations. During 2016, $152 million of the $400 million of the 4.95% notes was repaid.

On March 19, 2009, we issued an aggregate of $750 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.95% for general corporate purposes. The notes are unsecured, unsubordinated obligations and rankequally with our other unsecured, unsubordinated obligations. During 2015, $275 million was repaid. During 2016, an additional $196 million was repaid. During 2017, the remaining $279 million was repaid.

In September 2008, we issued an aggregate of $1.25 billion of notes through our wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries Barrick North America Finance LLC and Barrick Gold Financeco LLC (collectively, the “LLCs”) consisting of $500 million of 5-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.125%, $500 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.8%, and $250 million of 30-year notes with a coupon rate of 7.5%. We also provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of these payments, which rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, the entire balance ($500 million) of the 5-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.125% that was due in September 2013 was repaid. During 2016, the entire balance ($500 million) of the 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.8% was repaid.

Pueblo Viejo Project Financing Agreement

In April 2010, Barrick and Goldcorp finalized terms for $1.035 billion (100% basis) in project financing for Pueblo Viejo. The project financing was non-recourse subject to guarantees provided by Barrick and Goldcorp for their proportionate share which would terminate upon Pueblo Viejo meeting certain operating completion tests and are subject to an exclusion for certain political risk events. On February 17, 2015, we received notification that the completion tests had been met, resulting in termination of the guarantees. The lending syndicate was comprised of international financial institutions including export development agencies and commercial banks.

We had drawn the entire $1.035 billion. During 2017, the remaining principal balance of the Pueblo Viejo Financing Agreement was fully repaid.

Refinancing of the Credit Facility

In January 2012, we finalized a credit and guarantee agreement (the “Credit Facility”, previously referred to as the “2012 Credit Facility”) with certain Lenders, which requires such Lenders to make available to us a credit facility of $4.0 billion or the equivalent amount in Canadian dollars. The Credit Facility, which is unsecured, currently has an interest rate of London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 2.00% on drawn amounts, and a commitment rate of 0.35% on undrawn amounts. In November 2017, $3.977 billion of the $4 billion credit facility was agreed to be extended from January 2022 to January 2023. The remaining $23 million currently terminates in January 2020. The Credit Facility is undrawn as at December 31, 2017.

2.50%/4.10%/5.75% Notes

On May 2, 2013, we issued an aggregate of $3 billion in notes through Barrick and our wholly-owned indirect subsidiary BNAF consisting of $650 million of 2.50% notes that mature in 2018, $1.5 billion of 4.10% notes that mature in 2023 and $850 million of 5.75% notes issued by BNAF that mature in 2043. $2 billion of the net proceeds from this offering were used to repay existing indebtedness under our $4 billion revolving credit facility. We provided an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on the $850 million of 5.75% notes issued by BNAF, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, $398 million of the $650 million2.50% notes were repaid. During 2015, $769 million of 4.10% notes and $129 million of 2.5% notes were repaid. During 2016, the remainder ($123 million) of the $650 million of the 2.50% notes was repaid. During 2017, the remaining $731 million of the 4.10% notes was repaid.

Acacia Credit Facility

In January 2013, Acacia concluded negotiations with a group of commercial banks for the provision of an export credit backed term loan facility (the “Facility”) for the amount of US $142 million. The Facility was put in place to fund a substantial portion of the construction costs of the CIL circuit at the process plant at the Bulyanhulu Project. The Facility is collateralized by the Bulyanhulu Project, has a term of seven years and, when drawn, the spread over LIBOR will be 250 basis points. The Facility is repayable in equal installments over the term of the Facility, after a two-year repayment holiday period. The interest rate has been fixed at an effective rate of 3.6% through the use of an interest rate swap. At December 31, 2014, the full value of the Facility was drawn. During 2015, $14 million was repaid. During 2016, $29 million was repaid. During 2017, $28 million was repaid.

	2017				2016
For the years ended December 31	Interest cost		Effective rate1		Interest cost		Effective rate1
4.4%/5.7% notes		$77	5.23	%		$104	5.09	%
3.85%/5.25% notes	53		4.87	%	53		4.87	%
5.80% notes	23		5.85	%	23		5.85	%
6.35% notes	38		6.41	%	38		6.41	%
Other fixed rate notes	93		6.38	%	128		6.75	%
Project financing	14		7.04	%	33		6.23	%
Capital leases	3		3.60	%	5		4.02	%
Other debt obligations	31		6.55	%	36		6.09	%
4.10%/5.75% notes	72		5.12	%	82		4.98	%
Acacia credit facility	6		3.59	%	7		3.59	%
Deposits on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement (note 29)	66		8.37	%	63		8.37	%
Deposits on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement (note 29)	35		6.14	%	37		6.34	%
		$511				$609

¹  The effective rate includes the stated interest rate under the debt agreement, amortization of debt issue costs and debt discount/premium and the impact of interest rate contracts designated in a hedging relationship with debt.

Scheduled Debt Repayments¹ 

	Issuer	Maturity Year	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023 and thereafter		Total
4.95% notes3	BPDAF	2020		$—		$—		$248		$—		$—		$—		$248
7.31% notes2	BGC	2021	—		—		—		7		—		—		7
4.40% notes	BNAF	2021	—		—		—		629		—		—		629
3.85% notes	BGC	2022	—		—		—		—		337		—		337
7.73% notes2	BGC	2025	—		—		—		—		—		7		7
7.70% notes2	BGC	2025	—		—		—		—		—		5		5
7.37% notes2	BGC	2026	—		—		—		—		—		32		32
8.05% notes2	BGC	2026	—		—		—		—		—		15		15
6.38% notes2	BGC	2033	—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes	BGC	2034	—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes	BGFC	2034	—		—		—		—		—		200		200
6.45% notes2	BGC	2035	—		—		—		—		—		300		300
6.35% notes	BHMC	2036	—		—		—		—		—		600		600
7.50% notes3	BNAF	2038	—		—		—		—		—		250		250
5.95% notes3	BPDAF	2039	—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.70% notes	BNAF	2041	—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.25% notes	BGC	2042	—		—		—		—		—		750		750
5.75% notes	BNAF	2043	—		—		—		—		—		850		850
Other debt obligations2			4		5		—		—		—		—		9
Acacia credit facility			28		28		15		—		—		—		71
				$32		$33		$263		$636		$337		$5,109		$6,410
Minimum annual payments under capital leases				$27		$11		$4		$1		$1		$2		$46

¹  This table illustrates the contractual undiscounted cash flows, and may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the consolidated balance sheet.

²  Included in Other debt obligations in the Long-Term Debt table.

³  Included in Other fixed rate notes in the Long-Term Debt table.

c)    Derivative Instruments (“Derivatives”)

In the normal course of business, our assets, liabilities and forecasted transactions, as reported in US dollars, are impacted by various market risks including, but not limited to:

Item	Impacted by
●    Sales	●    Prices of gold, silver and copper
o    By-product credits	o    Prices of silver, copper and gold
●    Cost of sales
o    Consumption of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity	o    Prices of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity
o    Non-US dollar expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    General and administration, exploration and evaluation costs	●    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, GBP, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    Capital expenditures
o    Non-US dollar capital expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, GBP, PGK, and ZAR
o    Consumption of steel	o    Price of steel
●    Interest earned on cash and equivalents	●    US dollar interest rates
●    Interest paid on fixed-rate borrowings	●    US dollar interest rates

The time frame and manner in which we manage those risks varies for each item based upon our assessment of the risk and available alternatives for mitigating risk. For these particular risks, we believe that derivatives are an appropriate way of managing the risk.

We use derivatives as part of our risk management program to mitigate variability associated with changing market values related to the hedged item. Many of the derivatives we use meet the hedge effectiveness criteria and are designated in a hedge accounting relationship.

Certain derivatives are designated as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”) or hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”), collectively known as “accounting hedges”. Hedges that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Some of the derivatives we use are effective in achieving our risk management objectives, but they do not meet the strict hedge accounting criteria. These derivatives are considered to be “non-hedge derivatives”.

d)    Summary of Derivatives at December 31, 2017

	Notional Amount by Term to Maturity								Accounting Classification by Notional Amount
	Within 1 year		2 to 3 years		4 to 5 years		Total		Cash flow hedge		Non-Hedge		Fair value (USD)
US dollar interest rate contracts (US$ millions)
Total receive - float swap positions		$28		$43		$—		$71		$71		$—		$1
Currency contracts
A$:US$ contracts (A$ millions)	21		—		—		21		—		21		—
C$:US$ contracts (C$ millions)	8		—		—		8		—		8		—
PGK:US$ contracts (PGK millions)	32		—		—		32		—		32		—
Commodity contracts
Gold collar sell contracts (thousands of ounces)	105		—		—		105		—		105		2
Copper bought floor contracts (millions of pounds)	60		—		—		60		60		—		(8		)
Fuel contracts (thousands of barrels)1	1,244		42		—		1,286		840		446		(24		)

¹  Fuel contracts represent a combination of WTI swaps and Brent options. These derivatives hedge physical supply contracts based on the price of fuel across our operating mine sites plus a spread. WTI represents West Texas Intermediate and Brent represents Brent Crude Oil.

Fair Values of Derivative Instruments

	Asset Derivatives					Liability Derivatives
	Balance Sheet Classification	Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2016		Balance Sheet Classification	Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2016
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments
US dollar interest rate contracts	Other assets		$1		$1	Other liabilities		$—		$—
Commodity contracts	Other assets	—		—		Other liabilities	25		71
Total derivatives classified as hedging instruments			$1		$1			$25		$71
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
Commodity contracts	Other assets		$2		$1	Other liabilities		$7		$7
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments			$2		$1			$7		$7
Total derivatives			$3		$2			$32		$78

As of December 31, 2017, we had 18 counterparties to our derivative positions. We proactively manage our exposure to individual counterparties in order to mitigate both credit and liquidity risks. We have six counterparties with which we hold a net asset position of $2 million, and 12 counterparties with which we are in a net liability position, for a total net liability of $31 million. On an ongoing basis, we monitor our exposures and ensure that none of the counterparties with which we hold outstanding contracts has declared insolvency.

US Dollar Interest Rate Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

At December 31, 2017, Acacia has $71 million of pay-fixed receive-float interest rate swaps to hedge the floating rate debt associated with the Bulyanhulu plant expansion. These contracts, designated as cash flow hedges, convert the floating rate debt as it is drawn against the financing agreement.

Currency Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

During the year, no currency contracts have been designated against forecasted non-US dollar denominated expenditures. As at December 31, 2017, there are no outstanding currency contracts designated as cash flow hedges of our anticipated operating, administrative and sustaining capital spend.

During 2013, we sold back and effectively closed out approximately A $990 million of our Australian dollar forward contracts as a loss mitigation strategy. No cash settlement occurred and payments will net at maturity (2014-2016). During 2016, losses of $14 million were recognized in the consolidated statement of income based on the original hedge contract maturity dates. No losses remain crystallized in OCI at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017.

Commodity Contracts

Diesel/Propane/Electricity/Natural Gas

Cash Flow Hedges

During 2015, 8,040 thousand barrels of WTI contracts designated against forecasted fuel consumption at our mines were designated as hedging instruments as a result of adopting IFRS 9 and did not qualify for hedge accounting prior to January 1, 2015. As at December 31, 2017, we have 840 thousand barrels of WTI designated as cash flow hedges at an average rate of $79 per barrel of our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases at our mines.

Non-hedge Derivatives

During the year, Acacia entered into a contract to purchase 79 thousand barrels of Brent to economically hedge our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases for expected consumption at our mines. In total, on a combined basis Acacia has 206 thousand barrels of Brent swaps outstanding that economically hedge our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases at our mines.

Metals Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

During 2017, we purchased 115 million pounds of copper collars, of which 60 million pounds remain outstanding at December 31, 2017. The outstanding positions will mature evenly throughout the first half of 2018. These contracts contained purchased put and sold call options with weighted average strike prices of $2.83/lb and $3.25/lb, respectively. These contracts are designated as cash flow hedges, with the effective portion and the changes in time value of the hedge recognized in OCI and the ineffective portion recognized in non-hedge derivative gains (losses).

During 2014, we early terminated 65 million ounces of silver hedges. We realized net cash proceeds of approximately $190 million with $2 million remaining crystallized in OCI at December 31, 2017, to be recognized in revenue as the exposure occurs. Any unrealized changes and realized gains/losses on ineffective amounts or time value have been recognized in the consolidated statements of income as gains on non-hedge derivatives.

Non-hedge Derivatives

We enter into purchased and written contracts with the primary objective of increasing the realized price on some of our gold and copper sales. During the year, Acacia purchased gold put options of 210 thousand ounces. As a result of these activities, we recorded approximately $4 million in the consolidated statement of income as gains on non-hedge derivatives. There are 105 thousand ounces of gold positions outstanding at December 31, 2017.

Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”)

	Commodity price hedges									Currency hedges							Interest rate hedges
	Gold/Silver			Copper			Fuel			Operating costs			General and administrative costs		Capital expenditures		Long-term debt			Total
At January 1, 2016		$14			$—			($102	)		($30	)		$—		$—		($22	)		($140	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	—			—			23			2			—		—		—			25
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1	(5		)	—			47			28			—		—		2			72
At December 31, 2016		$9			$—			($32	)		$—			$—		$—		($20	)		($43	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	—			(11		)	(8		)	—			—		—		—			(19		)
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1	(7		)	4			27			—			—		—		3			27
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	—			—			5			—			—		—		—			5
At December 31, 2017		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($17	)		($30	)
Hedge gains/losses classified within	Gold/Silver sales			Copper sales			Cost of sales			Cost of sales			General and administrative costs		Property, plant, and equipment		Interest expense			Total
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2018 earnings2		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($1	)		($14	)

¹  Realized gains (losses) on qualifying currency hedges of capital expenditures are transferred from OCI to PP&E on settlement.

²  Based on the fair value of hedge contracts at December 31, 2017.

Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) at December 31

Derivatives in cash flow hedging relationships	Amount of gain (loss) recognized in OCI					Location of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income/PP&E (effective portion)	Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)						Location of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)
	2017			2016			2017			2016				2017			2016
Interest rate contracts		($1	)		$—	Finance income/ finance costs		($3	)		($2	)	Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives		$—			$—
Foreign exchange contracts	—			2		Cost of sales/general and administrative costs/PP&E	—			(28		)	Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	—			—
Commodity contracts	(18		)	23		Revenue/cost of sales	(24		)	(42		)	Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	(5		)	—
Total		($19	)		$25			($27	)		($72	)			($5	)		$—

e)     Gains (Losses) on Non-hedge Derivatives

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Commodity contracts
Gold		$4			$2
Silver1	7			6
Copper	(1		)	—
Fuel	—			5
Currency Contracts	1			(1		)
		$11			$12
Hedge ineffectiveness	(5		)	—
		$6			$12

¹  Relates to the amortization of crystallized OCI.

f)  Derivative Assets and Liabilities

	2017			2016
At January 1		($76	)		($263	)
Derivatives cash (inflow) outflow
Operating activities	62			156
Change in fair value of:
Non-hedge derivatives	4			6
Cash flow hedges:
Effective portion	(19		)	25
Ineffective portion	5			—
Excluded from effectiveness changes	(5		)	—
At December 31		($29	)		($76	)
Classification:
Other current assets		$2			$1
Other long-term assets	1			1
Other current liabilities	(30		)	(50		)
Other long-term obligations	(2		)	(28		)
		($29	)		($76	)

XML

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction

between market participants at the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy establishes three levels to classify the

inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active

markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for

similar assets or liabilities in active markets, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability

(for example, interest rate and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, forward pricing curves used to

value currency and commodity contracts and volatility measurements used to value option contracts), or inputs that are

derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data or other means. Level 3 inputs are unobservable

(supported by little or no market activity). The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 inputs and the

lowest priority to Level 3 inputs.

a)     Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2017	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs			Significant Unobservable Inputs		Aggregate Fair Value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)			(Level 3)
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—			$—		$2,234
Other investments	33		—			—		33
Derivatives	—		(29		)	—		(29		)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales	—		110			—		110
		$2,267		$81			$—		$2,348
Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2016	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs			Significant Unobservable Inputs		Aggregate Fair Value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)			(Level 3)
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—			$—		$2,389
Other investments	18		—			—		18
Derivatives	—		(76		)	—		(76		)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales	—		110			—		110
		$2,407		$34			$—		$2,441

b)   Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

	At Dec. 31, 2017				At Dec. 31, 2016
	Carrying amount		Estimated fair value		Carrying amount		Estimated fair value
Financial assets
Other assets1		$572		$572		$399		$399
Other investments2	33		33		18		18
Derivative assets	3		3		2		2
		$608		$608		$419		$419
Financial liabilities
Debt3		$6,423		$7,715		$7,931		$8,279
Derivative liabilities	32		32		78		78
Other liabilities	252		252		216		216
		$6,707		$7,999		$8,225		$8,573

¹  Includes restricted cash and amounts due from our partners.

²  Recorded at fair value. Quoted market prices are used to determine fair value.

³  Debt is generally recorded at amortized cost except for obligations that are designated in a fair-value hedge relationship, in which case the carrying amount is adjusted for changes in fair value of the hedging instrument in periods when a hedge relationship exists. The fair value of debt is primarily determined using quoted market prices. Balance includes both current and long-term portions of debt.

We do not offset financial assets with financial liabilities.

c)   Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Non-Recurring Basis

	Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets		Significant other observable inputs		Significant unobservable inputs		Aggregate fair value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)		(Level 3)
Other assets1		$—		$—		$45		$45
Property, plant and equipment2	—		—		6,105		6,105
Intangible assets3	—		—		34		34

¹  Other assets were written down by $30 million, which was included in earnings in this period.

²  Property, plant and equipment were written up by $254 million, which was included in earnings in this period, reflecting the historical impairment loss taken on these assets.

³  Intangibles were written down by $12 million, which was included in earnings in this period, to their fair value less costs of disposal of $34 million.

Valuation Techniques

Cash Equivalents

The fair value of our cash equivalents is classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices in active markets. Our cash equivalents are comprised of U.S. Treasury bills and money market securities that are invested primarily in U.S. Treasury bills.

Other Investments

The fair value of other investments is determined based on the closing price of each security at the balance sheet date. The closing price is a quoted market price obtained from the exchange that is the principal active market for the particular security, and therefore other investments are classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

Derivative Instruments

The fair value of derivative instruments is determined using either present value techniques or option pricing models that utilize a variety of inputs that are a combination of quoted prices and market-corroborated inputs. The fair value of all our derivative contracts includes an adjustment for credit risk. For counterparties in a net asset position, credit risk is based upon the observed credit default swap spread for each particular counterparty, as appropriate. For counterparties in a net liability position, credit risk is based upon Barrick’s observed credit default swap spread. The fair value of US dollar interest rate and currency swap contracts is determined by discounting contracted cash flows using a discount rate derived from observed LIBOR and swap rate curves and Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) rates. In the case of currency contracts, we convert non-US dollar cash flows into US dollars using an exchange rate derived from currency swap curves and CDS rates. The fair value of commodity forward contracts is determined by discounting contractual cash flows using a discount rate derived from observed LIBOR and swap rate curves and CDS rates. Contractual cash flows are calculated using a forward pricing curve derived from observed forward prices for each commodity. Derivative instruments are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Receivables from Provisional Copper and Gold Sales

The fair value of receivables arising from copper and gold sales contracts that contain provisional pricing mechanisms is determined using the appropriate quoted forward price from the exchange that is the principal active market for the particular metal. As such, these receivables, which meet the definition of an embedded derivative, are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Other Long-Term Assets

The fair value of property, plant and equipment, goodwill, intangibles and other assets is determined primarily using an income approach based on unobservable cash flows and a market multiples approach where applicable, and as a result is classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Refer to note 21 for disclosure of inputs used to develop these measures.

XML

PROVISIONS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Other provisions [abstract]

PROVISIONS

PROVISIONS

a) Provisions

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Environmental rehabilitation ("PER")		$2,944		$2,179
Post-retirement benefits	48		72
Share-based payments	37		34
Other employee benefits	27		45
Other	85		33
		$3,141		$2,363

b) Environmental Rehabilitation

	2017			2016
At January 1		$2,246			$1,982
PERs divested during the year	(31		)	—
Closed Sites
Impact of revisions to expected cash flows recorded in earnings	46			146
Settlements
Cash payments	(41		)	(28		)
Settlement gains	(1		)	(1		)
Accretion	12			10
Operating Sites
PERs arising in the year	836			134
Settlements
Cash payments	(18		)	(34		)
Settlement gains	(1		)	(3		)
Accretion	48			40
At December 31		$3,096			$2,246
Current portion (note 24)	(152		)	(67		)
		$2,944			$2,179

The eventual settlement of substantially all PERs is expected to take place between 2018 and 2058.

The PER has increased in the fourth quarter of 2017 by $864 million primarily due to changes in cost estimates at our Pascua-Lama, Lagunas Norte and Veladero properties, partially offset by changes in discount rates. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our PER balance increased by $850 million as a result of various impacts at our mine sites including new requirements related to water treatment, expanded footprints of our operations and updated estimates for reclamation activities. A 1% increase in the discount rate would result in a decrease in PER by $385 million and a 1% decrease in the discount rate would result in an increase in PER by $257 million, while holding the other assumptions constant.

XML

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Financial Instruments [Abstract]

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

Our financial instruments are comprised of financial liabilities and financial assets. Our principal financial liabilities, other than derivatives, comprise accounts payable and debt. The main purpose of these financial instruments is to manage short-term cash flow and raise funds for our capital expenditure program. Our principal financial assets, other than derivative instruments, are cash and equivalents and accounts receivable, which arise directly from our operations. In the normal course of business, we use derivative instruments to mitigate exposure to various financial risks.

We manage our exposure to key financial risks in accordance with our financial risk management policy. The objective of the policy is to support the delivery of our financial targets while protecting future financial security. The main risks that could adversely affect our financial assets, liabilities or future cash flows are as follows:

a. Market risk, including commodity price risk, foreign currency and interest rate risk;

b. Credit risk;

c. Liquidity risk; and

d. Capital risk management.

Management designs strategies for managing each of these risks, which are summarized below. Our senior management oversees the management of financial risks. Our senior management ensures that our financial risk-taking activities are governed by policies and procedures and that financial risks are identified, measured and managed in accordance with our policies and our risk appetite. All derivative activities for risk management purposes are carried out by the appropriate personnel.

a) Market Risk

Market risk is the risk that changes in market factors, such as commodity prices, foreign exchange rates or interest rates, will affect the value of our financial instruments. We manage market risk by either accepting it or mitigating it through the use of derivatives and other economic hedging strategies.

Commodity Price Risk

Gold and Copper

We sell our gold and copper production in the world market. The market prices of gold and copper are the primary drivers of our profitability and ability to generate both operating and free cash flow. Our corporate treasury group implements hedging strategies on an opportunistic basis to protect us from downside price risk on our gold and copper production. We have 60 million pounds of copper positions outstanding at December 31, 2017. Acacia has 105 thousand ounces of gold positions outstanding at December 31, 2017 and purchased an additional 120 thousand ounces of gold put options subsequent to year end. Our remaining gold and copper production is subject to market prices.

Fuel

On average we consume approximately 4 million barrels of diesel fuel annually across all our mines. Diesel fuel is refined from crude oil and is therefore subject to the same price volatility affecting crude oil prices. Therefore, volatility in crude oil prices has a significant direct and indirect impact on our production costs. To mitigate this volatility, we employ a strategy of using financial contracts to hedge our exposure to oil prices.

Foreign Currency Risk

The functional and reporting currency for all of our operating segments is the US dollar and we report our results using the US dollar. The majority of our operating and capital expenditures are denominated and settled in US dollars. We have exposure to the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar through a combination of mine operating costs and general and administrative costs; and to the Papua New Guinea kina, Peruvian sol, Chilean peso, Argentinean peso, Dominican Republic peso and Zambian kwacha through mine operating costs. Consequently, fluctuations in the US dollar exchange rate against these currencies increase the volatility of cost of sales, general and administrative costs and overall net earnings, when translated into US dollars.

Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk refers to the risk that the value of a financial instrument or cash flows associated with the instruments will fluctuate due to changes in market interest rates. Currently, our interest rate exposure mainly relates to interest receipts on our cash balances ($2.2 billion at the end of the year); the mark-to-market value of derivative instruments; the fair value and ongoing payments under US dollar interest-rate swaps; and to the interest payments on our variable-rate debt ($0.1 billion at December 31, 2017).

The effect on net earnings and equity of a 1% change in the interest rate of our financial assets and liabilities as at December 31, is approximately $10 million (2016: $13 million).

b) Credit Risk

Credit risk is the risk that a third party might fail to fulfill its performance obligations under the terms of a financial instrument. Credit risk arises from cash and equivalents, trade and other receivables as well as derivative assets. For cash and equivalents and trade and other receivables, credit risk exposure equals the carrying amount on the balance sheet, net of any overdraft positions. To mitigate our inherent exposure to credit risk we maintain policies to limit the concentration of credit risk, review counterparty creditworthiness on a monthly basis, and ensure liquidity of available funds. We also invest our cash and equivalents in highly rated financial institutions, primarily within the United States and other investment grade countries, which are countries rated BBB- or higher by S&P and include Canada, Chile, Australia and Peru. Furthermore, we sell our gold and copper production into the world market and to private customers with strong credit ratings. Historically customer defaults have not had a significant impact on our operating results or financial position.

For derivatives with a positive fair value, we are exposed to credit risk equal to the carrying value. When the fair value of a derivative is negative, we assume no credit risk. We mitigate credit risk on derivatives by:

• Entering into derivatives with high credit-quality counterparties;

• Limiting the amount of net exposure with each counterparty; and

• Monitoring the financial condition of counterparties on a regular basis.

The Company’s maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date is the carrying value of each of the financial assets disclosed as follows:

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$2,389
Accounts receivable	239		249
Net derivative assets by counterparty	2		1
		$2,475		$2,639

c) Liquidity Risk

Liquidity risk is the risk of loss from not having access to sufficient funds to meet both expected and unexpected cash demands. We manage our exposure to liquidity risk by maintaining cash reserves, access to undrawn credit facilities and access to public debt markets, by staggering the maturities of outstanding debt instruments to mitigate refinancing risk and by monitoring of forecasted and actual cash flows. Details of the undrawn credit facility are included in note 25.

Our capital structure comprises a mix of debt and shareholders’ equity. As at December 31, 2017, our total debt was $6.4 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $4.2 billion) compared to total debt as at December 31, 2016 of $7.9 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $5.5 billion).

As part of our capital allocation strategy, we are constantly evaluating our capital expenditures and making reductions where the risk-adjusted returns do not justify the investment. Our primary source of liquidity is our operating cash flow. Other options to enhance liquidity include drawing the $4.0 billion available under our Credit Facility (subject to compliance with covenants and the making of certain representations and warranties, this facility is available for drawdown as a source of financing), further asset sales and issuances of debt or equity securities in the public markets or to private investors, which could be undertaken for liquidity enhancement and/or in connection with establishing a strategic partnership. Many factors, including, but not limited to, general market conditions and then prevailing metals prices could impact our ability to issue securities on acceptable terms, as could our credit ratings. Moody’s and S&P rate our long-term debt Baa3 and BBB-, respectively. Changes in our ratings could affect the trading prices of our securities and our cost of capital. If we were to borrow under our Credit Facility, the applicable interest rate on the amounts borrowed would be based, in part, on our credit ratings at the time. The key financial covenant, which was amended in the fourth quarter 2015, in the Credit Facility (undrawn as at December 31, 2017) requires Barrick to maintain a net debt to total capitalization ratio, as defined in the agreement, of 0.60:1 or lower (Barrick’s net debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.27:1 as at December 31, 2017).

The following table outlines the expected maturity of our significant financial assets and liabilities into relevant maturity groupings based on the remaining period from the balance sheet date to the contractual maturity date. As the amounts presented in the table are the contractual undiscounted cash flows, these balances may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the balance sheet.

As at December 31, 2017
(in $ millions)	Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—		$—		$—		$2,234
Accounts receivable	239		—		—		—		239
Derivative assets	2		1		—		—		3
Trade and other payables	1,059		—		—		—		1,059
Debt	59		311		975		5,111		6,456
Derivative liabilities	30		2		—		—		32
Other liabilities	30		231		64		186		511
As at December 31, 2016
(in $ millions)	Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—		$—		$—		$2,389
Accounts receivable	249		—		—		—		249
Derivative assets	1		1		—		—		2
Trade and other payables	1,084		—		—		—		1,084
Debt	143		533		997		6,316		7,989
Derivative liabilities	51		27		—		—		78
Other liabilities	42		51		3		120		216

d) Capital Risk Management

Our objective when managing capital is to provide value for shareholders by maintaining an optimal short-term and long-term capital structure in order to reduce the overall cost of capital while preserving our ability to continue as a going concern. Our capital management objectives are to safeguard our ability to support our operating requirements on an ongoing basis, continue the development and exploration of our mineral properties and support any expansion plans. Our objectives are also to ensure that we maintain a strong balance sheet and optimize the use of debt and equity to support our business and provide financial flexibility in order to maximize shareholder value. We define capital as total debt less cash and equivalents and it is managed by management subject to approved policies and limits by the Board of Directors. We have no significant financial covenants or capital requirements with our lenders or other parties other than what is discussed under liquidity risk in note 28.

XML

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement		$805		$749
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement	459		499
Long-term income tax payable	259		—
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)	2		28
Provision for offsite remediation	45		48
Other	174		137
		$1,744		$1,461

Silver Sale Agreement

Our silver sale agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”) (formerly Silver Wheaton Corp.) requires us to deliver 25 percent of the life of mine silver production from the Pascua-Lama project and 100 percent of silver production from the Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines (“South American mines”) until March 31, 2018. In return, we were entitled to an upfront cash payment of $625 million payable over three years from the date of the agreement, as well as ongoing payments in cash of the lesser of $3.90 (subject to an annual inflation adjustment of 1 percent starting three years after project completion at Pascua-Lama) and the prevailing market price for each ounce of silver delivered under the agreement. An imputed interest expense is being recorded on the liability at the rate implicit in the agreement. The liability plus imputed interest will be amortized based on the difference between the effective contract price for silver and the amount of the ongoing cash payment per ounce of silver delivered under the agreement.

Gold and Silver Streaming Agreement

On September 29, 2015, we closed a gold and silver streaming transaction with Royal Gold, Inc. (“Royal Gold”) for production linked to Barrick’s 60 percent interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine. Royal Gold made an upfront cash payment of $610 million and will continue to make cash payments for gold and silver delivered under the agreement. The $610 million upfront payment is not repayable and Barrick is obligated to deliver gold and silver based on Pueblo Viejo’s production. We have accounted for the upfront payment as deferred revenue and will recognize it in earnings, along with the ongoing cash payments, as the gold and silver is delivered to Royal Gold. We will also be recording accretion expense on the deferred revenue balance as the time value of the upfront deposit represents a significant component of the transaction.

Under the terms of the agreement, Barrick will sell gold and silver to Royal Gold equivalent to:

• 7.5 percent of Barrick’s interest in the gold produced at Pueblo Viejo until 990,000 ounces of gold have been delivered, and 3.75 percent thereafter.

• 75 percent of Barrick’s interest in the silver produced at Pueblo Viejo until 50 million ounces have been delivered, and 37.5 percent thereafter. Silver will be delivered based on a fixed recovery rate of 70 percent. Silver above this recovery rate is not subject to the stream.

Barrick will receive ongoing cash payments from Royal Gold equivalent to 30 percent of the prevailing spot prices for the first 550,000 ounces of gold and 23.1 million ounces of silver delivered. Thereafter payments will double to 60 percent of prevailing spot prices for each subsequent ounce of gold and silver delivered. Ongoing cash payments to Barrick are tied to prevailing spot prices rather than fixed in advance, maintaining exposure to higher gold and silver prices in the future.

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Income Tax [Abstract]

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES

Recognition and Measurement

We record deferred income tax assets and liabilities where temporary differences exist between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities in our balance sheet and their tax bases. The measurement and recognition of deferred income tax assets and liabilities takes into account: substantively enacted rates that will apply when temporary differences reverse; interpretations of relevant tax legislation; estimates of the tax bases of assets and liabilities; and the deductibility of expenditures for income tax purposes. In addition, the measurement and recognition of deferred tax assets takes into account tax planning strategies. We recognize the effect of changes in our assessment of these estimates and factors when they occur. Changes in deferred income tax assets and liabilities are allocated between net income, other comprehensive income, and goodwill based on the source of the change.

Current income taxes of $239 million and deferred income taxes of $155 million have been provided on the undistributed earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries. Deferred income taxes have not been provided on the undistributed earnings of all other foreign subsidiaries for which we are able to control the timing of the remittance, and it is probable that there will be no remittance in the foreseeable future. These undistributed earnings amounted to $3,916 million as at December 31, 2017.

Sources of Deferred Income Tax Assets and Liabilities

	As at December 31, 2017			As at December 31, 2016
Deferred tax assets
Tax loss carry forwards		$926			$735
Environmental rehabilitation	594			639
Property, plant and equipment	175			273
Post-retirement benefit obligations and other employee benefits	49			47
Accrued interest payable	40			75
Other working capital	23			54
Derivative instruments	74			89
Other	21			41
		$1,902			$1,953
Deferred tax liabilities
Property, plant and equipment	(1,571		)	(1,963		)
Inventory	(507		)	(533		)
		($176	)		($543	)
Classification:
Non-current assets		$1,069			$977
Non-current liabilities	(1,245		)	(1,520		)
		($176	)		($543	)

The deferred tax asset of $1,069 million includes $1,064 million expected to be realized in more than one year. The deferred tax liability of $1,245 million includes $1,228 million expected to be realized in more than one year.

Expiry Dates of Tax Losses

	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022+		No expiry date		Total
Non-capital tax losses1
Canada		$—		$—		$—		$—		$2,093		$—		$2,093
Argentina	—		—		—		271		—		—		271
Barbados	4,727		922		217		13		735		—		6,614
Chile	—		—		—		—		—		1,052		1,052
Tanzania	—		—		—		—		—		1,756		1,756
Zambia	115		—		—		12		404		—		531
Other	7		—		—		—		—		568		575
		$4,849		$922		$217		$296		$3,232		$3,376		$12,892

¹  Represents the gross amount of tax loss carry forwards translated at closing exchange rates at December 31, 2017.

The non-capital tax losses include $9,153 million of losses which are not recognized in deferred tax assets. Of these, $4,843 million expire in 2018, $922 million expire in 2019, $217 million expire in 2020, $296 million expire in 2021, $1,009 million expire in 2022 or later, and $1,866 million have no expiry date.

Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets

We recognize deferred tax assets taking into account the effects of local tax law. Deferred tax assets are fully recognized when we conclude that sufficient positive evidence exists to demonstrate that it is probable that a deferred tax asset will be realized. The main factors considered are:

• Historic and expected future levels of taxable income;

• Tax plans that affect whether tax assets can be realized; and

• The nature, amount and expected timing of reversal of taxable temporary differences.

Levels of future income are mainly affected by: market gold, copper and silver prices; forecasted future costs and expenses to produce gold and copper reserves; quantities of proven and probable gold and copper reserves; market interest rates; and foreign currency exchange rates. If these factors or other circumstances change, we record an adjustment to the recognition of deferred tax assets to reflect our latest assessment of the amount of deferred tax assets that is probable will be realized.

A deferred income tax asset totaling $661 million (December 31, 2016: $569 million) has been recorded in Canada. This deferred tax asset primarily arose from derivative realized losses, finance costs, and general and administrative expenses. A deferred tax asset totaling $98 million (December 31, 2016: $126 million) has been recorded in a foreign subsidiary. This deferred tax asset primarily arose from a realized loss on internal restructuring of subsidiary corporations. Projections of various sources of income support the conclusion that the realizability of these deferred tax assets is probable and consequently, we have fully recognized these deferred tax assets.

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Australia		$158		$162
Canada	388		377
United States	—		115
Chile	993		890
Argentina	515		599
Barbados	66		66
Tanzania	209		183
Zambia	50		151
Saudi Arabia	70		70
		$2,449		$2,613

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized relate to: non-capital loss carry forwards of $690 million (2016: $638 million), capital loss carry forwards with no expiry date of $452 million (2016: $440 million), US AMT credits of $nil (2016: $113 million) and other deductible temporary differences with no expiry date of $1,307 million (2016: $1,422 million).

Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Temporary differences
Property, plant and equipment		$295			($297	)
Environmental rehabilitation	(45		)	79
Tax loss carry forwards	191			259
Inventory	26			(94		)
Derivatives	(16		)	(16		)
Other	(84		)	39
		$367			($30	)
Intraperiod allocation to:
Income from continuing operations before income taxes		($106	)		($8	)
Cerro Casale disposition	469			—
Veladero disposition	16			—
OCI	(12		)	(22		)
		$367			($30	)
Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities
	2017			2016
At January 1		$128			$61
Net additions based on uncertain tax positions related to prior years	178			70
Reductions for tax positions of prior years	—			(3		)
At December 311		$306			$128

¹  If reversed, the total amount of $306 million would be recognized as a benefit to income taxes on the income statement, and therefore would impact the reported effective tax rate.

Tax Years Still Under Examination
Canada	2015-2017
United States	2017
Dominican Republic	2013-2017
Peru	2009, 2011-2017
Chile	2013-2017
Argentina	2011-2017
Australia	2013-2017
Papua New Guinea	2006-2017
Saudi Arabia	2007-2017
Tanzania	All years open
Zambia	2010-2017

XML

CAPITAL STOCK

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Capital Stock [Abstract]

CAPITAL STOCK

CAPITAL STOCK

Authorized Capital Stock

Our authorized capital stock includes an unlimited number of common shares (issued 1,166,577,478 common shares); an unlimited number of first preferred shares issuable in series (the first series is designated the “First Preferred Shares, Series A” and consists of 10,000,000 first preferred shares (issued nil); the second series is designated as the “First Preferred Shares, Series B” and consists of 10,000,000 first preferred shares (issued nil); and the third series is designated as the “First Preferred Shares, Series C Special Voting Share” and consists of 1 Special Voting Share (issued nil)); and an unlimited number of second preferred shares issuable in series (the first series is designated as the “Second Preferred Shares, Series A” and consists of 15,000,000 second preferred shares (issued nil)). Our common shares have no par value.

Dividends

In 2017, we declared and paid dividends in US dollars totaling $125 million (2016: $86 million).

The Company’s dividend reinvestment plan resulted in $16 million (2016: $8 million) reinvested into the Company.

XML

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Interests In Other Entities [Abstract]

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS

a) Non-Controlling Interests Continuity

	Pueblo Viejo			Acacia			Cerro Casale			Other			Total
NCI in subsidiary at December 31, 2017	40		%	36.1		%	25		%	Various
At January 1, 2016		$1,232			$677			$318			$50			$2,277
Share of income (loss)	174			34			(1		)	(1		)	206
Cash contributed	—			—			2			68			70
Disbursements	(95		)	(7		)	—			(73		)	(175		)
At December 31, 2016		$1,311			$704			$319			$44			$2,378
Share of income (loss)	118			(211		)	173			(2		)	78
Cash contributed	—			—			1			12			13
Decrease in non-controlling interest	—			—			(493		)	—			(493		)
Disbursements	(139		)	(13		)	—			(43		)	(195		)
At December 31, 2017		$1,290			$480			$—			$11			$1,781

b) Summarized Financial Information on Subsidiaries with Material Non-Controlling Interests

Summarized Balance Sheets

	Pueblo Viejo				Acacia
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Current assets		$488		$833		$464		$673
Non-current assets	3,489		3,703		1,333		1,725
Total assets		$3,977		$4,536		$1,797		$2,398
Current liabilities	907		1,357		212		71
Non-current liabilities	248		603		280		381
Total liabilities		$1,155		$1,960		$492		$452

Summarized Statements of Income

	Pueblo Viejo						Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016			2017			2016
Revenue		$1,417			$1,548			$751			$1,045
Income (loss) from continuing operations after tax	293			810			(630		)	81
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—			—			—			—
Total comprehensive income (loss)		$293			$810			($630	)		$81
Dividends paid to NCI		$—			$—			$13			$7
Summarized Statements of Cash Flows
	Pueblo Viejo						Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016			2017			2016
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		$283			$602			($15	)		$324
Net cash used in investing activities	(112		)	(54		)	(160		)	(190		)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(539		)	(350		)	(62		)	(49		)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		($368	)		$198			($237	)		$85

XML

REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Key Management Personnel [Abstract]

REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

Key management personnel include the members of the Board of Directors and the executive leadership team. Compensation for key management personnel (including Directors) was as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Salaries and short-term employee benefits1		$20		$19
Post-employment benefits2	3		2
Share-based payments and other3	12		17
		$35		$38

¹ Includes annual salary and annual short-term incentives/other bonuses earned in the year.

² Represents Company contributions to retirement savings plans.

³ Relates to stock option, RSU, PGSU and PRSU grants and other compensation.

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Barrick operates various post-employment plans, including both defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans and other post-retirement plans. The table below outlines where the Company’s post-employment amounts and activity are included in the financial statements:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Balance sheet obligations for:
Defined pension benefits		$42		$66
Other post-retirement benefits	6		6
Liability in the balance sheet		$48		$72
Income statement charge included income statement for:
Defined pension benefits		$1		$4
Other post-retirement benefits	—		—
		$1		$4
Measurements for:
Defined pension benefits		$23		$11
Other post-retirement benefits	—		—
		$23		$11

The amounts recognized in the balance sheet are determined as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Present value of funded obligations		$122			$198
Fair value of plan assets	(134		)	(191		)
(Surplus) deficit of funded plans		($12	)		$7
Present value of unfunded obligations	54			59
Total deficit of defined benefit pension plans		$42			$66
Impact of minimum funding requirement/asset ceiling	—			—
Liability in the balance sheet		$42			$66

a)   Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain of our former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on an employee’s years of service. The plans operate under similar regulatory frameworks and generally face similar risks. The majority of benefit payments are from trustee-administered funds; however, there are also a number of unfunded plans where the Company meets the benefit payment obligation as it falls due. Plan assets held in trust are governed by local regulations and practice in each country. Responsibility for governance of the plans - overseeing all aspects of the plans including investment decisions and contribution schedules - lies with the Company. We have set up pension committees to assist in the management of the plans and have also appointed experienced independent professional experts such as actuaries, custodians and trustees.

The significant actuarial assumptions were as follows:

As at December 31	Pension Plans 2017	Other Post-Retirement Benefits 2017		Pension Plans 2016	Other Post-Retirement Benefits 2016
Discount rate	2.90-3.95%	3.75	%	2.10-3.90%	3.70	%

b)   Other Post-Retirement Benefits    

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees in the US. All of these plans are unfunded. The weighted average duration of the defined benefit obligation is 10 years (2016: 10 years).

	Less than a year		Between 1-2 years		Between 2-5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Pension benefits		$18		$19		$54		$313		$404
Other post-retirement benefits	1		1		2		6		10
At December 31, 2016		$19		$20		$56		$319		$414
Pension benefits	14		14		39		200		267
Other post-retirement benefits	1		1		2		5		9
At December 31, 2017		$15		$15		$41		$205		$276

c)    Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans and we also have a retirement plan for certain officers of the Company. Our share of contributions to these plans, which is expensed in the year it is earned by the employee, was $33 million in 2017 (2016: $32 million).

XML

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Share-based Payment Arrangements [Abstract]

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

a)    Global Employee Share Plan (GESP)

In 2016, Barrick launched a Global Employee Share Plan. This is a plan awarded to all eligible employees. During 2017, Barrick contributed and expensed $9 million to this plan.

b)    Restricted Share Units (RSUs) and Deferred Share Units (DSUs)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest from two-and-a-half years to three years and are settled in cash upon vesting. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

Compensation expense for RSUs incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate. At December 31, 2017, the weighted average remaining contractual life of RSUs was 1.19 years (2016: 1.09 ).

Compensation expense for RSUs was a $42 million charge to earnings in 2017 (2016: $60 million) and is presented as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration, consistent with the classification of other elements of compensation expense for those employees who had RSUs.

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive a specified portion of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs, with the option to elect to receive 100% of such retainer in DSUs. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director or officer leaves the Board or Barrick, at which time the cash value of the DSUs will be paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. DSUs are recorded at fair value on the grant date and are adjusted for changes in fair value. The fair value of amounts granted each period together with changes in fair value are expensed.

DSU and RSU Activity

	DSUs		Fair value			RSUs		Fair value
At January 1, 2016	465			$3.5		6,627			$24.6
Settled for cash	(26	)	(0.4		)	(1,102	)	(22.7		)
Forfeited	—		—			(2,952	)	(46.3		)
Granted	134		2.2			3,836		55.0
Credits for dividends	—		—			43		0.7
Change in value	—		3.8			—		47.3
At December 31, 2016	573			$9.2		6,452			$58.6
Settled for cash	—		—			(3,610	)	(62.5		)
Forfeited	—		—			(121	)	(2.3		)
Granted	152		2.5			1,760		32.7
Credits for dividends	—		—			56		0.9
Change in value	—		(0.1		)	—		10.3
At December 31, 2017	725			$11.6		4,537			$37.7

At December 31, 2017, Acacia Mining plc had $nil of DSUs outstanding (2016: $1 million) and $2 million of RSUs outstanding (2016: $3 million).

c)    Performance Restricted Share Units (PRSUs)

In 2008, Barrick launched a PRSU plan. Under this plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. At December 31, 2017, no units were outstanding (2016: 489 thousand units, fair value $6 million).

At December 31, 2017, Acacia Mining plc had $nil of PRSUs outstanding (2016: $8 million).

d)    Performance Granted Share Units (PGSUs)

In 2014, Barrick launched a PGSU plan. Under this plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. At December 31, 2017, 2,174 thousand units had been granted at a fair value of $14 million (2016: 1,536 thousand units at a value of $11 million).

e)    Employee Share Purchase Plan (ESPP)

In 2008, Barrick launched an Employee Share Purchase Plan. This plan enables Barrick employees to purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. During 2017, Barrick contributed and expensed $0.4 million to this plan (2016: $0.3 million).

f)    Stock Options

Under Barrick’s stock option plan, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted by individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest evenly over four years, beginning in the year after granting. Options are exercisable over seven years. At December 31, 2017, 1.0 million (2016: 2.1 million) stock options were outstanding.

Compensation expense for stock options was $nil in 2017 (2016: $nil ), and is presented as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration, consistent with the classification of other elements of compensation expense for those employees who had stock options. The recognition of compensation expense for stock options had no impact on earnings per share for 2017 and 2016.

Total intrinsic value relating to options exercised in 2017 was $nil (2016: $nil).

Employee Stock Option Activity (Number of Shares in Millions)

	2017				2016
	Shares		Average Price		Shares		Average Price
C$ options
At January 1	0.3			$13	0.3			$13
Granted	—		—		—		—
Cancelled/expired	—		—		—		—
At December 31	0.3			$13	0.3			$13
US$ options
At January 1	1.8			$42	2.6			$42
Forfeited	(0.7	)	40		(0.4	)	45
Cancelled/expired	(0.4	)	45		(0.4	)	39
At December 31	0.7			$40	1.8			$42

Stock Options Outstanding (Number of Shares in Millions)

	Outstanding						Exercisable
Range of exercise prices	Shares	Average price		Average life (years)	Intrinsic value1($ millions)		Shares	Average price		Intrinsic value1($ millions)
C$ options
$ 9 - $ 17	0.2		$10	4.6		$2	0.1		$10		$1
$ 18 - $ 21	0.1	18		2.6	—		0.1	18		—
	0.3		$13	3.9		$2	0.2		$14		$1
US$ options
$ 32 - $ 41	0.4		$32	2.0		$—	0.4		$33		$—
$ 42 - $ 55	0.3	49		1.0	—		0.3	49		—
	0.7		$40	1.5		$—	0.7		$40		$—

1 Based on the closing market share price on December 31, 2017 of C $18.18 and US $14.47.

As at December 31, 2017, there was $nil (2016: $0.1 million ) of total unrecognized compensation cost relating to unvested stock options. We expect to recognize this cost over a weighted average period of 1 year (2016: 1 year).

XML

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Employee Benefits [Abstract]

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

Key management personnel include the members of the Board of Directors and the executive leadership team. Compensation for key management personnel (including Directors) was as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Salaries and short-term employee benefits1		$20		$19
Post-employment benefits2	3		2
Share-based payments and other3	12		17
		$35		$38

¹ Includes annual salary and annual short-term incentives/other bonuses earned in the year.

² Represents Company contributions to retirement savings plans.

³ Relates to stock option, RSU, PGSU and PRSU grants and other compensation.

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Barrick operates various post-employment plans, including both defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans and other post-retirement plans. The table below outlines where the Company’s post-employment amounts and activity are included in the financial statements:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Balance sheet obligations for:
Defined pension benefits		$42		$66
Other post-retirement benefits	6		6
Liability in the balance sheet		$48		$72
Income statement charge included income statement for:
Defined pension benefits		$1		$4
Other post-retirement benefits	—		—
		$1		$4
Measurements for:
Defined pension benefits		$23		$11
Other post-retirement benefits	—		—
		$23		$11

The amounts recognized in the balance sheet are determined as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Present value of funded obligations		$122			$198
Fair value of plan assets	(134		)	(191		)
(Surplus) deficit of funded plans		($12	)		$7
Present value of unfunded obligations	54			59
Total deficit of defined benefit pension plans		$42			$66
Impact of minimum funding requirement/asset ceiling	—			—
Liability in the balance sheet		$42			$66

a)   Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain of our former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on an employee’s years of service. The plans operate under similar regulatory frameworks and generally face similar risks. The majority of benefit payments are from trustee-administered funds; however, there are also a number of unfunded plans where the Company meets the benefit payment obligation as it falls due. Plan assets held in trust are governed by local regulations and practice in each country. Responsibility for governance of the plans - overseeing all aspects of the plans including investment decisions and contribution schedules - lies with the Company. We have set up pension committees to assist in the management of the plans and have also appointed experienced independent professional experts such as actuaries, custodians and trustees.

The significant actuarial assumptions were as follows:

As at December 31	Pension Plans 2017	Other Post-Retirement Benefits 2017		Pension Plans 2016	Other Post-Retirement Benefits 2016
Discount rate	2.90-3.95%	3.75	%	2.10-3.90%	3.70	%

b)   Other Post-Retirement Benefits    

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees in the US. All of these plans are unfunded. The weighted average duration of the defined benefit obligation is 10 years (2016: 10 years).

	Less than a year		Between 1-2 years		Between 2-5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Pension benefits		$18		$19		$54		$313		$404
Other post-retirement benefits	1		1		2		6		10
At December 31, 2016		$19		$20		$56		$319		$414
Pension benefits	14		14		39		200		267
Other post-retirement benefits	1		1		2		5		9
At December 31, 2017		$15		$15		$41		$205		$276

c)    Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans and we also have a retirement plan for certain officers of the Company. Our share of contributions to these plans, which is expensed in the year it is earned by the employee, was $33 million in 2017 (2016: $32 million).

XML

CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

CONTINGENCIES

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued that may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The impact of any resulting loss from such matters affecting these financial statements and noted below may be material.

Litigation and Claims

In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel, evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

U.S. Shareholder Class Action

On May 10, 2017, Shepard Broadfoot, a purported shareholder of Barrick Gold Corporation, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against the Company, Kelvin Dushnisky, Catherine Raw, Richard Williams and Jorge Palmes. The complaint asserted claims against the defendants arising from allegedly false and misleading statements concerning production estimates and environmental risks at the Veladero mine, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2017, a second and substantially identical purported class action complaint was filed in the SDNY. On October 4, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A briefing schedule has been set by the Court, and the plaintiffs’ amended consolidated complaint was filed on December 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 2, 2018. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Proposed Canadian Securities Class Actions

Between April and September 2014, eight proposed class actions were commenced against the Company in Canada in connection with the Pascua-Lama project. Four of the proceedings were commenced in Ontario, two were commenced in Alberta, one was commenced in Saskatchewan, and one was commenced in Quebec. The Canadian proceedings alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements to the investing public relating (among other things) to the cost of the Pascua-Lama project (the “Project”), the amount of time it would take before production commenced at the Project, and the environmental risks of the Project, as well as alleged internal control failures.

The first Ontario and Alberta actions were commenced by Statement of Claim on April 15 and 17, 2014, respectively. The same law firm acts for the plaintiffs in these two proceedings, and the Statements of Claim were largely identical. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky and Ammar Al-Joundi were also named as defendants in the two actions. Both actions purported to be on behalf of anyone who, during the period from May 7, 2009 to May 23, 2013, purchased Barrick securities in Canada. Both actions sought $4.3 billion in general damages and $350 million in special damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public disclosure. The first Ontario action was subsequently consolidated with the fourth Ontario action, as discussed below. The first Alberta action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on June 26, 2015.

The second Ontario action was commenced on April 24, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. Following a September 8, 2014 amendment to the Statement of Claim, this action purported to be on behalf of anyone who acquired Barrick securities during the period from October 29, 2010 to October 30, 2013, and sought $3 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public disclosure. The amended claim also reflected the addition of a law firm that previously acted as counsel in a third Ontario action, which was commenced by Notice of Action on April 28, 2014 and included similar allegations but was never served or pursued. As a result of the outcome of the carriage motion and appeals described below, the second Ontario action has now been stayed. 

The Quebec action was commenced on April 30, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who resides in Quebec and acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013. The action seeks unspecified damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public disclosure.

The second Alberta action was commenced on May 23, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purports to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public disclosure. The action was dismissed on consent on June 19, 2017.

The Saskatchewan action was commenced by Statement of Claim on May 26, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public disclosure. The action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on December 19, 2016.

The fourth Ontario action was commenced on September 5, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purports to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013 in Canada, and seeks $3 billion in damages plus an unspecified amount for alleged misrepresentations in the Company's public disclosure. The Statement of Claim was amended on October 20, 2014, to include two additional law firms, one of which was acting as counsel in the first Ontario action referred to above and the other of which no longer exists. In January 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a consolidated statement of claim in this action.

In November 2014, an Ontario court heard a motion to determine which of the competing counsel groups would take the lead in the Ontario litigation. The court issued a decision in December 2014 in favor of the counsel group that commenced the first and fourth Ontario actions, which have been consolidated in a single action. The lower court’s decision was subsequently affirmed by the Divisional Court in May 2015 and the Court of Appeal for Ontario in July 2016 following appeals by the losing counsel group. The losing counsel group sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but later discontinued the application after reaching an agreement with the counsel group that commenced the first and fourth Ontario actions.

The proposed representative plaintiffs in the Quebec and Ontario actions have brought motions seeking: (i) leave to proceed with statutory misrepresentation claims pursuant to provincial securities legislation; and (ii) orders certifying the actions as class actions. It is expected that the Quebec motions will be heard in late February 2019, while the motion for leave to proceed in the Ontario action will be heard in early April 2019 (with the certification motion to be heard concurrently or shortly thereafter).

The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the proposed Canadian securities class actions. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from any of the proposed class actions, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions

In May 2013, Compañía Minera Nevada (“CMN”), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion of the Pascua-Lama project (the “Project”), received a Resolution (the “Original Resolution”) from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”) that requires the company to complete the water management system for the Project in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit before resuming construction activities in Chile. The Original Resolution also required CMN to pay an administrative fine of approximately $16 million for deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s Chilean environmental approval, including a series of reporting requirements and instances of non-compliance related to the Project’s water management system. CMN paid the administrative fine in May 2013.

In June 2013, CMN began engineering studies to review the Project’s water management system in accordance with the Original Resolution. The studies were suspended in the second half of 2015 as a result of CMN’s decision to file a temporary and partial closure plan for the Project (for more information about this plan, see “Pascua-Lama - Constitutional Protection Action” below). The review of the Project’s water management system may require a new environmental approval and the construction of additional water management facilities.

In June 2013, a group of local farmers and indigenous communities challenged the Original Resolution. The challenge, which was brought in the Environmental Court of Santiago, Chile (the “Environmental Court”), claimed that the fine was inadequate and requested more severe sanctions against CMN including the revocation of the Project’s environmental permit. The SMA presented its defense of the Original Resolution in July 2013. On August 2, 2013, CMN joined as a party to this proceeding and vigorously defended the Original Resolution. On March 3, 2014, the Environmental Court annulled the Original Resolution and remanded the matter back to the SMA for further consideration in accordance with its decision (the “Environmental Court Decision”). In particular, the Environmental Court ordered the SMA to issue a new administrative decision that recalculated the amount of the fine to be paid by CMN using a different methodology and addressed certain other errors it identified in the Resolution. The Environmental Court did not annul the portion of the Original Resolution that required the Company to halt construction on the Chilean side of the Project until the water management system is completed in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit. On December 30, 2014, the Chilean Supreme Court declined to consider CMN’s appeal of the Environmental Court Decision on procedural grounds. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, on April 22, 2015, the SMA reopened the administrative proceeding against CMN in accordance with the Environmental Court Decision.

On April 22, 2015, CMN was notified that the SMA had initiated a new administrative proceeding for alleged deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s environmental approval, including with respect to the Project’s environmental impact and a series of monitoring requirements. In May 2015, CMN submitted a compliance program to address certain of the allegations and presented its defense to the remainder of the alleged deviations. The SMA rejected CMN’s proposed compliance program on June 24, 2015, and denied CMN’s administrative appeal of that decision on July 31, 2015. On December 30, 2016, the Environmental Court rejected CMN’s appeal and CMN declined to challenge this decision.

On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against CMN into a single proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the Original Resolution in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the Project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.

On January 17, 2018, CMN received the revised resolution (the “Revised Resolution”) from the SMA, in which the environmental regulator reduced the original administrative fine from approximately $16 million to $11.5 million and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the Project in addition to certain monitoring activities. The Revised Resolution does not revoke the Project’s environmental approval. CMN filed an appeal of the Revised Resolution on February 3, 2018.

In light of the SMA’s decision, the Company has reversed the estimated amount previously recorded for any additional proposed administrative fines in this matter. In addition, the Company has reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources and recorded a pre-tax impairment of $429 million. See note 21 of these Financial Statements for information related to impairment losses arising from this matter.

Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action

CMN filed a temporary and partial closure plan for the Pascua-Lama project (the “Temporary Closure Plan”) with the Chilean mining authority (Sernageomin) on August 31, 2015. Sernageomin approved the Temporary Closure Plan on September 29, 2015, and issued a resolution requiring CMN to comply with certain closure-related maintenance and monitoring obligations for a period of two years. The Temporary Closure Plan does not address certain facilities, including the Project’s water management system, which remain subject to the requirements of the Project’s original environmental approval and other regulations.

On December 4, 2015, a constitutional protection action was filed in the Court of Appeals of Santiago, Chile by a group of local farmers and other individuals against CMN and Sernageomin in order to challenge the Temporary Closure Plan and the resolution that approved it. The plaintiffs asserted that the Temporary Closure Plan cannot be approved until the water management system for the Project has been completed in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit. On August 12, 2016, the court ruled in favor of CMN and Sernageomin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Temporary Closure Plan for the Pascua-Lama project. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the Chilean Supreme Court and on March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the Temporary Closure Plan, ruling that additional information regarding the SMA regulatory sanction process was required from the environmental regulator, and ordering Sernageomin to issue a new resolution on the Temporary Closure Plan after receiving such information. On August 29, 2017, Sernageomin issued a new resolution in which it reapproved the Temporary Closure Plan as originally issued. This approval is valid through September 2019.

Pascua-Lama – Water Quality Review

CMN initiated a review of the baseline water quality of the Rio Estrecho in August 2013 as required by a July 15, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals of Copiapo, Chile. The purpose of the review was to establish whether the water quality baseline has changed since the Pascua-Lama project received its environmental approval in February 2006 and, if so, to require CMN to adopt the appropriate corrective measures. As a result of that study, CMN requested certain modifications to its environmental permit water quality requirements. On June 6, 2016, the responsible agency approved a partial amendment of the environmental permit to better reflect the water quality baseline from 2009. That approval was appealed by certain water users and indigenous residents of the Huasco Valley. On October 19, 2016, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over claims of this nature, voted to uphold the permit amendments. On January 27, 2017, the Environmental Court agreed to consider an appeal of the Chilean Committee’s decision brought by CMN and the water users and indigenous residents. A hearing took place on July 25, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the water users withdrew their appeal. The Environmental Court dismissed that appeal on January 5, 2018. A decision of the Environmental Court on the remaining appeals is still pending.No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution

San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction Proceeding

On September 13, 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at the Company’s Veladero mine in San Juan Province, Argentina failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. Minera Argentina Gold SRL (“MAG”) (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold S.A. or MAGSA), Barrick’s Argentine subsidiary that operates the Veladero mine, notified regulatory authorities of the situation. Environmental monitoring was conducted by MAG and independent third parties following the incident. The Company believes this monitoring demonstrates that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. A temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the mine’s processing circuit was lifted on September 24, 2015, and mine operations returned to normal. Monitoring and inspection of the mine site will continue in accordance with a court order.

On October 9, 2015, the San Juan mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAG for alleged violations of the mining code relating to the valve failure and release of cyanide-bearing process solution. MAG submitted its response to these allegations in October 2015 and provided additional information in January 2016.

On March 11, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso/$ exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On December 29, 2016, the request for reconsideration was rejected by the Provincial mining authority. On July 11, 2017, the San Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts. MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the San Juan mining authority.

Criminal Matters

On March 11, 2016, a San Juan Provincial court laid criminal charges based on alleged negligence against nine current and former MAG employees in connection with the solution release (the “Provincial Action”). On August 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictment against eight of the nine individuals that had been charged with alleged negligence in connection with the solution release. The individual defendants filed a special appeal, called a “cassation” appeal, of the indictments with the San Juan Supreme Court, which was rejected on August 31, 2017. The San Juan Provincial court rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 30, 2017, and the defendants appealed this decision on December 4, 2017. A trial date has not yet been set. MAG is not a party to the Provincial Action.

In addition, a federal criminal investigation was initiated by a Buenos Aires federal court based on the alleged failure of certain current and former federal and provincial government officials and individual directors of MAG to prevent the solution release (the “Federal Investigation”). The federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation admitted a local group in San Juan Province as a party. In March 2016, this group requested an injunction against the operations of the Veladero mine. The federal judge ordered technical studies to assess the solution release and its impact and appointed a committee to conduct a site visit, which occurred in late April 2016.

On May 5, 2016, the National Supreme Court of Argentina limited the scope of the Federal Investigation to the potential criminal liability of the federal government officials, ruling that the Buenos Aires federal court does not have jurisdiction to investigate the solution release. As a result of this decision, the investigation into the incident will continue to be conducted by the San Juan Provincial judge in the Provincial Action. To date, no charges have been laid against any specific individuals in connection with the Federal Investigation, consistent with its more limited scope.

On October 17, 2016, a separate criminal investigation was initiated by the federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation based on the alleged failure of federal government officials to regulate the Veladero mine under Argentina’s glacier legislation (see “Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation” below). On June 16, 2017, MAG submitted a motion to challenge the federal judge’s decision to assign this investigation to himself. MAG also requested to be admitted as a party to the proceeding in order to present evidence in support of the MAG. On September 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals consolidated the two investigations before the federal judge and allowed MAG to participate in the consolidated Federal Investigation. On November 21, 2017, the Court of Appeals clarified that MAG is not a party to the case and therefore did not have standing to seek the recusal of the federal judge.  The Court recognized MAG’s right to continue to participate in the case without clarifying the scope of those rights.

On November 27, 2017, the federal judge indicted four former federal government officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s national glacier legislation including the methodology used to complete the national inventory of glaciers, a portion of which was published on October 3, 2016, and also requiring the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development to determine if there has been any environmental damage to glaciers since the glacier law went into effect in light of his decision. On December 12, 2017, the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to audit environmental damage to glaciers, as this is the responsibility of the Provincial authorities.

No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from these matters, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Veladero – September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution

Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding

On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad at the Veladero mine damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the mine site and returned to the leach pad. Extensive water monitoring in the area conducted by MAG has confirmed that the incident did not result in any environmental impacts. A temporary suspension of operations at the Veladero mine was ordered by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a San Juan Provincial court on September 15, 2016 and September 22, 2016, respectively, as a result of this incident. On October 4, 2016, following, among other matters, the completion of certain urgent works required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a judicial inspection of the mine, the San Juan Provincial court lifted the suspension of operations and ordered that mining activities be resumed.

On September 14, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority commenced an administrative proceeding in connection with this incident that included, in addition to the issue of the suspension order, an infringement proceeding against MAG. On December 2, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code. A new criminal judicial investigation has also been commenced by the Provincial prosecutor’s office in the same San Juan Provincial court that is hearing the Provincial Action. The court in this proceeding issued the orders suspending and resuming the operations at the Veladero mine described above.

On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated the administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident described below (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”).

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

Veladero Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the valley leach facility (“VLF”). In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution incident described below (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”). The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously.No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Veladero - March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution

Regulatory Infringement Proceeding and Temporary Suspension of Addition of Cyanide

On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at the Company’s Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. This solution was contained within the operating site; no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. All affected soil was promptly excavated and placed on the leach pad. The Company notified regulatory authorities of the situation, and San Juan provincial authorities inspected the site on March 29, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, the San Juan provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against MAG in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following inspection of corrective actions.

On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. The Company filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.

Provincial Amparo Action

On March 30, 2017, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit, called an “amparo” protection action, filed in the Jachal First Instance Court (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine. The plaintiffs sought an injunction as part of the lawsuit, requesting, among other things, the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the leaching process at the mine. On March 30, 2017, the Jachal Court rejected the request for an injunction to cease all activities at the Veladero mine, but ordered, among other things, the suspension of the leaching process at the Veladero mine and for MAG and the San Juan Provincial mining authority to provide additional information to the Jachal Court in connection with the incident.

The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution - Federal Amparo Action” below). No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Federal AmparoAction

On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident. The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAG submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAG also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial Court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court and a decision on the matter is pending.No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation

On September 30, 2010, the National Law on Minimum Requirements for the Protection of Glaciers was enacted in Argentina, and came into force in early November 2010. The federal law banned new mining exploration and exploitation activities on glaciers and in the “peri-glacial” environment, and subjected ongoing mining activities to an environmental audit. If the audit identifies significant impacts on glaciers and peri-glacial environment, the relevant authority is empowered to take action, which according to the legislation could include the suspension or relocation of the activity. In the case of the Veladero mine and the Argentinean side of the Pascua-Lama project, the competent authority is the Province of San Juan. In late January 2013, the Province announced that it had completed the required environmental audit, which concluded that Veladero and Pascua-Lama do not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers. On October 3, 2016, federal authorities published a partial national inventory of glaciers, which included the area where the Veladero mine and Pascua-Lama Project are located. The Company has analyzed the national inventory in the area where Veladero and Pascua-Lama are located and has concluded that this inventory is consistent with the provincial inventory that the Province of San Juan used in connection with its January 2013 environmental audit.

The constitutionality of the federal glacier law is the subject of a challenge before the National Supreme Court of Argentina, which has not yet ruled on the issue. On October 27, 2014, the Company submitted its response to a motion by the federal government to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the federal glacier law on standing grounds. A decision on the motion is pending. If the federal government’s arguments with respect to standing are accepted, then the case will be dismissed. If they are not accepted, then the National Supreme Court of Argentina will proceed to hear evidence on the merits. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome and in any event the provincial audit concluded that the Company’s activities do not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers.

Pueblo Viejo – Amparo Action

In October 2014, Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation (“PVDC”) received a copy of an action filed in an administrative court (the “Administrative Court”) in the Dominican Republic by Rafael Guillen Beltre (the “Petitioner”), who claims to be affiliated with the Dominican Christian Peace Organization. The action alleges that environmental contamination in the vicinity of the Pueblo Viejo mine has caused illness and affected water quality in violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Dominican Constitution and other laws. The primary relief sought in the action, which is styled as an “amparo” remedy, is the suspension of operations at the Pueblo Viejo mine as well as other mining projects in the area until an investigation into the alleged environmental contamination has been completed by the relevant governmental authorities. On November 21, 2014, the Administrative Court granted PVDC’s motion to remand the matter to a trial court in the Municipality of Cotuí (the “Trial Court”) on procedural grounds. On June 25, 2015, the Trial Court rejected the Petitioner’s amparo action, finding that the Petitioner failed to produce evidence to support his allegations. The Petitioner appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Constitutional Court on July 21, 2015. On July 28, 2015, PVDC filed a motion to challenge the timeliness of this appeal as it was submitted after the expiration of the applicable filing deadline. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Perilla Complaint

In 2009, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. were purportedly served in Ontario with a complaint filed in November 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Boac (the “Court”), on the Philippine island of Marinduque, on behalf of two named individuals and purportedly on behalf of the approximately 200,000 residents of Marinduque. The complaint alleges injury to the economy and the ecology of Marinduque as a result of the discharge of mine tailings from the Marcopper mine into Calancan Bay, the Boac River, and the Mogpog River. The plaintiffs are claiming for abatement of a public nuisance allegedly caused by the tailings discharge and for nominal damages for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In June 2010, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. filed a motion to have the Court resolve their unresolved motions to dismiss before considering the plaintiffs' motion to admit an amended complaint and also filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to admit on the same basis. By Order dated November 9, 2011 the Court granted a motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs. It is not known when these motions or the outstanding motions to dismiss will be decided by the Court. To date neither the plaintiffs nor the Company has advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this complaint, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Writ of Kalikasan

In February 2011, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (the “Supreme Court”) in Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy versus Placer Dome Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation (the "Petitioners"). In March 2011, the Supreme Court issued an En Banc Resolution and Writ of Kalikasan, directed service of summons on Placer Dome Inc. and the Company, ordered Placer Dome Inc. and the Company to make a verified return of the Writ with ten (10) days of service and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for hearing. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome Inc. violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, among other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam break, the 1996 Boac River tailings spill and failure of Marcopper to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. The petitioners have pleaded that the Company is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome Inc., which was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times, and is seeking orders requiring the Company to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. The petitioners purported to serve the Company in March 2011, following which the Company filed an Urgent Motion For Ruling on Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”) pursuant to which the Petition was filed, as well as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Company. By resolution dated October 12, 2011 the Court of Appeals granted the Petitioners’ October 4, 2011 motion to suspend proceedings to permit the Petitioners to explore the possibility of a settlement.  The proceedings are suspended pending further notice from the Petitioners. In November 2011, two local governments, or "baranguays" (Baranguay San Antonio and Baranguay Lobo) filed a motion with the Supreme Court seeking intervenor status with the intention of seeking a dismissal of the proceedings. No decision has as yet been issued with respect to the Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction, the motion for intervention, or certain other matters before the Supreme Court. The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously.

In November 2016, the Petitioners notified the Court of Appeals that settlement negotiations did not resolve the action. In March 2017, the Court of Appeals required the Petitioners to advise whether they intend to pursue the action. Without responding to the court, Petitioners’ counsel advised the Court in July 2017 of their withdrawal as counsel for the Petitioners and informed the Court of the death of one of the Petitioners. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution in November 2017 requiring the Petitioners to notify the Court whether they have engaged new counsel.  Petitioners’ new counsel filed an entry of appearance in December 2017 with the Court.  To date, the Petitioners have still not advised the Court whether they intend to pursue the action. The Company is awaiting receipt of the Petitioners’ notification of their intentions.

No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Cerro Casale

One of the environmental permits related to the open pit and water management system at the Company’s 50 percent-owned Cerro Casale project in Chile is subject to an environmental regulation (the “Regulation”) that, if applied as written, would have required the Company to begin construction of the project by January 26, 2015 or risk cancellation of the environmental permit. The Company sought relief from the Regulation as construction was not feasible and did not begin by that date. On October 15, 2015, the Chilean environmental authority issued a resolution confirming that initial project activities were timely commenced as required by the environmental permit and the matter is now closed. Permits required for the majority of the project’s proposed operations were obtained under a second environmental approval (the “Cerro Casale environmental permit”) that was subject to a January 2018 construction commencement deadline. The Company requested relief using the same procedure described above, and the environmental authority confirmed that the initial project activities were timely commenced.

The Cerro Casale environmental permit was challenged in 2013 by local and indigenous community members for alleged procedural deficiencies in the community consultation process and other aspects of the evaluation of the project by the Chilean environmental authority. The challenge was brought before the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over procedural claims of this nature. On January 19, 2015, the Committee of Ministers for the Environment rejected the majority of claims made against the Cerro Casale environmental permit while also imposing new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the project may extract for mining operations. The Company appealed this decision to the Environmental Court, which held a hearing on August 27, 2015. On June 12, 2017, the Environmental Court ordered the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment to review its January 9, 2015 decision to impose new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the Cerro Casale project may extract for mining operations. The Company and the Chilean environmental authority appealed this decision to the Chilean Supreme Court.

While this appeal was pending, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment issued a new decision on November 23, 2017 in which it modified the limitations on groundwater extraction imposed in its original ruling. The decision may provide additional water resources for the project and therefore the Company and the Chilean environmental authority agreed to withdraw the appeal to the Supreme Court. The matter is now closed.

Acacia Mining plc - Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessments

The Tanzanian Revenue Authority (“TRA”) has issued a number of tax assessments to the Acacia Mining plc group (“Acacia”) related to past taxation years from 2002-onwards. Acacia believes that the majority of these assessments are incorrect and has filed objections and appeals accordingly in an attempt to resolve these matters by means of discussions with the TRA or through the Tanzanian appeals process. Overall, it is Acacia’s current assessment that the relevant assessments and claims by the TRA are without merit.

The claims include an assessment issued to Acacia in the amount of $41.3 million for withholding tax on certain historic offshore dividend payments paid by Acacia to its shareholders in 2010 to 2013. Acacia is appealing this assessment on the substantive grounds that, as an English incorporated company, it is not resident in Tanzania for taxation purposes. The appeal is currently pending at the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, no amounts have been recorded for any potential liability and Acacia intends to continue to defend this action vigorously.

Further TRA assessments were issued to Acacia in January 2016 in the amount of $500.7 million, based on an allegation that Acacia is resident in Tanzania for corporate and dividend withholding tax purposes. The corporate tax assessments have been levied on certain of Acacia’s net profits before tax. Acacia is in the process of appealing these assessments at the TRA Board level. Acacia’s substantive grounds of appeal are based on the correct interpretation of Tanzanian permanent establishment principles and law, relevant to a non-resident English incorporated company.

In addition, the TRA issued adjusted tax assessments totaling approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. For more information about these adjusted tax assessments, see “Acacia Mining plc - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” below.

See note 12 of these Financial Statements for information related to income tax expenses recorded with respect to these matters.

Acacia Mining plc - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Ministry of Energy and Minerals imposed a general ban on the export of metallic concentrates (the “Ban”). This includes gold/copper concentrate exported by Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Following the imposition of the Ban, Acacia immediately ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate, including 27 containers previously approved for export prior to the Ban.

During the second quarter of 2017, investigations were conducted on behalf of the Tanzanian Government by two Tanzanian Government Presidential Committees, which have resulted in allegations of historical undeclared revenue and unpaid taxes being made against Acacia and its predecessor companies. Acacia considers these findings to be implausible and has fully refuted the findings of both Presidential Committees. Acacia has requested copies of the reports issued by the two Presidential Committees and called for independent verification of the findings, but has not yet received a response to these requests.

On July 4, 2017, Acacia’s subsidiaries, Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited (“BGML”), the owner of the Bulyanhulu mine, and Pangea Minerals Limited (“PML”), the owner of the Buzwagi mine, each commenced international arbitrations against the Government of Tanzania in accordance with the dispute resolution processes agreed by the Government of Tanzania in the Mineral Development Agreements (“MDAs”) with BGML and PML. These arbitrations remain ongoing.

In July 2017, Acacia received adjusted assessments for the tax years 2000-2017 from the Tanzania Revenue Authority (the “TRA”) for a total amount of approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. These assessments are being disputed and the underlying allegations are included in the matters that have been referred to international arbitration.

In addition, following the end of the third quarter, Acacia was served with notices of conflicting adjusted corporate income tax and withholding tax assessments for tax years 2005 to 2011 with respect to Acacia’s former Tulawaka joint venture, and demands for payment, for a total amount of approximately $3 billion. Interest and penalties represent the vast majority of the new assessments. The TRA has not provided Acacia with any explanations or reasons for the adjusted assessments, or with the TRA’s position on how the assessments have been calculated or why they have been issued. Acacia disputes these assessments and has requested supporting calculations, which have not yet been received. Acacia is objecting to these assessments and defending this matter through the Tanzanian tax appeals process.

In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. In January 2018, new Mining Regulations were announced by the Tanzanian Government introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations, the scope and effect of which remain under review by Acacia. Acacia continues to monitor the impact of all new legislation in light of its MDAs with the Government of Tanzania. However, to minimize further disruptions to its operations Acacia will, in the interim, satisfy the requirements imposed as regards the increased royalty rate in addition to the recently imposed 1% clearing fee on exports. Acacia is making these payments under protest, without prejudice to its legal rights under its MDAs.

Acacia has been looking to address all issues in respect of the Ban along with other ongoing disputes through dialogue with the Tanzanian Government. Acacia remains of the view that a negotiated resolution is the preferable outcome to the current disputes and Acacia will continue to work to achieve this. During the third quarter of 2017, Barrick and the Government of Tanzania engaged in discussions for the potential resolution of the disputes. Acacia did not participate directly in these discussions as the Government of Tanzania had informed Barrick that it wished to continue dialogue solely with Barrick.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the Government of Tanzania on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the Government of Tanzania include (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to manage Acacia’s Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara mines and all future operations in the country with key officers located in Tanzania and Tanzanian representation on the board of directors; (ii) maximization of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the Government’s share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Negotiations concerning the proposed framework remain ongoing and the definitive terms of any final proposal for the implementation of the framework remain outstanding.Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia.

See note 12 of these Financial Statements for information related to income tax expenses recorded with respect to these matters and note 21 of these Financial Statements for impairment losses arising from these matters.

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Policies)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Statement of Compliance

Statement of Compliance

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) under the historical cost convention, as modified by revaluation of derivative contracts and certain financial assets. Accounting policies are consistently applied to all years presented, unless otherwise stated. These consolidated financial statements were approved for issuance by the Board of Directors on February 14, 2018.

Subsidiaries

Subsidiaries

These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Barrick and its subsidiaries. All intercompany balances, transactions, income and expenses, and profits or losses have been eliminated on consolidation. We consolidate subsidiaries where we have the ability to exercise control. Control of an investee is defined to exist when we are exposed to variable returns from our involvement with the investee and have the ability to affect those returns through our power over the investee. Specifically, we control an investee if, and only if, we have all of the following: power over the investee (i.e., existing rights that give us the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the investee); exposure, or rights, to variable returns from our involvement with the investee; and the ability to use our power over the investee to affect its returns. For non wholly-owned, controlled subsidiaries, the net assets attributable to outside equity shareholders are presented as “non-controlling interests” in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet. Profit or loss for the period that is attributable to non-controlling interests is calculated based on the ownership of the minority shareholders in the subsidiary.

Joint Arrangements

Joint Arrangements

A joint arrangement is defined as one over which two or more parties have joint control, which is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an arrangement. This exists only when the decisions about the relevant activities (being those that significantly affect the returns of the arrangement) require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control. There are two types of joint arrangements: joint operations (“JO”) and joint ventures (“JV”).

A JO is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities, relating to the arrangement. In relation to our interests in joint operations, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

A JV is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the net assets of the joint venture. Our investments in JVs are accounted for using the equity method.

On acquisition, an equity method investment is initially recognized at cost. The carrying amount of equity method investments includes goodwill identified on acquisition, net of any accumulated impairment losses. The carrying amount is adjusted by our share of post-acquisition net income or loss; depreciation, amortization or impairment of the fair value adjustments made on the underlying balance sheet at the date of acquisition; dividends; cash contributions; and our share of post-acquisition movements in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”).

Business Combinations

Business Combinations

On the acquisition of a business, the acquisition method of accounting is used, whereby the purchase consideration is allocated to the identifiable assets and liabilities on the basis of fair value at the date of acquisition. Provisional fair values allocated at a reporting date are finalized as soon as the relevant information is available, within a period not to exceed 12 months from the acquisition date with retroactive restatement of the impact of adjustments to those provisional fair values effective as at the acquisition date. Incremental costs related to acquisitions are expensed as incurred.

When the cost of the acquisition exceeds the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired, the difference is recorded as goodwill. If the fair value attributable to Barrick’s share of the identifiable net assets exceeds the cost of acquisition, the difference is recognized as a gain in the consolidated statement of income.

Non-controlling interests represent the fair value of net assets in subsidiaries, as at the date of acquisition, that are not held by Barrick and are presented in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet.

Non-current Assets and Disposal Groups Held-for-Sale and Discontinued Operations

Non-current Assets and Disposal Groups Held- for-Sale and Discontinued Operations

Non-current assets and disposal groups are classified as assets held-for-sale (“HFS”) if it is highly probable that the value of these assets will be recovered primarily through sale rather than through continuing use. They are recorded at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less cost of disposal. Impairment losses on initial classification as HFS and subsequent gains and losses on remeasurement are recognized in the income statement. Once classified as HFS, property, plant and equipment are no longer amortized. The assets and liabilities are presented as HFS in the consolidated balance sheet when the sale is highly probable, the asset or disposal group is available for immediate sale in its present condition and management is committed to the sale, which should be expected to be completed within one year from the date of classification.

A discontinued operation is a component of the Company that can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the Company and represents a major line of business or geographic area, and the value of this component is expected to be recovered primarily through sale rather than continuing use.

Results of operations and any gain or loss from disposal are excluded from income before finance items and income taxes and are reported separately as income/loss from discontinued operations.

Foreign Currency Translation

Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of the Company, for each subsidiary of the Company, and for joint arrangements and associates, is the currency of the primary economic environment in which it operates. The functional currency of all of our operations is the US dollar. We translate non-US dollar balances for these operations into US dollars as follows:

• Property, plant and equipment (“PP&E”), intangible assets and equity method investments using the rates at the time of acquisition;

• Fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) equity investments using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses permanently recorded in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”);

• Deferred tax assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in income tax expense;

• Other assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in other income/expense; and

• Income and expenses using the average exchange rate for the period, except for expenses that relate to non-monetary assets and liabilities measured at historical rates, which are translated using the same historical rate as the associated non-monetary assets and liabilities.

Revenue Recognition

Revenue Recognition

We record revenue when evidence exists that all of the following criteria are met:

• The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the product have been transferred to the buyer;

• Neither continuing managerial involvement to the degree usually associated with ownership, nor effective control over the goods sold, has been retained;

• The amount of revenue can be reliably measured;

• It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the sale will flow to us; and

• The costs incurred or to be incurred in respect of the sale can be reliably measured.

These conditions are generally satisfied when title passes to the customer.

Gold Bullion Sales

Gold bullion is sold primarily in the London spot market. The sales price is fixed on the date of sale based on the gold spot price. Generally, we record revenue from gold bullion sales at the time of physical delivery, which is also the date that title to the gold passes.

Concentrate Sales

Under the terms of concentrate sales contracts with independent smelting companies, gold and copper sales prices are provisionally set on a specified future date after shipment based on market prices. We record revenues under these contracts at the time of shipment, which is also when the risk and rewards of ownership pass to the smelting companies, using forward market gold and copper prices on the expected date that final sales prices will be determined. Variations between the price recorded at the shipment date and the actual final price set under the smelting contracts are caused by changes in market gold and copper prices, which result in the existence of an embedded derivative in accounts receivable. The embedded derivative is recorded at fair value each period until final settlement occurs, with changes in fair value classified as provisional price adjustments and included in revenue in the consolidated statement of income.

Exploration and Evaluation

Exploration and Evaluation (“E&E”)

Exploration expenditures are the costs incurred in the initial search for mineral deposits with economic potential or in the process of obtaining more information about existing mineral deposits. Exploration expenditures typically include costs associated with prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

Evaluation expenditures are the costs incurred to establish the technical and commercial viability of developing mineral deposits identified through exploration activities or by acquisition. Evaluation expenditures include the cost of (i) establishing the volume and grade of deposits through drilling of core samples, trenching and sampling activities in an ore body that is classified as either a mineral resource or a proven and probable reserve; (ii) determining the optimal methods of extraction and metallurgical and treatment processes; (iii) studies related to surveying, transportation and infrastructure requirements; (iv) permitting activities; and (v) economic evaluations to determine whether development of the mineralized material is commercially justified, including scoping, prefeasibility and final feasibility studies.

Exploration and evaluation expenditures are expensed as incurred unless management determines that probable future economic benefits will be generated as a result of the expenditures. Once the technical feasibility and commercial viability of a program or project has been demonstrated with a prefeasibility study, and we have recognized reserves in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101, we account for future expenditures incurred in the development of that program or project in accordance with our policy for Property, Plant and Equipment, as described in note 2n.

Production Stage

Construction-in-Progress

Assets under construction are capitalized as construction-in-progress until the asset is available for use. The cost of construction-in-progress comprises its purchase price and any costs directly attributable to bringing it into working condition for its intended use. Construction-in-progress amounts related to development projects are included in the carrying amount of the development project. Construction-in-progress amounts incurred at operating mines are presented as a separate asset within PP&E. Construction-in-progress also includes deposits on long lead items. Construction-in-progress is not depreciated. Depreciation commences once the asset is complete and available for use.

Production Stage

A mine that is under construction is determined to enter the production stage when the project is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. We use the following factors to assess whether these criteria have been met: (1) the level of capital expenditures compared to construction cost estimates; (2) the completion of a reasonable period of testing of mine plant and equipment; (3) the ability to produce minerals in saleable form (within specifications); and (4) the ability to sustain ongoing production of minerals.

When a mine construction project moves into the production stage, the capitalization of certain mine construction costs ceases and costs are either capitalized to inventory or expensed, except for capitalizable costs related to property, plant and equipment additions or improvements, open pit stripping activities that provide a future benefit, underground mine development or expenditures that meet the criteria for capitalization in accordance with IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.

Earnings per Share

Earnings per Share

Earnings per share as computed by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share reflects the potential dilution that could occur if additional common shares are assumed to be issued under securities that entitle their holders to obtain common shares in the future. For stock options, the number of additional shares for inclusion in diluted earnings per share calculations is determined using the treasury stock method. Under this method, stock options that have an exercise price less than the average market price of our common shares are assumed to be exercised and the proceeds are used to repurchase common shares at the average market price for the period. The incremental number of common shares issued under stock options and repurchased from proceeds is included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share.

Taxation

Taxation

Current tax for each taxable entity is based on the local taxable income at the local statutory tax rate enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date and includes adjustments to tax payable or recoverable in respect of previous periods.

Deferred tax is recognized using the balance sheet method in respect of all temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities, and their carrying amounts for financial reporting purposes, except as indicated below.

Deferred income tax liabilities are recognized for all taxable temporary differences, except:

• Where the deferred income tax liability arises from the initial recognition of goodwill, or the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

• In respect of taxable temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, where the timing of the reversal of the temporary differences can be controlled and it is probable that the temporary differences will not reverse in the foreseeable future.

Deferred income tax assets are recognized for all deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses, to the extent that it is probable that taxable profit will be available against which the deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses can be utilized, except:

• Where the deferred income tax asset relating to the deductible temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

• In respect of deductible temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is probable that the temporary differences will reverse in the foreseeable future and taxable profit will be available against which the temporary differences can be utilized.

The carrying amount of deferred income tax assets is reviewed at each balance sheet date and reduced to the extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profit will be available to allow all or part of the deferred income tax asset to be utilized. To the extent that an asset not previously recognized fulfills the criteria for recognition, a deferred income tax asset is recorded.

Deferred tax is measured on an undiscounted basis at the tax rates that are expected to apply in the periods in which the asset is realized or the liability is settled, based on tax rates and tax laws enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date.

Current and deferred tax relating to items recognized directly in equity are recognized in equity and not in the income statement.

Royalties and Special Mining Taxes

Income tax expense includes the cost of royalties and special mining taxes payable to governments that are calculated based on a percentage of taxable profit whereby taxable profit represents net income adjusted for certain items defined in the applicable legislation.

Indirect Taxes

Indirect tax recoverable is recorded at its undiscounted amount, and is disclosed as non-current if not expected to be recovered within twelve months.

Deferred Taxes

Deferred tax is recognized using the balance sheet method in respect of all temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities, and their carrying amounts for financial reporting purposes, except as indicated below.

Deferred income tax liabilities are recognized for all taxable temporary differences, except:

• Where the deferred income tax liability arises from the initial recognition of goodwill, or the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

• In respect of taxable temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, where the timing of the reversal of the temporary differences can be controlled and it is probable that the temporary differences will not reverse in the foreseeable future.

Deferred income tax assets are recognized for all deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses, to the extent that it is probable that taxable profit will be available against which the deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses can be utilized, except:

• Where the deferred income tax asset relating to the deductible temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

• In respect of deductible temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is probable that the temporary differences will reverse in the foreseeable future and taxable profit will be available against which the temporary differences can be utilized.

The carrying amount of deferred income tax assets is reviewed at each balance sheet date and reduced to the extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profit will be available to allow all or part of the deferred income tax asset to be utilized. To the extent that an asset not previously recognized fulfills the criteria for recognition, a deferred income tax asset is recorded.

Deferred tax is measured on an undiscounted basis at the tax rates that are expected to apply in the periods in which the asset is realized or the liability is settled, based on tax rates and tax laws enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date.

Indirect Taxes

Indirect Taxes

Indirect tax recoverable is recorded at its undiscounted amount, and is disclosed as non-current if not expected to be recovered within twelve months.

Other Investments

Other Investments

Investments in publicly quoted equity securities that are neither subsidiaries nor associates are categorized as fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) pursuant to the irrevocable election available in IFRS 9 for these instruments. FVOCI equity investments (referred to as “other investments”) are recorded at fair value with all realized and unrealized gains and losses recorded permanently in OCI.

Inventory

Inventory

Material extracted from our mines is classified as either ore or waste. Ore represents material that, at the time of extraction, we expect to process into a saleable form and sell at a profit. Raw materials are comprised of both ore in stockpiles and ore on leach pads as processing is required to extract benefit from the ore. Ore is accumulated in stockpiles that are subsequently processed into gold/copper in a saleable form.    The recovery of gold and copper from certain oxide ores is achieved through the heap leaching process.    Work in process represents gold/copper in the processing circuit that has not completed the production process, and is not yet in a saleable form. Finished goods inventory represents gold/copper in saleable form.

Metal inventories are valued at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Cost is determined on a weighted average basis and includes all costs incurred, based on a normal production capacity, in bringing each product to its present location and condition. Cost of inventories comprises direct labor, materials and contractor expenses, including non-capitalized stripping costs; depreciation on PP&E including capitalized stripping costs; and an allocation of general and administrative costs. As ore is removed for processing, costs are removed based on the average cost per ounce/pound in the stockpile. Net realizable value is determined with reference to relevant market prices less applicable variable selling expenses.

Mine operating supplies represent commodity consumables and other raw materials used in the production process, as well as spare parts and other maintenance supplies that are not classified as capital items. Provisions are recorded to reduce mine operating

supplies to net realizable value, which is generally calculated by reference to its salvage or scrap value, when it is determined that the supplies are obsolete. Provisions are reversed to reflect subsequent recoveries in net realizable value where the inventory is still on hand.

Royalties

Royalties

Certain of our properties are subject to royalty arrangements based on mineral production at the properties. The primary type of royalty is a net smelter return (NSR) royalty. Under this type of royalty we pay the holder an amount calculated as the royalty percentage multiplied by the value of gold production at market gold prices less third-party smelting, refining and transportation costs. Royalty expense is recorded on completion of the production or sales process in cost of sales. Other types of royalties include:

• Net profits interest (NPI) royalty to other than a government,

• Modified net smelter return (NSR) royalty,

• Net smelter return sliding scale (NSRSS) royalty,

• Gross proceeds sliding scale (GPSS) royalty,

• Gross smelter return (GSR) royalty,

• Net value (NV) royalty,

• Land tenement (LT) royalty, and a

• Gold revenue royalty.

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, Plant and Equipment

Estimated useful lives of Major Asset Categories

Buildings, plant and equipment	7 – 27 years
Underground mobile equipment	5 - 7 years
Light vehicles and other mobile equipment	2 - 3 years
Furniture, computer and office equipment	2 - 3 years

Buildings, Plant and Equipment

At acquisition, we record buildings, plant and equipment at cost, including all expenditures incurred to prepare an asset for its intended use. These expenditures consist of: the purchase price; brokers’ commissions; and installation costs including architectural, design and engineering fees, legal fees, survey costs, site preparation costs, freight charges, transportation insurance costs, duties, testing and preparation charges.

We capitalize costs that meet the asset recognition criteria. Costs incurred that do not extend the productive capacity or useful economic life of an asset are considered repairs and maintenance expense and are accounted for as a cost of the inventory produced in the period.

Buildings, plant and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line basis over their expected useful life, which commences when the assets are considered available for use. Once buildings, plant and equipment are considered available for use they are measured at cost less accumulated depreciation and applicable impairment losses.

Depreciation on equipment utilized in the development of assets, including open pit and underground mine development, is recapitalized as development costs attributable to the related asset.

Mineral Properties

Mineral Properties

Mineral properties consist of: the fair value attributable to mineral reserves and resources acquired in a business combination or asset acquisition; underground mine development costs; open pit mine development costs; capitalized exploration and evaluation costs; and capitalized interest. In addition, we incur project costs which are generally capitalized when the expenditures result in a future benefit.

i) Acquired Mining Properties

On acquisition of a mining property, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the proven and probable mineral reserves, mineral resources and exploration potential attributable to the property. The estimated fair value attributable to the mineral reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is depreciated on a units of production (“UOP”) basis whereby the denominator is the proven and probable reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction. The estimated fair value attributable to mineral resources that are not considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is not subject to depreciation until the resources become probable of economic extraction in the future. The estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses is recorded as an intangible asset and is not subject to depreciation until the property enters production.

ii) Underground Mine Development Costs

At our underground mines, we incur development costs to build new shafts, drifts and ramps that will enable us to physically access ore underground. The time over which we will continue to incur these costs depends on the mine life. These underground development costs are capitalized as incurred.

Capitalized underground development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis, whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current life of mine (“LOM”) plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

iii) Open Pit Mine Development Costs

In open pit mining operations, it is necessary to remove overburden and other waste materials to access ore from which minerals can be extracted economically. The process of mining overburden and waste materials is referred to as stripping. Stripping costs incurred in order to provide initial access to the ore body (referred to as pre-production stripping) are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Pre-production stripping costs are capitalized until an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is extracted, after which time such costs are either capitalized to inventory or, if it qualifies as an open pit stripping activity that provides a future benefit, to PP&E. We consider various relevant criteria to assess when an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is produced. Some of the criteria considered would include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the amount of minerals mined versus total ounces in LOM ore; (2) the amount of ore tons mined versus total LOM expected ore tons mined; (3) the current stripping ratio versus the LOM strip ratio; and (4) the ore grade versus the LOM grade.

Stripping costs incurred during the production stage of a pit are accounted for as costs of the inventory produced during the period that the stripping costs are incurred, unless these costs are expected to provide a future economic benefit to an identifiable component of the ore body. Components of the ore body are based on the distinct development phases identified by the mine planning engineers when determining the optimal development plan for the open pit. Production phase stripping costs generate a future economic benefit when the related stripping activity: (1) improves access to a component of the ore body to be mined in the future; (2) increases the fair value of the mine (or pit) as access to future mineral reserves becomes less costly; and (3) increases the productive capacity or extends the productive life of the mine (or pit). Production phase stripping costs that are expected to generate a future economic benefit are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Capitalized open pit mine development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current LOM plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

Construction in Progress

Construction-in-Progress

Assets under construction are capitalized as construction-in-progress until the asset is available for use. The cost of construction-in-progress comprises its purchase price and any costs directly attributable to bringing it into working condition for its intended use. Construction-in-progress amounts related to development projects are included in the carrying amount of the development project. Construction-in-progress amounts incurred at operating mines are presented as a separate asset within PP&E. Construction-in-progress also includes deposits on long lead items. Construction-in-progress is not depreciated. Depreciation commences once the asset is complete and available for use.

Production Stage

A mine that is under construction is determined to enter the production stage when the project is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. We use the following factors to assess whether these criteria have been met: (1) the level of capital expenditures compared to construction cost estimates; (2) the completion of a reasonable period of testing of mine plant and equipment; (3) the ability to produce minerals in saleable form (within specifications); and (4) the ability to sustain ongoing production of minerals.

When a mine construction project moves into the production stage, the capitalization of certain mine construction costs ceases and costs are either capitalized to inventory or expensed, except for capitalizable costs related to property, plant and equipment additions or improvements, open pit stripping activities that provide a future benefit, underground mine development or expenditures that meet the criteria for capitalization in accordance with IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.

Leasing Arrangements

Leasing Arrangements

The determination of whether an arrangement is, or contains, a lease is based on the substance of the arrangement at inception date, including whether the fulfillment of the arrangement is dependent on the use of a specific asset or assets or whether the arrangement conveys a right to use the asset.

Leasing arrangements that transfer substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset to Barrick are classified as finance leases. Assets acquired via a finance lease are recorded as an asset with a corresponding liability at an amount equal to the lower of the fair value of the leased property and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Each lease payment is allocated between the liability and finance costs using the effective interest method, whereby a constant rate of interest expense is recognized on the balance of the liability outstanding. The interest element of the lease is charged to the consolidated statement of income as a finance cost.

PP&E assets acquired under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the asset and the lease term.

All other leases are classified as operating leases. Operating lease payments are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Capitalized Interest

Capitalized Interest

We capitalize interest costs for qualifying assets. Qualifying assets are assets that require a significant amount of time to prepare for their intended use, including projects that are in the exploration and evaluation, development or construction stages. Qualifying assets also include significant expansion projects at our operating mines. Capitalized interest costs are considered an element of the cost of the qualifying asset which is determined based on gross expenditures incurred on an asset. Capitalization ceases when the asset is substantially complete or if active development is suspended or ceases. Where the funds used to finance a qualifying asset form part of general borrowings, the amount capitalized is calculated using a weighted average of rates applicable to the relevant borrowings during the period. Where funds borrowed are directly attributable to a qualifying asset, the amount capitalized represents the borrowing costs specific to those borrowings. Where surplus funds available out of money borrowed specifically to finance a project are temporarily invested, the total capitalized interest is reduced by income generated from short-term investments of such funds.

Insurance

Insurance

We record losses relating to insurable events as they occur. Proceeds receivable from insurance coverage are recorded at such time as receipt is receivable or virtually certain and the amount receivable is fixed or determinable. For business interruption insurance the amount recoverable is only recognized when receipt is virtually certain, as supported by notification of a minimum or proposed settlement amount from the insurance adjuster.

Impairment (and Reversals of Impairment) of Non-Current Assets

Impairment (and Reversals of Impairment) of Non-Current Assets

We review and test the carrying amounts of PP&E and intangible assets with finite lives when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist. Impairment assessments on PP&E and intangible assets are conducted at the level of the cash generating unit (“CGU”), which is the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and includes most liabilities specific to the CGU. For operating mines and projects, the individual mine/project represents a CGU for impairment testing.

The recoverable amount of a CGU is the higher of Value in Use (“VIU”) and Fair Value Less Costs of Disposal (“FVLCD”). We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU amounts and therefore used as the recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes. An impairment loss is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of a CGU over its recoverable amount where both the recoverable amount and carrying value include the associated other assets and liabilities, including taxes where applicable, of the CGU. Where it is not appropriate to allocate the loss to a separate asset, an impairment loss related to a CGU is allocated to the carrying amount of the assets of the CGU on a pro rata basis based on the carrying amount of its non-monetary assets.

Impairment Reversal

An assessment is made at each reporting date to determine whether there is an indication that previously recognized impairment losses may no longer exist or may have decreased. A previously recognized impairment loss is reversed only if there has been a change in the assumptions used to determine the CGU’s recoverable amount since the last impairment loss was recognized. This reversal is recognized in the consolidated statements of income and is limited to the carrying value that would have been determined, net of any depreciation where applicable, had no impairment charge been recognized in prior years. When an impairment reversal is undertaken, the recoverable amount is assessed by reference to the higher of VIU and FVLCD. We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU amounts and therefore used as recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes.

Intangible Assets

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets acquired by way of an asset acquisition or business combination are recognized if the asset is separable or arises from contractual or legal rights and the fair value can be measured reliably on initial recognition.

On acquisition of a mineral property in the exploration stage, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the exploration licenses acquired, including the fair value attributable to mineral resources, if any, of that property. The fair value of the exploration license is recorded as an intangible asset (acquired exploration potential) as at the date of acquisition. When an exploration stage property moves into development, the acquired exploration potential attributable to that property is transferred to mining interests within PP&E.

We also have water rights associated with our mineral properties. Upon acquisition, they are measured at initial cost and are depreciated when they are being used. They are also subject to impairment testing when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist.

Goodwill

Goodwill

Under the acquisition method of accounting, the costs of business combinations are allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on the estimated fair value at the date of acquisition. The excess of the fair value of consideration paid over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. Goodwill is not amortized; instead it is tested for impairment in the fourth quarter and also when there is an indicator of impairment. At the date of acquisition, goodwill is assigned to the CGU or group of CGUs that is expected to benefit from the synergies of the business combination. For the purposes of impairment testing, goodwill is allocated to the Company’s operating segments, which are our individual mine sites and corresponds to the level at which goodwill is internally monitored by the Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President.

The recoverable amount of an operating segment is the higher of VIU and FVLCD. A goodwill impairment is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of the operating segment over its recoverable amount. Goodwill impairment charges are not reversible.

Debt

Debt

Debt is recognized initially at fair value, net of financing costs incurred, and subsequently measured at amortized cost. Any difference between the amounts originally received and the redemption value of the debt is recognized in the consolidated statements of income over the period to maturity using the effective interest method.

Derivative Instruments and Hedge Accounting

Derivative Instruments and Hedge Accounting

Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheet, classified based on contractual maturity. Derivative instruments are classified as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”), hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”) or non-hedge derivatives. Derivatives designated as either a fair value or cash flow hedge that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Derivative assets and derivative liabilities are shown separately in the balance sheet unless there is a legal right to offset and intent to settle on a net basis.

Fair Value Hedges

Changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges are recorded in the consolidated statements of income, together with any changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability or firm commitment that is attributable to the hedged risk.

Cash Flow Hedges

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges is recognized in equity. The gain or loss relating to the ineffective portion is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. Amounts accumulated in equity are transferred to the consolidated statements of income in the period when the forecasted transaction impacts earnings. When the forecasted transaction that is hedged results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability, the gains and losses previously deferred in equity are transferred from equity and included in the measurement of the initial carrying amount of the asset or liability.

When a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge expires or is sold and the forecasted transaction is still expected to occur, any cumulative gain or loss relating to the derivative that is recorded in equity at that time remains in equity and is recognized in the consolidated statements of income when the forecasted transaction occurs. When a forecasted transaction is no longer expected to occur, the cumulative gain or loss that was recorded in equity is immediately transferred to the consolidated statements of income.

Non-Hedge Derivatives

Derivative instruments that do not qualify as either fair value or cash flow hedges are recorded at their fair value at the balance sheet date, with changes in fair value recognized in the consolidated statements of income.

Embedded Derivatives

Embedded Derivatives

Derivatives embedded in other financial instruments or executory contracts are accounted for as separate derivatives when their risks and characteristics are not closely related to their host financial instrument or contract. In some cases, the embedded derivatives may be designated as hedges and are accounted for as described above.

Environmental Rehabilitation Provision

Environmental Rehabilitation Provision

Mining, extraction and processing activities normally give rise to obligations for environmental rehabilitation. Rehabilitation work can include facility decommissioning and dismantling; removal or treatment of waste materials; site and land rehabilitation, including compliance with and monitoring of environmental regulations; security and other site-related costs required to perform the rehabilitation work; and operation of equipment designed to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. The extent of work required and the associated costs are dependent on the requirements of relevant authorities and our environmental policies. Routine operating costs that may impact the ultimate closure and rehabilitation activities, such as waste material handling conducted as an integral part of a mining or production process, are not included in the provision. Abnormal costs arising from unforeseen circumstances, such as the contamination caused by unplanned discharges, are recognized as an expense and liability when the event that gives rise to an obligation occurs and reliable estimates of the required rehabilitation costs can be made.

Provisions for the cost of each rehabilitation program are normally recognized at the time that an environmental disturbance occurs or a new legal or constructive obligation is determined. When the extent of disturbance increases over the life of an operation, the provision is increased accordingly. The major parts of the carrying amount of provisions relate to closure/rehabilitation of tailings ponds, heap leach pads and waste dumps; demolition of buildings/mine facilities; ongoing water treatment; and ongoing care and maintenance and security of closed mines. Costs included in the provision encompass all closure and rehabilitation activity expected to occur progressively over the life of the operation at the time of closure and post-closure in connection with disturbances as at the reporting date. Estimated costs included in the determination of the provision reflect the risks and probabilities of alternative estimates of cash flows required to settle the obligation at each particular operation. The expected rehabilitation costs are estimated based on the cost of external contractors performing the work or the cost of performing the work internally depending on management’s intention.

The timing of the actual rehabilitation expenditure is dependent upon a number of factors such as the life and nature of the asset, the operating license conditions and the environment in which the mine operates. Expenditures may occur before and after closure and can continue for an extended period of time depending on rehabilitation requirements. Rehabilitation provisions are measured at the expected value of future cash flows, which exclude the effect of inflation, discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate. The unwinding of the discount, referred to as accretion expense, is included in finance costs and results in an increase in the amount of the provision. Provisions are updated each reporting period for changes to expected cash flows and for the effect of changes in the discount rate, and the change in estimate is added or deducted from the related asset and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Significant judgments and estimates are involved in forming expectations of future activities, the amount and timing of the associated cash flows and the period over which we estimate those cash flows. Those expectations are formed based on existing environmental and regulatory requirements or, if more stringent, our environmental policies which give rise to a constructive obligation.

When provisions for closure and rehabilitation are initially recognized, the corresponding cost is capitalized as an asset, representing part of the cost of acquiring the future economic benefits of the operation. The capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities is recognized in PP&E and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Adjustments to the estimated amount and timing of future closure and rehabilitation cash flows are a normal occurrence in light of the significant judgments and estimates involved. The principal factors that can cause expected cash flows to change are: the construction of new processing facilities; changes in the quantities of material in reserves and resources with a corresponding change in the life of mine plan; changing ore characteristics that impact required environmental protection measures and related costs; changes in water quality that impact the extent of water treatment required; changes in discount rates; changes in foreign exchange rates; changes in Barrick’s closure policies; and changes in laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment.

Rehabilitation provisions are adjusted as a result of changes in estimates and assumptions. Those adjustments are accounted for as a change in the corresponding cost of the related assets, including the related mineral property, except where a reduction in the provision is greater than the remaining net book value of the related assets, in which case the value is reduced to nil and the remaining adjustment is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. In the case of closed sites, changes in estimates and assumptions are recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of income. For an operating mine, the adjusted carrying amount of the related asset is depreciated prospectively. Adjustments also result in changes to future finance costs.

Litigation and Other Provisions

Litigation and Other Provisions

Provisions are recognized when a present obligation exists (legal or constructive), as a result of a past event, for which it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. Provisions are discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate and the accretion expense is included in finance costs.

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued, which may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

If the assessment of a contingency suggests that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reliably estimated, then a loss is recorded. When a contingent loss is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reliably estimated, then details of the contingent loss are disclosed. Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed unless they involve guarantees, in which case we disclose the nature of the guarantee. Legal fees incurred in connection with pending legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. Contingent gains are only recognized when the inflow of economic benefits is virtually certain.

Stock-Based Compensation

Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize the expense related to these plans over the vesting period, beginning once the grant has been approved and announced to the beneficiaries.

Cash-settled awards are measured at fair value initially using the market value of the underlying shares on the day preceding the date of the grant of the award and are required to be remeasured to fair value at each reporting date until settlement. The cost is then recorded over the vesting period of the award. This expense, and any changes in the fair value of the award, is recorded to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs. The cost of a cash-settled award is recorded within liabilities until settled. Barrick offers cash-settled (Restricted Share Units (“RSU”), Deferred Share Units (“DSU”), Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”) and Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

Equity-settled awards are measured at fair value, using the Lattice model for stock options, with market related inputs as of the date of the grant. The cost is recorded over the vesting period of the award to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs (i.e., cost of sales or general and administrative) and the corresponding entry is recorded in equity. Equity-settled awards are not remeasured subsequent to the initial grant date. Barrick offers equity-settled (Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”), Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”) and Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

We use the accelerated method (also referred to as ‘graded’ vesting) for attributing stock option expense over the vesting period. Stock option expense incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”)

Under Barrick’s ESOP, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted to the individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest equally over four years, beginning in the year after granting. The ESOP arrangement has graded vesting terms, and therefore multiple vesting periods must be valued and accounted for separately over their respective vesting periods. The compensation expense of the instruments issued for each grant under the ESOP is calculated using the Lattice model. The compensation expense is adjusted by the estimated forfeiture rate which is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Restricted Share Units (“RSU”)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest within three years and upon vesting the employee will receive either cash or common shares, depending on the terms of the grant. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

A liability for RSUs is measured at fair value on the grant date and is subsequently adjusted for changes in fair value. The liability is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period, with a corresponding charge to compensation expense, as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration. Compensation expenses for RSUs incorporate an estimate for expected forfeiture rates based on which the fair value is adjusted.

Deferred Share Units (“DSU”)

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive at least 75% of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs or cash to purchase common shares that cannot be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of until the Director leaves the Board. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director leaves the Board, at which time the cash value of the DSUs is paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized immediately. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any change in fair value recorded as compensation expense in the period. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. We also allow granting of DSUs to other officers and employees at the discretion of the Board Compensation Committee.

Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”)

Under our PRSU plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. PRSUs vest at the end of a three-year period and are settled in cash on the third anniversary of the grant date. Additional PRSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period. Vesting, and therefore the liability, is based on the achievement of performance goals and the target settlement ranges from 0% to 200% of the original grant of units.

The value of a PRSU reflects the value of a Barrick common share and the number of share units issued is adjusted for its relative performance against certain competitors and other internal financial performance measures. Therefore, the fair value of the PRSUs is determined with reference to the closing stock price at each remeasurement date.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense. The fair value is adjusted for the revised estimated forfeiture rate.

Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)

Under our PGSU plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. Annual PGSU awards are determined based on a multiple ranging from one to six times base salary (depending on position and level of responsibility) multiplied by a performance factor. The number of PGSUs granted to a plan participant is determined by dividing the dollar value of the award by the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant, or if the grant date occurs during a blackout period, by the greater of (i) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant date and (ii) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the first day following the expiration of the blackout. Upon vesting, the after-tax value of the award is used to purchase common shares and generally these shares cannot be sold until the employee retires or leaves Barrick. PGSUs vest at the end of the third year from the date of the grant.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense.

Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”)

Under our ESPP plan, certain Barrick employees can purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. Each year, employees may contribute 1%-6% of their combined base salary and annual short-term incentive, and Barrick will match 50% of the contribution, up to a maximum of C$5,000 per year.

Both Barrick and the employee make the contributions on a semi-monthly basis with the funds being transferred to a custodian who purchases Barrick Common Shares in the open market. Shares purchased with employee contributions have no vesting requirement; however, shares purchased with Barrick’s contributions vest approximately one year from contribution date. All dividend income is used to purchase additional Barrick shares.

Barrick records an expense equal to its semi-monthly cash contribution. No forfeiture rate is applied to the amounts accrued. Where an employee leaves prior to vesting, any accrual for contributions by Barrick during the year related to that employee is reversed.

Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)

Under our GESP plan, Barrick employees are awarded Company Common Shares. These shares vest immediately, but must be held until the employee ceases to be employed by the Company. Barrick recognizes the expense when the award is announced and has no ongoing liability.

Post-Retirement Benefits

Post-Retirement Benefits

Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans whereby we contribute up to 6% of the employee’s annual salary. We also have a retirement plan for certain officers of Barrick under which we contribute 15% of the officer’s annual salary and annual short-term incentive. The contributions are recognized as compensation expense as incurred. The Company has no further payment obligations once the contributions have been paid.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on employees’ years of service. Our policy is to fund the amounts necessary on an actuarial basis to provide enough assets to meet the benefits payable to plan members. Independent trustees administer assets of the plans, which are invested mainly in fixed-income and equity securities.

As well as the qualified plans, we have non-qualified defined benefit pension plans covering certain employees and former directors of Barrick. No funding is done on these plans and contributions for future years are required to be equal to benefit payments.

Actuarial gains and losses arising from experience adjustments and changes in actuarial assumptions are charged or credited to equity in OCI in the period in which they arise.

Our valuations are carried out using the projected unit credit method. We record the difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the present value of the plan obligations as an asset or liability on the consolidated balance sheets.

Pension Plan Assets and Liabilities

Pension plan assets, which consist primarily of fixed-income and equity securities, are valued using current market quotations. Plan obligations and the annual pension expense are determined on an actuarial basis and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including the market value of plan assets, estimates of the expected return on plan assets, discount rates, future wage increases and other assumptions.

The discount rate and life expectancy are the assumptions that generally have the most significant impact on our pension cost and obligation.

Other Post-Retirement Benefits

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees. Actuarial gains and losses resulting from variances between actual results and economic estimates or actuarial assumptions are recorded in OCI.

New Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Effective

New Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Effective

IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

In May 2014, the IASB issued IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which covers principles that an entity shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from a contract with a customer. In September 2015, the IASB deferred the effective date of the standard to annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018, with earlier application permitted. We have not early adopted IFRS 15. In 2017 we completed our assessment of the impact on our consolidated financial statements. Our assessment is as follows:

• Bullion (gold and silver) sales – these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15.

• Concentrate (gold and copper) and cathode (copper) sales – the recognition of these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15, but we will begin separate presentation of the provisional pricing adjustments within our revenue note disclosure.

• Streaming arrangements – IFRS 15 requires us to treat deferred revenue earned on streaming transactions as variable, which must be adjusted each time there is a change in the underlying production profile. As at January 1, 2018, an insignificant opening balance sheet adjustment will be recorded upon transition to retroactively adjust the historical revenue recognized from our streaming transactions, resulting in an increase to our deferred revenue balance and a decrease in retained earnings. The retroactive adjustment reflects the change in the transaction price per unit due to a change in the life of mine production profile of the mines since the inception of the streaming agreements and the corresponding impact on accretion. Going forward, each time we have an update to the life of mine production profile (typically in the fourth quarter of each year) we will record an adjustment to revenue to retroactively adjust for the new number of ounces expected to be delivered to our streaming counterparty.

• We will use the modified retrospective approach of adoption.

IFRS 16 Leases

In January 2016, the IASB issued IFRS 16 Leases, which requires lessees to recognize assets and liabilities for most leases. Application of the standard is mandatory for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019, with earlier application permitted, provided the new revenue standard, IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, has been applied or is applied at the same date as IFRS 16. We are not early adopting IFRS 16. We expect that IFRS 16 will result in an increase in assets and liabilities as fewer leases will be expensed as payments are made. We expect an increase in depreciation and accretion expenses and also an increase in cash flow from operating activities as these lease payments will be recorded as financing outflows in our cash flow statement. We have developed a full implementation plan to determine the impact on our financial statements and internal controls. In fourth quarter 2017, we formed an IFRS 16 working group and began the process of compiling all of our existing operating leases and service contracts. In 2018, we will review the relevant agreements and determine which of the operating leases and service contracts are in scope for IFRS 16.

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Subsidiaries other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017: 

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹  Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

²  For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³  We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴  We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶  We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷  Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸  These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

	Pueblo Viejo						Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016			2017			2016
Revenue		$1,417			$1,548			$751			$1,045
Income (loss) from continuing operations after tax	293			810			(630		)	81
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—			—			—			—
Total comprehensive income (loss)		$293			$810			($630	)		$81
Dividends paid to NCI		$—			$—			$13			$7
Summarized Statements of Cash Flows
	Pueblo Viejo						Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016			2017			2016
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		$283			$602			($15	)		$324
Net cash used in investing activities	(112		)	(54		)	(160		)	(190		)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(539		)	(350		)	(62		)	(49		)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		($368	)		$198			($237	)		$85

	Pueblo Viejo				Acacia
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Current assets		$488		$833		$464		$673
Non-current assets	3,489		3,703		1,333		1,725
Total assets		$3,977		$4,536		$1,797		$2,398
Current liabilities	907		1,357		212		71
Non-current liabilities	248		603		280		381
Total liabilities		$1,155		$1,960		$492		$452

	Pueblo Viejo			Acacia			Cerro Casale			Other			Total
NCI in subsidiary at December 31, 2017	40		%	36.1		%	25		%	Various
At January 1, 2016		$1,232			$677			$318			$50			$2,277
Share of income (loss)	174			34			(1		)	(1		)	206
Cash contributed	—			—			2			68			70
Disbursements	(95		)	(7		)	—			(73		)	(175		)
At December 31, 2016		$1,311			$704			$319			$44			$2,378
Share of income (loss)	118			(211		)	173			(2		)	78
Cash contributed	—			—			1			12			13
Decrease in non-controlling interest	—			—			(493		)	—			(493		)
Disbursements	(139		)	(13		)	—			(43		)	(195		)
At December 31, 2017		$1,290			$480			$—			$11			$1,781

Joint arrangements

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017: 

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹  Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

²  For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³  We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴  We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶  We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷  Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸  These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

Equity Accounting Method Investment Continuity

	Kabanga			Jabal Sayid		Zaldívar			GNX			Total
At January 1, 2016		$30			$178		$990			$1			$1,199
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1		)	2		27			(8		)	20
Funds invested	1			—		—			8			9
Working capital adjustments	—			—		6			—			6
Impairment charges	—			—		(49		)	—			(49		)
At December 31, 2016		$30			$180		$974			$1			$1,185
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1		)	26		61			(10		)	76
Funds invested	1			—		—			11			12
Dividend	—			—		(60		)	—			(60		)
At December 31, 2017		$30			$206		$975			$2			$1,213
Publicly traded	No			No		No			No

Summarized Equity Investee Financial Information
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Revenue		$214			$80		$649			$518
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	116			65		375			354
Depreciation	33			12		111			87
Finance expense	3			—		1			2
Other expense (income)	2			—		—			(5		)
Income from continuing operations before tax		$60			$3		$162			$80
Income tax expense	(8		)	—		(40		)	(25		)
Income from continuing operations after tax		$52			$3		$122			$55
Total comprehensive income		$52			$3		$122			$55
Summarized Balance Sheet
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Cash and equivalents		$50			$14		$72			$102
Other current assets1	70			56		563			482
Total current assets		$120			$70		$635			$584
Non-current assets	485			473		1,582			1,603
Total assets		$605			$543		$2,217			$2,187
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		$12			$—		$19			$23
Other current liabilities	35			27		110			84
Total current liabilities		$47			$27		$129			$107
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	379			391		20			33
Other non-current liabilities	13			11		99			80
Total non-current liabilities		$392			$402		$119			$113
Total liabilities		$439			$429		$248			$220
Net assets		$166			$114		$1,969			$1,967

¹  Zaldívar other current assets include inventory of $451 million (2016: $429 million).

The information above reflects the amounts presented in the financial information of the joint venture adjusted for differences between IFRS and local GAAP.

Reconciliation of Summarized Financial Information to Carrying Value
	Jabal Sayid1		Zaldívar
Opening net assets		$114		$1,967
Income for the period	52		122
Dividend	—		(120		)
Closing net assets, December 31		$166		$1,969
Barrick's share of net assets (50%)	83		985
Equity earnings adjustment	—		(10		)
Goodwill recognition	123		—
Carrying value		$206		$975

¹  A $165 million non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV is presented as part of Other Assets (see note 22).

Estimated useful lives of major asset categories

Estimated useful lives of Major Asset Categories

Buildings, plant and equipment	7 – 27 years
Underground mobile equipment	5 - 7 years
Light vehicles and other mobile equipment	2 - 3 years
Furniture, computer and office equipment	2 - 3 years

	Buildings, plant and equipment			Mining property costs subject to depreciation1,3			Mining property costs not subject to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2017
Net of accumulated depreciation		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
Additions4	158			219			1,966			2,343
Disposals	(72		)	(32		)	(1,093		)	(1,197		)
Depreciation	(878		)	(819		)	—			(1,697		)
Impairment reversals	(102		)	(359		)	715			254
Transfers5	551			449			(1,000		)	—
At December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
At December 31, 2017
Cost		$14,209			$21,068			$14,507			$49,784
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,996		)	(14,416		)	(11,566		)	(35,978		)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
	Buildings, plant and equipment			Mining property costs subject to depreciation1,3			Mining property costs not subject to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2016
Cost		$13,782			$19,968			$14,734			$48,484
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,098		)	(12,668		)	(12,284		)	(34,050		)
Net carrying amount – January 1, 2016		$4,684			$7,300			$2,450			$14,434
Additions4	71			272			933			1,276
Disposals	(80		)	—			(37		)	(117		)
Depreciation	(794		)	(995		)	—			(1,789		)
Impairment charges	217			79			3			299
Transfers5	458			538			(996		)	—
At December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
At December 31, 2016
Cost		$14,111			$20,778			$14,634			$49,523
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,555		)	(13,584		)	(12,281		)	(35,420		)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103

¹  Includes capitalized reserve acquisition costs, capitalized development costs and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs other than exploration license costs included in intangible assets.

²  Assets not subject to depreciation includes construction-in-progress, projects and acquired mineral resources and exploration potential at operating mine sites and development projects.

³  Assets subject to depreciation includes the following items for production stage properties: acquired mineral reserves and resources, capitalized mine development costs, capitalized stripping and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs.

⁴  Additions include revisions to the capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities.

⁵  Primarily relates to long-lived assets that are transferred to PP&E once they are placed into service.

Mineral Property Costs Not Subject to Depreciation

	Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2017		Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2016
Construction-in-progress1		$640		$466
Acquired mineral resources and exploration potential	24		24
Projects
Pascua-Lama	1,499		1,263
Norte Abierto	612		444
Donlin Gold	166		156
		$2,941		$2,353

¹  Represents assets under construction at our operating mine sites.

XML

ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Business Combinations and Discontinued Operations [Abstract]

Net cash proceeds on divestiture

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture
Veladero		$990		$—
Bald Mountain	—		423
Round Mountain	—		165
		$990		$588

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Operating Segments [Abstract]

Segment information

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31, 2017	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1			Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,961		$1,076		$793		$24		$16			$1,052
Pueblo Viejo2	1,417		501		229		—		16			671
Lagunas Norte	514		177		68		4		6			259
Veladero	591		291		119		3		5			173
Turquoise Ridge	280		131		28		—		2			119
Acacia2	751		362		107		—		91			191
Pascua-Lama	—		—		8		125		(10		)	(123		)
Other Mines3	1,860		1,086		267		12		31			464
		$8,374		$3,624		$1,619		$168		$157			$2,806

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31, 2016	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1		Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,703		$1,089		$807		$19		$17		$771
Pueblo Viejo2	1,548		497		147		—		3		901
Lagunas Norte	548		180		96		3		9		260
Veladero	685		346		118		1		—		220
Turquoise Ridge	322		128		27		—		1		166
Acacia2	1,045		553		166		27		—		299
Pascua-Lama	—		—		7		59		1		(67		)
Other Mines3	1,707		958		188		6		52		503
		$8,558		$3,751		$1,556		$115		$83		$3,053

¹   Includes accretion expense, which is included with finance costs in the consolidated statements of income. For the year ended December 31, 2017, accretion expense was $55 million (2016: $41 million). Refer to note 9a for details of other expenses (income).

²  Includes non-controlling interest portion of revenues, cost of sales and segment income for the year ended December 31, 2017, for Pueblo Viejo, $567 million, $285 million, $276 million (2016: $623 million, $249 million, $373 million) and Acacia, $271 million, $169 million, $69 million (2016: $377 million, $259 million, $108 million).

³  Includes cost of sales of Pierina for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $174 million (2016: $82 million).

Reconciliation of Segment Income to Income from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Segment income		$2,806			$3,053
Other cost of sales/amortization1	(57		)	(98		)
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments	(186		)	(122		)
General and administrative expenses	(248		)	(256		)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments	901			(18		)
Impairment reversals	212			250
Loss on currency translation	(72		)	(199		)
Closed mine rehabilitation	(55		)	(130		)
Income from equity investees	76			20
Finance costs, net (includes non-segment accretion)2	(636		)	(734		)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives3	6			12
Income before income taxes		$2,747			$1,778

¹  Includes all realized hedge losses of $27 million (2016: $73 million).

²  Includes debt extinguishment losses of $127 million (2016: $129 million).

³  Includes unrealized non-hedge gains of $1 million (2016: $32 million).

Capital Expenditures Information

	Segment Capital Expenditures1
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Barrick Nevada		$585		$358
Pueblo Viejo	114		101
Lagunas Norte	25		56
Veladero	173		95
Turquoise Ridge	36		32
Acacia	148		191
Pascua-Lama	6		20
Other Mines	259		230
Segment total		$1,346		$1,083
Other items not allocated to segments	36		36
Total		$1,382		$1,119

¹  Segment capital expenditures are presented for internal management reporting purposes on an accrual basis. Capital expenditures in the consolidated statements of cash flow are presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash expenditures were $1,396 million (2016: $1,126 million) and the decrease in accrued expenditures was $14 million (2016: $7 million decrease).

Geographic information

Geographic Information

	Non-current assets				Revenue1
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		2017		2016
United States		$6,641		$6,768		$3,299		$3,081
Dominican Republic	3,480		3,540		1,417		1,548
Argentina	2,217		2,366		591		685
Chile	2,469		1,945		—		—
Tanzania	1,129		1,673		751		1,045
Peru	734		678		676		663
Australia	463		478		456		472
Zambia	787		473		612		466
Papua New Guinea	351		353		322		304
Saudi Arabia	371		346		—		—
Canada	625		503		250		294
Unallocated	1,357		1,267		—		—
Total		$20,624		$20,390		$8,374		$8,558

¹  Presented based on the location from which the product originated. 

XML

REVENUE (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Revenue [abstract]

Revenue

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gold bullion sales1
Spot market sales		$7,566		$7,650
Concentrate sales	65		258
		$7,631		$7,908
Copper concentrate sales1		$608		$466
Other sales2		$135		$184
Total		$8,374		$8,558

¹  Revenues include amounts transferred from OCI to earnings for commodity cash flow hedges (see note 25d). Revenue is presented net of direct sales taxes of $nil (2016: $2 million).

²  Revenues include the sale of by-products from our gold and copper mines and energy sales to third parties from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

Disclosure of provisionally prices sales

Our exposure at December 31, 2017 to the impact of movements in market commodity prices for provisionally priced sales is set out in the following table:

	Volumes subject to final pricing Copper (millions) Gold (000s)		Impact on net income before taxation of 10% movement in market price US$
As at December 31	2017	2016	2017		2016
Copper pounds	40	44		$13		$11
Gold ounces	—	13	—		2

XML

COST OF SALES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Analysis of income and expense [abstract]

Cost of sales

	Gold				Copper				Other5				Total
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016
Direct mining cost1,2,3,4		$3,063		$3,215		$274		$228		$28		$77		$3,365		$3,520
Depreciation	1,529		1,504		83		45		35		25		1,647		1,574
Royalty expense	206		224		38		41		—		—		244		265
Community relations	38		37		4		5		2		4		44		46
Total		$4,836		$4,980		$399		$319		$65		$106		$5,300		$5,405

¹  Direct mining cost includes charges to reduce the cost of inventory to net realizable value of $21 million (2016: $68 million).

²  Direct mining cost includes the costs of extracting by-products.

³  Includes employee costs of $1,051 million (2016: $1,048 million).

⁴  Cost of sales also includes costs associated with power sales to third parties from our Monte Rio power plant in the Dominican Republic up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

⁵  Other includes all realized hedge gains and losses and corporate amortization.

XML

EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT EXPENSES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Exploration For and Evaluation of Mineral Resources [Abstract]

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Minesite exploration and evaluation1		$47		$44
Global exploration and evaluation1	126		88
Advanced project costs:
Pascua-Lama	122		59
Other	14		17
Corporate development	13		14
Business improvement and innovation	32		15
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses		$354		$237

¹  Approximates the impact on operating cash flow.

XML

OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME) (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Other Operating Income (Expense) [Abstract]

Operating expense (income)

Other expense (income)

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Other Expense:
Bank charges		$23			$20
Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs1	53			—
Litigation	24			—
Miscellaneous write-offs	11			—
Other	43			15
Total other expense		$154			$35
Other Income:
(Gain) loss on sale of long-lived assets2		($911	)		$42
Office closure	—			(4		)
Other	(42		)	(13		)
Total other income		($953	)		$25
Total		($799	)		$60

¹  Primarily consists of severance, contractor, and inventory write-down costs.

²  2017 includes gains of $718 million from the 50% sale of Veladero and $193 million from the 25% sale of Cerro Casale. 2016 includes losses of $17 million from the sale of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain, and $39 million from the sale of Zaldívar.

Loss on currency translation

Loss on currency translation

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Currency translation losses released as a result of the disposal and reorganization of entities		$11		$91
Foreign currency translation losses	61		108
Total		$72		$199

XML

IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Impairment Of Assets [Abstract]

Impairment (reversals) charges

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Impairment reversals of long-lived assets1		($224	)		($250	)
Impairment of intangibles1	12			—
Total		($212	)		($250	)

¹  Refer to note 21 for further details.

The other key assumptions used in our impairment testing, based on the CGUs tested in each year, are summarized in the table below:

	2017			2016
Copper price per lb (long-term)		$2.75			$2.75
WACC - gold (range)	3%-11%			3%-6%
WACC - gold (avg)	6		%	4		%
WACC - copper	9		%	9		%
NAV multiple - gold (avg)	1.2			1.2
LOM years - gold (avg)	17			15
Value per ounce of gold	$30 - $55			n/a
Value per ounce of silver	$0.41 - $0.76			n/a

The carrying value of the CGUs that are most sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the FVLCD calculation are:

As at December 31, 2017	Carrying Value
Pueblo Viejo1		$3,077
Veladero2	1,016
Lumwana3	849
Norte Abierto2,4	817
Bulyanhulu3	600
Lagunas Norte5	458
Buzwagi	194
Pascua-Lama3,6,7		$38

¹  This CGU had an impairment loss in 2015. As there have been no indicators of impairment or impairment reversal in 2017, the carrying value would remain sensitive to the key assumptions in the FVLCD model from 2015.

²  As a result of partial divestments that occurred in 2017 (refer to notes 4a and 4b) these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the purchase price allocations.

³  As a result of the impairment/reversal recorded in 2017 these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁴  Norte Abierto is the new name of our joint venture with Goldcorp, comprised of the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  As a result of the reversal recorded in 2016 this CGU was remeasured to fair value and is sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁶  The carrying value of Pascua-Lama includes the deferred revenue liability relating to the Wheaton Precious Metals stream ($812 million).

⁷  This CGU is most sensitive to changes in the value per ounce of comparable market entities.

Other results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows:

	(Impairment)/reversal based on
Operating Segment	Gold price	Gold price
	+$100	-$100
Pueblo Viejo	$546	($651)
Lagunas Norte	-	(311)
Veladero	-	(188)

For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recorded net impairment reversals of $212 million (2016: $250 million) for non-current assets, as summarized in the following table:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Cerro Casale		($1,120	)		$—
Lumwana	(259		)	—
Bulyanhulu	740			—
Veladero	—			(275		)
Lagunas Norte	3			(28		)
Pascua-Lama	407			—
Zaldívar	—			49
Exploration sites	12			—
Other	5			4
Total impairment (reversals) of long-lived assets		($212	)		($250	)

XML

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

General and Administrative Expenses [Abstract]

General and administrative expenses

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Corporate administration1		$227		$201
Operating segment administration	21		55
Total2		$248		$256

¹  Includes $3 million (2016: $9 million) related to one-time severance payments.

²  Includes employee costs of $98 million (2016: $153 million).

XML

INCOME TAX EXPENSE (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Income Tax [Abstract]

Schedule of components of income tax expense (recovery)

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Tax on profit
Current tax
Charge for the year		$1,125			$911
Adjustment in respect of prior years	—			(2		)
		$1,125			$909
Deferred tax
Origination and reversal of temporary differences in the current year		$112			$10
Adjustment in respect of prior years	(6		)	(2		)
		$106			$8
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917
Tax expense related to continuing operations
Current
Canada		$7			$7
International	1,118			902
		$1,125			$909
Deferred
Canada		($97	)		($30	)
International	203			38
		$106			$8
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917

Reconciliation to Canadian statutory rate

Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
At 26.5% statutory rate		$728			$471
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions1	(96		)	(134		)
Impact of foreign tax rates2	215			113
Expenses not tax deductible	24			54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets	(241		)	—
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets	66			—
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances	10			23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments	(7		)	(5		)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets	21			35
United States tax reform	(203		)	—
Non-recognition of US AMT credits	—			13
Adjustments in respect of prior years	(6		)	(4		)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities	172			70
Impact of tax rate changes	—			(13		)
United States withholding taxes	252			—
Other withholding taxes	18			11
Mining taxes	266			267
Other items	12			16
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917

¹  We are able to claim certain allowances and tax deductions unique to extractive industries that result in a lower effective tax rate.

²  We operate in multiple foreign tax jurisdictions that have tax rates different than the Canadian statutory rate

XML

EARNINGS PER SHARE (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Earnings per share [abstract]

Earnings (loss) per share

For the years ended December 31 ($ millions, except shares in millions and per share amounts in dollars)	2017						2016
	Basic			Diluted			Basic			Diluted
Net income		$1,516			$1,516			$861			$861
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests	(78		)	(78		)	(206		)	(206		)
Net income attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation		$1,438			$1,438			$655			$655
Weighted average shares outstanding	1,166			1,166			1,165			1,165
Basic and diluted earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation		$1.23			$1.23			$0.56			$0.56

XML

FINANCE COSTS, NET (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Finance Costs [Abstract]

Financing costs, net

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Interest1		$511			$591
Amortization of debt issue costs	5			17
Amortization of discount	1			2
Gain on interest rate hedges	(6		)	(1		)
Accretion	67			50
Loss on debt extinguishment2	127			129
Finance income	(14		)	(13		)
Total		$691			$775

¹  Interest in the consolidated statements of cash flow is presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash interest paid was $425 million (2016: $513 million).

²  2017 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (4.10% notes due 2023, 6.95% notes due 2019, and Pueblo Viejo Project Financing). 2016 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (2.50% notes due 2018, 4.40% notes due 2021, 4.95% notes due 2020, 6.80% notes due 2018 and 6.95% notes due 2019).

XML

CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Cash Flow Statement [Abstract]

Cash flow - other items

Operating Cash Flows - Other Items

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Adjustments for non-cash income statement items:
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)		($6	)		($12	)
Stock-based compensation expense	80			82
Income from investment in equity investees (note 16)	(76		)	(20		)
Change in estimate of rehabilitation costs at closed mines	55			130
Net inventory impairment charges (note 17)	21			68
Change in other assets and liabilities	(196		)	(249		)
Settlement of rehabilitation obligations	(59		)	(62		)
Other operating activities		($181	)		($63	)
Cash flow arising from changes in:
Accounts receivable		$8			($5	)
Inventory	(372		)	(190		)
Other current assets	(278		)	(72		)
Accounts payable	(35		)	(190		)
Other current liabilities	(51		)	29
Change in working capital		($728	)		($428	)

XML

INVESTMENTS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Interests In Other Entities [Abstract]

Investments

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017: 

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹  Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

²  For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³  We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴  We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶  We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷  Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸  These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

Equity Accounting Method Investment Continuity

	Kabanga			Jabal Sayid		Zaldívar			GNX			Total
At January 1, 2016		$30			$178		$990			$1			$1,199
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1		)	2		27			(8		)	20
Funds invested	1			—		—			8			9
Working capital adjustments	—			—		6			—			6
Impairment charges	—			—		(49		)	—			(49		)
At December 31, 2016		$30			$180		$974			$1			$1,185
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1		)	26		61			(10		)	76
Funds invested	1			—		—			11			12
Dividend	—			—		(60		)	—			(60		)
At December 31, 2017		$30			$206		$975			$2			$1,213
Publicly traded	No			No		No			No

Summarized Equity Investee Financial Information
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Revenue		$214			$80		$649			$518
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	116			65		375			354
Depreciation	33			12		111			87
Finance expense	3			—		1			2
Other expense (income)	2			—		—			(5		)
Income from continuing operations before tax		$60			$3		$162			$80
Income tax expense	(8		)	—		(40		)	(25		)
Income from continuing operations after tax		$52			$3		$122			$55
Total comprehensive income		$52			$3		$122			$55
Summarized Balance Sheet
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Cash and equivalents		$50			$14		$72			$102
Other current assets1	70			56		563			482
Total current assets		$120			$70		$635			$584
Non-current assets	485			473		1,582			1,603
Total assets		$605			$543		$2,217			$2,187
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		$12			$—		$19			$23
Other current liabilities	35			27		110			84
Total current liabilities		$47			$27		$129			$107
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	379			391		20			33
Other non-current liabilities	13			11		99			80
Total non-current liabilities		$392			$402		$119			$113
Total liabilities		$439			$429		$248			$220
Net assets		$166			$114		$1,969			$1,967

¹  Zaldívar other current assets include inventory of $451 million (2016: $429 million).

The information above reflects the amounts presented in the financial information of the joint venture adjusted for differences between IFRS and local GAAP.

Reconciliation of Summarized Financial Information to Carrying Value
	Jabal Sayid1		Zaldívar
Opening net assets		$114		$1,967
Income for the period	52		122
Dividend	—		(120		)
Closing net assets, December 31		$166		$1,969
Barrick's share of net assets (50%)	83		985
Equity earnings adjustment	—		(10		)
Goodwill recognition	123		—
Carrying value		$206		$975

¹  A $165 million non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV is presented as part of Other Assets (see note 22).

XML

INVENTORIES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Inventories [Abstract]

Inventories and inventory impairment charges

	Gold						Copper
	As at December 31, 2017			As at December 31, 2016			As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Raw materials
Ore in stockpiles		$2,125			$2,067			$102		$72
Ore on leach pads	405			406			—		—
Mine operating supplies	515			585			79		62
Work in process	174			219			—		—
Finished products	168			50			3		5
		$3,387			$3,327			$184		$139
Non-current ore in stockpiles1	(1,681		)	(1,536		)	—		—
		$1,706			$1,791			$184		$139

¹  Ore that we do not expect to process in the next 12 months is classified within other long-term assets.

Inventory Impairment Charges
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Barrick Nevada		$—		$57
Golden Sunlight	6		7
Porgera	4		3
Pierina	11		1
Inventory impairment charges1		$21		$68

¹  Impairment charges in 2017 primarily relate to leach pad inventories at Pierina. Impairment charges in 2016 primarily relate to stockpiles at Cortez.

Ore in Stockpiles
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Gold
Barrick Nevada		$1,040		$1,128
Pueblo Viejo	538		475
Porgera	55		77
Kalgoorlie	138		127
Lagunas Norte	147		91
Buzwagi	109		64
North Mara	47		41
Veladero	22		38
Turquoise Ridge	26		22
Other	3		4
Copper
Lumwana	102		72
		$2,227		$2,139
Ore on Leach pads
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Gold
Veladero		$145		$172
Nevada	105		109
Lagunas Norte	143		97
Pierina	12		28
		$405		$406

XML

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

Accounts receivables and other current assets

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Accounts receivable
Amounts due from concentrate sales		$110		$110
Receivable from Dominican Republic government1	1		30
Other receivables	128		109
		$239		$249
Other current assets
Derivative assets (note 25f)		$2		$1
Goods and services taxes recoverable2	167		239
Prepaid expenses	68		48
Other	84		18
		$321		$306

¹  Amounts receivable from the Dominican Republic government primarily relate to payments made by Pueblo Viejo on behalf of the government.

²  Primarily includes VAT and fuel tax recoverables of $32 million in Tanzania, $49 million in Argentina, $3 million in Chile, $19 million in the Dominican Republic, and $8 million in Peru (Dec. 31, 2016: $124 million, $52 million, $32 million, $10 million and $6 million, respectively).

XML

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Property, plant and equipment [abstract]

Property, plant and equipment

Estimated useful lives of Major Asset Categories

Buildings, plant and equipment	7 – 27 years
Underground mobile equipment	5 - 7 years
Light vehicles and other mobile equipment	2 - 3 years
Furniture, computer and office equipment	2 - 3 years

	Buildings, plant and equipment			Mining property costs subject to depreciation1,3			Mining property costs not subject to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2017
Net of accumulated depreciation		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
Additions4	158			219			1,966			2,343
Disposals	(72		)	(32		)	(1,093		)	(1,197		)
Depreciation	(878		)	(819		)	—			(1,697		)
Impairment reversals	(102		)	(359		)	715			254
Transfers5	551			449			(1,000		)	—
At December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
At December 31, 2017
Cost		$14,209			$21,068			$14,507			$49,784
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,996		)	(14,416		)	(11,566		)	(35,978		)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
	Buildings, plant and equipment			Mining property costs subject to depreciation1,3			Mining property costs not subject to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2016
Cost		$13,782			$19,968			$14,734			$48,484
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,098		)	(12,668		)	(12,284		)	(34,050		)
Net carrying amount – January 1, 2016		$4,684			$7,300			$2,450			$14,434
Additions4	71			272			933			1,276
Disposals	(80		)	—			(37		)	(117		)
Depreciation	(794		)	(995		)	—			(1,789		)
Impairment charges	217			79			3			299
Transfers5	458			538			(996		)	—
At December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
At December 31, 2016
Cost		$14,111			$20,778			$14,634			$49,523
Accumulated depreciation and impairments	(9,555		)	(13,584		)	(12,281		)	(35,420		)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103

¹  Includes capitalized reserve acquisition costs, capitalized development costs and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs other than exploration license costs included in intangible assets.

²  Assets not subject to depreciation includes construction-in-progress, projects and acquired mineral resources and exploration potential at operating mine sites and development projects.

³  Assets subject to depreciation includes the following items for production stage properties: acquired mineral reserves and resources, capitalized mine development costs, capitalized stripping and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs.

⁴  Additions include revisions to the capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities.

⁵  Primarily relates to long-lived assets that are transferred to PP&E once they are placed into service.

Mineral Property Costs Not Subject to Depreciation

	Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2017		Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2016
Construction-in-progress1		$640		$466
Acquired mineral resources and exploration potential	24		24
Projects
Pascua-Lama	1,499		1,263
Norte Abierto	612		444
Donlin Gold	166		156
		$2,941		$2,353

¹  Represents assets under construction at our operating mine sites.

XML

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets [Abstract]

Intangible assets

Intangible Assets

	Water rights1			Technology2			Supply contracts3			Exploration potential4			Total
Opening balance January 1, 2016		$87			$12			$16			$156			$271
Additions	—			—			—			4			4
Amortization	—			(1		)	(2		)	—			(3		)
Closing balance December 31, 2016		$87			$11			$14			$160			$272
Additions	—			—			—			16			16
Disposals5	(16		)	—			—			—			(16		)
Amortization and impairment losses	—			(2		)	(3		)	(12		)	(17		)
Closing balance December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255
Cost		$71			$17			$39			$298			$425
Accumulated amortization and impairment losses	—			(8		)	(28		)	(134		)	(170		)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255

¹  Relates to water rights in South America, and will be amortized through cost of sales when we begin using these in the future.

²  The amount is amortized through cost of sales using the UOP method over LOM ounces of the Pueblo Viejo mine, with no assumed residual value.

³  Relates to a supply agreement with Michelin North America Inc. to secure a supply of tires and is amortized over the effective term of the contract through cost of sales.

⁴  Exploration potential consists of the estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses acquired as a result of a business combination or asset acquisition. The carrying value of the licenses will be transferred to PP&E when the development of attributable mineral resources commences. See note 21 for details of impairment charges recorded against exploration assets.

⁵  Represents the net disposal as a result of the Cerro Casale sale. Refer to note 4b.

Goodwill

	Closing balance December 31, 2016		Disposals			Closing balance December 31, 2017
Barrick Nevada1		$514		$—			$514
Veladero2	195		(41		)	154
Turquoise Ridge	528		—			528
Hemlo	63		—			63
Kalgoorlie	71		—			71
Total		$1,371		($41	)		$1,330

¹  In Q1 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. The prior period has been changed to reflect this presentation.

²  Represents the net disposal as a result of the partial Veladero sale. Refer to note 4a.

On a total basis, the gross amount and accumulated impairment losses are as follows:

Cost		$8,618
Accumulated impairment losses December 31, 2017	(7,288		)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017		$1,330

XML

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Impairment Of Assets [Abstract]

Disclosure of impairment loss and reversal of impairment loss

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Impairment reversals of long-lived assets1		($224	)		($250	)
Impairment of intangibles1	12			—
Total		($212	)		($250	)

¹  Refer to note 21 for further details.

The other key assumptions used in our impairment testing, based on the CGUs tested in each year, are summarized in the table below:

	2017			2016
Copper price per lb (long-term)		$2.75			$2.75
WACC - gold (range)	3%-11%			3%-6%
WACC - gold (avg)	6		%	4		%
WACC - copper	9		%	9		%
NAV multiple - gold (avg)	1.2			1.2
LOM years - gold (avg)	17			15
Value per ounce of gold	$30 - $55			n/a
Value per ounce of silver	$0.41 - $0.76			n/a

The carrying value of the CGUs that are most sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the FVLCD calculation are:

As at December 31, 2017	Carrying Value
Pueblo Viejo1		$3,077
Veladero2	1,016
Lumwana3	849
Norte Abierto2,4	817
Bulyanhulu3	600
Lagunas Norte5	458
Buzwagi	194
Pascua-Lama3,6,7		$38

¹  This CGU had an impairment loss in 2015. As there have been no indicators of impairment or impairment reversal in 2017, the carrying value would remain sensitive to the key assumptions in the FVLCD model from 2015.

²  As a result of partial divestments that occurred in 2017 (refer to notes 4a and 4b) these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the purchase price allocations.

³  As a result of the impairment/reversal recorded in 2017 these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁴  Norte Abierto is the new name of our joint venture with Goldcorp, comprised of the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  As a result of the reversal recorded in 2016 this CGU was remeasured to fair value and is sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁶  The carrying value of Pascua-Lama includes the deferred revenue liability relating to the Wheaton Precious Metals stream ($812 million).

⁷  This CGU is most sensitive to changes in the value per ounce of comparable market entities.

Other results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows:

	(Impairment)/reversal based on
Operating Segment	Gold price	Gold price
	+$100	-$100
Pueblo Viejo	$546	($651)
Lagunas Norte	-	(311)
Veladero	-	(188)

For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recorded net impairment reversals of $212 million (2016: $250 million) for non-current assets, as summarized in the following table:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Cerro Casale		($1,120	)		$—
Lumwana	(259		)	—
Bulyanhulu	740			—
Veladero	—			(275		)
Lagunas Norte	3			(28		)
Pascua-Lama	407			—
Zaldívar	—			49
Exploration sites	12			—
Other	5			4
Total impairment (reversals) of long-lived assets		($212	)		($250	)

XML

OTHER ASSETS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

Other assets

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Derivative assets (note 25f)		$1		$1
Goods and services taxes recoverable1	398		303
Notes receivable2	279		274
Restricted cash3	119		118
Prepayments	42		51
Norte Abierto JV Partner Receivable	166		—
Other	265		199
		$1,270		$946

¹  Includes VAT and fuel tax receivables of $220 million in Argentina, $132 million in Tanzania and $46 million in Chile (Dec. 31, 2016: $255 million, $8 million and $40 million, respectively). The VAT in Argentina is recoverable once Pascua-Lama enters production.

²  Primarily represents the interest bearing promissory note due from NovaGold and the non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV as a result of the divestment of 50 percent interest in Jabal Sayid.

³  Represents cash balance at Pueblo Viejo that is contractually restricted to the disbursements for environmental rehabilitation that are expected to occur near the end of Pueblo Viejo’s mine life.

XML

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

Accounts payable

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Accounts payable		$760		$749
Accruals	299		335
		$1,059		$1,084

XML

OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

Other current liabilities

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Provision for environmental rehabilitation (note 27b)		$152		$67
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)	30		50
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement	85		77
Share-based payments (note 34b)	17		53
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement	7		26
Other	40		36
		$331		$309

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Financial Instruments [Abstract]

Cash and equivalents

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Cash deposits		$662		$1,009
Term deposits	427		654
Money market investments	1,145		726
		$2,234		$2,389

Debt and interest

	Closing balance December 31, 2016			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2017
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$1,467			$—		$—			$1			$1,468
3.85%/5.25% notes	1,078			—		—			1			1,079
5.80% notes4,9	395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9	593			—		—			—			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9	1,607			—		(279		)	(2		)	1,326
Project financing	400			—		(423		)	23			—
Capital leases7	114			—		(68		)	—			46
Other debt obligations	609			—		(4		)	(2		)	603
4.10%/5.75% notes8,9	1,569			—		(731		)	4			842
Acacia credit facility10	99			—		(28		)	—			71
		$7,931			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,423
Less: current portion11	(143		)	—		—			—			(59		)
		$7,788			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,364

	Closing balance December 31, 2015			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2016
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$2,182			$—		($721	)		$6			$1,467
3.85%/5.25% notes	1,077			—		—			1			1,078
5.80% notes4,9	395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9	592			—		—			1			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9	2,451			—		(848		)	4			1,607
Project financing	646			—		(254		)	8			400
Capital leases7	153			2		(41		)	—			114
Other debt obligations	654			3		(46		)	(2		)	609
2.5%/4.10%/5.75% notes8,9	1,690			—		(123		)	2			1,569
Acacia credit facility10	128			—		(29		)	—			99
		$9,968			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,931
Less: current portion11	(203		)	—		—			—			(143		)
		$9,765			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,788

¹  The agreements that govern our long-term debt each contain various provisions which are not summarized herein. These provisions allow Barrick, at its option, to redeem indebtedness prior to maturity at specified prices and also may permit redemption of debt by Barrick upon the occurrence of certain specified changes in tax legislation.

²  Amortization of debt premium/discount and increases (decreases) in capital leases.

³  Consists of $1.5 billion (2016: $1.5 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick North America Finance LLC (“BNAF”). This consists of $629 million (2016: $629 million) of BNAF notes due 2021 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BNAF notes due 2041.

⁴  Consists of $400 million (2016: $400 million) of 5.80% notes which mature in 2034.

⁵  Consists of $600 million (2016: $600 million) of 6.35% notes which mature in 2036.

⁶  Consists of $1.3 billion (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF and our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”). This consists of $248 million (2016: $248 million) of BPDAF notes due 2020, $250 million (2016: $250 million) of BNAF notes due 2038 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BPDAF notes due 2039.

⁷  Consists primarily of capital leases at Pascua-Lama, $13 million and Lagunas Norte, $27 million (2016: $50 million and $56 million, respectively).

⁸  Consists of $850 million (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF.

⁹  We provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on all BNAF, BPDAF, Barrick Gold Finance Company (“BGFC”), and Barrick (HMC) Mining (“BHMC”) notes and generally provide such guarantees on all BNAF, BPDAF, BGFC, and BHMC notes issued, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

¹⁰  Consists of an export credit backed term loan facility.

¹¹  The current portion of long-term debt consists of project financing ($nil; 2016: $72 million), other debt obligations ($4 million; 2016: $5 million), capital leases ($27 million; 2016: $38 million) and Acacia credit facility ($28 million; 2016: $28 million).

	2017				2016
For the years ended December 31	Interest cost		Effective rate1		Interest cost		Effective rate1
4.4%/5.7% notes		$77	5.23	%		$104	5.09	%
3.85%/5.25% notes	53		4.87	%	53		4.87	%
5.80% notes	23		5.85	%	23		5.85	%
6.35% notes	38		6.41	%	38		6.41	%
Other fixed rate notes	93		6.38	%	128		6.75	%
Project financing	14		7.04	%	33		6.23	%
Capital leases	3		3.60	%	5		4.02	%
Other debt obligations	31		6.55	%	36		6.09	%
4.10%/5.75% notes	72		5.12	%	82		4.98	%
Acacia credit facility	6		3.59	%	7		3.59	%
Deposits on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement (note 29)	66		8.37	%	63		8.37	%
Deposits on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement (note 29)	35		6.14	%	37		6.34	%
		$511				$609

¹  The effective rate includes the stated interest rate under the debt agreement, amortization of debt issue costs and debt discount/premium and the impact of interest rate contracts designated in a hedging relationship with debt.

Scheduled debt repayments

	Issuer	Maturity Year	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023 and thereafter		Total
4.95% notes3	BPDAF	2020		$—		$—		$248		$—		$—		$—		$248
7.31% notes2	BGC	2021	—		—		—		7		—		—		7
4.40% notes	BNAF	2021	—		—		—		629		—		—		629
3.85% notes	BGC	2022	—		—		—		—		337		—		337
7.73% notes2	BGC	2025	—		—		—		—		—		7		7
7.70% notes2	BGC	2025	—		—		—		—		—		5		5
7.37% notes2	BGC	2026	—		—		—		—		—		32		32
8.05% notes2	BGC	2026	—		—		—		—		—		15		15
6.38% notes2	BGC	2033	—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes	BGC	2034	—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes	BGFC	2034	—		—		—		—		—		200		200
6.45% notes2	BGC	2035	—		—		—		—		—		300		300
6.35% notes	BHMC	2036	—		—		—		—		—		600		600
7.50% notes3	BNAF	2038	—		—		—		—		—		250		250
5.95% notes3	BPDAF	2039	—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.70% notes	BNAF	2041	—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.25% notes	BGC	2042	—		—		—		—		—		750		750
5.75% notes	BNAF	2043	—		—		—		—		—		850		850
Other debt obligations2			4		5		—		—		—		—		9
Acacia credit facility			28		28		15		—		—		—		71
				$32		$33		$263		$636		$337		$5,109		$6,410
Minimum annual payments under capital leases				$27		$11		$4		$1		$1		$2		$46

¹  This table illustrates the contractual undiscounted cash flows, and may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the consolidated balance sheet.

²  Included in Other debt obligations in the Long-Term Debt table.

³  Included in Other fixed rate notes in the Long-Term Debt table.

Market risks

In the normal course of business, our assets, liabilities and forecasted transactions, as reported in US dollars, are impacted by various market risks including, but not limited to:

Item	Impacted by
●    Sales	●    Prices of gold, silver and copper
o    By-product credits	o    Prices of silver, copper and gold
●    Cost of sales
o    Consumption of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity	o    Prices of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity
o    Non-US dollar expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    General and administration, exploration and evaluation costs	●    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, GBP, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    Capital expenditures
o    Non-US dollar capital expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, GBP, PGK, and ZAR
o    Consumption of steel	o    Price of steel
●    Interest earned on cash and equivalents	●    US dollar interest rates
●    Interest paid on fixed-rate borrowings	●    US dollar interest rates

Derivative assets and liabilities

	2017			2016
At January 1		($76	)		($263	)
Derivatives cash (inflow) outflow
Operating activities	62			156
Change in fair value of:
Non-hedge derivatives	4			6
Cash flow hedges:
Effective portion	(19		)	25
Ineffective portion	5			—
Excluded from effectiveness changes	(5		)	—
At December 31		($29	)		($76	)
Classification:
Other current assets		$2			$1
Other long-term assets	1			1
Other current liabilities	(30		)	(50		)
Other long-term obligations	(2		)	(28		)
		($29	)		($76	)

	Notional Amount by Term to Maturity								Accounting Classification by Notional Amount
	Within 1 year		2 to 3 years		4 to 5 years		Total		Cash flow hedge		Non-Hedge		Fair value (USD)
US dollar interest rate contracts (US$ millions)
Total receive - float swap positions		$28		$43		$—		$71		$71		$—		$1
Currency contracts
A$:US$ contracts (A$ millions)	21		—		—		21		—		21		—
C$:US$ contracts (C$ millions)	8		—		—		8		—		8		—
PGK:US$ contracts (PGK millions)	32		—		—		32		—		32		—
Commodity contracts
Gold collar sell contracts (thousands of ounces)	105		—		—		105		—		105		2
Copper bought floor contracts (millions of pounds)	60		—		—		60		60		—		(8		)
Fuel contracts (thousands of barrels)1	1,244		42		—		1,286		840		446		(24		)

¹  Fuel contracts represent a combination of WTI swaps and Brent options. These derivatives hedge physical supply contracts based on the price of fuel across our operating mine sites plus a spread. WTI represents West Texas Intermediate and Brent represents Brent Crude Oil.

	Asset Derivatives					Liability Derivatives
	Balance Sheet Classification	Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2016		Balance Sheet Classification	Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2016
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments
US dollar interest rate contracts	Other assets		$1		$1	Other liabilities		$—		$—
Commodity contracts	Other assets	—		—		Other liabilities	25		71
Total derivatives classified as hedging instruments			$1		$1			$25		$71
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
Commodity contracts	Other assets		$2		$1	Other liabilities		$7		$7
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments			$2		$1			$7		$7
Total derivatives			$3		$2			$32		$78

Cash flow hedge gains (losses)

	Commodity price hedges									Currency hedges							Interest rate hedges
	Gold/Silver			Copper			Fuel			Operating costs			General and administrative costs		Capital expenditures		Long-term debt			Total
At January 1, 2016		$14			$—			($102	)		($30	)		$—		$—		($22	)		($140	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	—			—			23			2			—		—		—			25
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1	(5		)	—			47			28			—		—		2			72
At December 31, 2016		$9			$—			($32	)		$—			$—		$—		($20	)		($43	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	—			(11		)	(8		)	—			—		—		—			(19		)
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1	(7		)	4			27			—			—		—		3			27
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	—			—			5			—			—		—		—			5
At December 31, 2017		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($17	)		($30	)
Hedge gains/losses classified within	Gold/Silver sales			Copper sales			Cost of sales			Cost of sales			General and administrative costs		Property, plant, and equipment		Interest expense			Total
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2018 earnings2		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($1	)		($14	)

¹  Realized gains (losses) on qualifying currency hedges of capital expenditures are transferred from OCI to PP&E on settlement.

²  Based on the fair value of hedge contracts at December 31, 2017.

Derivatives in cash flow hedging relationships	Amount of gain (loss) recognized in OCI					Location of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income/PP&E (effective portion)	Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)						Location of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)
	2017			2016			2017			2016				2017			2016
Interest rate contracts		($1	)		$—	Finance income/ finance costs		($3	)		($2	)	Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives		$—			$—
Foreign exchange contracts	—			2		Cost of sales/general and administrative costs/PP&E	—			(28		)	Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	—			—
Commodity contracts	(18		)	23		Revenue/cost of sales	(24		)	(42		)	Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	(5		)	—
Total		($19	)		$25			($27	)		($72	)			($5	)		$—

Gains (losses) on non-hedge derivatives

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Commodity contracts
Gold		$4			$2
Silver1	7			6
Copper	(1		)	—
Fuel	—			5
Currency Contracts	1			(1		)
		$11			$12
Hedge ineffectiveness	(5		)	—
		$6			$12

¹  Relates to the amortization of crystallized OCI.

XML

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]

Disclosure of fair value measurement of liabilities

	At Dec. 31, 2017				At Dec. 31, 2016
	Carrying amount		Estimated fair value		Carrying amount		Estimated fair value
Financial assets
Other assets1		$572		$572		$399		$399
Other investments2	33		33		18		18
Derivative assets	3		3		2		2
		$608		$608		$419		$419
Financial liabilities
Debt3		$6,423		$7,715		$7,931		$8,279
Derivative liabilities	32		32		78		78
Other liabilities	252		252		216		216
		$6,707		$7,999		$8,225		$8,573

¹  Includes restricted cash and amounts due from our partners.

²  Recorded at fair value. Quoted market prices are used to determine fair value.

³  Debt is generally recorded at amortized cost except for obligations that are designated in a fair-value hedge relationship, in which case the carrying amount is adjusted for changes in fair value of the hedging instrument in periods when a hedge relationship exists. The fair value of debt is primarily determined using quoted market prices. Balance includes both current and long-term portions of debt.

Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2017	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs			Significant Unobservable Inputs		Aggregate Fair Value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)			(Level 3)
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—			$—		$2,234
Other investments	33		—			—		33
Derivatives	—		(29		)	—		(29		)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales	—		110			—		110
		$2,267		$81			$—		$2,348
Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2016	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs			Significant Unobservable Inputs		Aggregate Fair Value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)			(Level 3)
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—			$—		$2,389
Other investments	18		—			—		18
Derivatives	—		(76		)	—		(76		)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales	—		110			—		110
		$2,407		$34			$—		$2,441

Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets

	Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets		Significant other observable inputs		Significant unobservable inputs		Aggregate fair value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)		(Level 3)
Other assets1		$—		$—		$45		$45
Property, plant and equipment2	—		—		6,105		6,105
Intangible assets3	—		—		34		34

¹  Other assets were written down by $30 million, which was included in earnings in this period.

²  Property, plant and equipment were written up by $254 million, which was included in earnings in this period, reflecting the historical impairment loss taken on these assets.

³  Intangibles were written down by $12 million, which was included in earnings in this period, to their fair value less costs of disposal of $34 million.

Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2017	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs			Significant Unobservable Inputs		Aggregate Fair Value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)			(Level 3)
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—			$—		$2,234
Other investments	33		—			—		33
Derivatives	—		(29		)	—		(29		)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales	—		110			—		110
		$2,267		$81			$—		$2,348
Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2016	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets		Significant Other Observable Inputs			Significant Unobservable Inputs		Aggregate Fair Value
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)			(Level 3)
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—			$—		$2,389
Other investments	18		—			—		18
Derivatives	—		(76		)	—		(76		)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales	—		110			—		110
		$2,407		$34			$—		$2,441

	At Dec. 31, 2017				At Dec. 31, 2016
	Carrying amount		Estimated fair value		Carrying amount		Estimated fair value
Financial assets
Other assets1		$572		$572		$399		$399
Other investments2	33		33		18		18
Derivative assets	3		3		2		2
		$608		$608		$419		$419
Financial liabilities
Debt3		$6,423		$7,715		$7,931		$8,279
Derivative liabilities	32		32		78		78
Other liabilities	252		252		216		216
		$6,707		$7,999		$8,225		$8,573

¹  Includes restricted cash and amounts due from our partners.

²  Recorded at fair value. Quoted market prices are used to determine fair value.

³  Debt is generally recorded at amortized cost except for obligations that are designated in a fair-value hedge relationship, in which case the carrying amount is adjusted for changes in fair value of the hedging instrument in periods when a hedge relationship exists. The fair value of debt is primarily determined using quoted market prices. Balance includes both current and long-term portions of debt.

XML

PROVISIONS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Other provisions [abstract]

Provisions

	2017			2016
At January 1		$2,246			$1,982
PERs divested during the year	(31		)	—
Closed Sites
Impact of revisions to expected cash flows recorded in earnings	46			146
Settlements
Cash payments	(41		)	(28		)
Settlement gains	(1		)	(1		)
Accretion	12			10
Operating Sites
PERs arising in the year	836			134
Settlements
Cash payments	(18		)	(34		)
Settlement gains	(1		)	(3		)
Accretion	48			40
At December 31		$3,096			$2,246
Current portion (note 24)	(152		)	(67		)
		$2,944			$2,179

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Environmental rehabilitation ("PER")		$2,944		$2,179
Post-retirement benefits	48		72
Share-based payments	37		34
Other employee benefits	27		45
Other	85		33
		$3,141		$2,363

XML

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Financial Instruments [Abstract]

Maximum exposure to credit risk

The Company’s maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date is the carrying value of each of the financial assets disclosed as follows:

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$2,389
Accounts receivable	239		249
Net derivative assets by counterparty	2		1
		$2,475		$2,639

Expected maturity of significant financial assets and liabilities

The following table outlines the expected maturity of our significant financial assets and liabilities into relevant maturity groupings based on the remaining period from the balance sheet date to the contractual maturity date. As the amounts presented in the table are the contractual undiscounted cash flows, these balances may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the balance sheet.

As at December 31, 2017
(in $ millions)	Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—		$—		$—		$2,234
Accounts receivable	239		—		—		—		239
Derivative assets	2		1		—		—		3
Trade and other payables	1,059		—		—		—		1,059
Debt	59		311		975		5,111		6,456
Derivative liabilities	30		2		—		—		32
Other liabilities	30		231		64		186		511
As at December 31, 2016
(in $ millions)	Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—		$—		$—		$2,389
Accounts receivable	249		—		—		—		249
Derivative assets	1		1		—		—		2
Trade and other payables	1,084		—		—		—		1,084
Debt	143		533		997		6,316		7,989
Derivative liabilities	51		27		—		—		78
Other liabilities	42		51		3		120		216

XML

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]

Other non-current liabilities

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement		$805		$749
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement	459		499
Long-term income tax payable	259		—
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)	2		28
Provision for offsite remediation	45		48
Other	174		137
		$1,744		$1,461

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Income Tax [Abstract]

Deferred income tax assets and liabilities

	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022+		No expiry date		Total
Non-capital tax losses1
Canada		$—		$—		$—		$—		$2,093		$—		$2,093
Argentina	—		—		—		271		—		—		271
Barbados	4,727		922		217		13		735		—		6,614
Chile	—		—		—		—		—		1,052		1,052
Tanzania	—		—		—		—		—		1,756		1,756
Zambia	115		—		—		12		404		—		531
Other	7		—		—		—		—		568		575
		$4,849		$922		$217		$296		$3,232		$3,376		$12,892

¹  Represents the gross amount of tax loss carry forwards translated at closing exchange rates at December 31, 2017.

Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Temporary differences
Property, plant and equipment		$295			($297	)
Environmental rehabilitation	(45		)	79
Tax loss carry forwards	191			259
Inventory	26			(94		)
Derivatives	(16		)	(16		)
Other	(84		)	39
		$367			($30	)
Intraperiod allocation to:
Income from continuing operations before income taxes		($106	)		($8	)
Cerro Casale disposition	469			—
Veladero disposition	16			—
OCI	(12		)	(22		)
		$367			($30	)
Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities
	2017			2016
At January 1		$128			$61
Net additions based on uncertain tax positions related to prior years	178			70
Reductions for tax positions of prior years	—			(3		)
At December 311		$306			$128

¹  If reversed, the total amount of $306 million would be recognized as a benefit to income taxes on the income statement, and therefore would impact the reported effective tax rate.

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Australia		$158		$162
Canada	388		377
United States	—		115
Chile	993		890
Argentina	515		599
Barbados	66		66
Tanzania	209		183
Zambia	50		151
Saudi Arabia	70		70
		$2,449		$2,613

Sources of Deferred Income Tax Assets and Liabilities

	As at December 31, 2017			As at December 31, 2016
Deferred tax assets
Tax loss carry forwards		$926			$735
Environmental rehabilitation	594			639
Property, plant and equipment	175			273
Post-retirement benefit obligations and other employee benefits	49			47
Accrued interest payable	40			75
Other working capital	23			54
Derivative instruments	74			89
Other	21			41
		$1,902			$1,953
Deferred tax liabilities
Property, plant and equipment	(1,571		)	(1,963		)
Inventory	(507		)	(533		)
		($176	)		($543	)
Classification:
Non-current assets		$1,069			$977
Non-current liabilities	(1,245		)	(1,520		)
		($176	)		($543	)

Tax years still under examination

Tax Years Still Under Examination
Canada	2015-2017
United States	2017
Dominican Republic	2013-2017
Peru	2009, 2011-2017
Chile	2013-2017
Argentina	2011-2017
Australia	2013-2017
Papua New Guinea	2006-2017
Saudi Arabia	2007-2017
Tanzania	All years open
Zambia	2010-2017

XML

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Interests In Other Entities [Abstract]

Non-controlling interests

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017: 

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹  Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

²  For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³  We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴  We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵  We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶  We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷  Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸  These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

	Pueblo Viejo						Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016			2017			2016
Revenue		$1,417			$1,548			$751			$1,045
Income (loss) from continuing operations after tax	293			810			(630		)	81
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—			—			—			—
Total comprehensive income (loss)		$293			$810			($630	)		$81
Dividends paid to NCI		$—			$—			$13			$7
Summarized Statements of Cash Flows
	Pueblo Viejo						Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016			2017			2016
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		$283			$602			($15	)		$324
Net cash used in investing activities	(112		)	(54		)	(160		)	(190		)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(539		)	(350		)	(62		)	(49		)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		($368	)		$198			($237	)		$85

	Pueblo Viejo				Acacia
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Current assets		$488		$833		$464		$673
Non-current assets	3,489		3,703		1,333		1,725
Total assets		$3,977		$4,536		$1,797		$2,398
Current liabilities	907		1,357		212		71
Non-current liabilities	248		603		280		381
Total liabilities		$1,155		$1,960		$492		$452

	Pueblo Viejo			Acacia			Cerro Casale			Other			Total
NCI in subsidiary at December 31, 2017	40		%	36.1		%	25		%	Various
At January 1, 2016		$1,232			$677			$318			$50			$2,277
Share of income (loss)	174			34			(1		)	(1		)	206
Cash contributed	—			—			2			68			70
Disbursements	(95		)	(7		)	—			(73		)	(175		)
At December 31, 2016		$1,311			$704			$319			$44			$2,378
Share of income (loss)	118			(211		)	173			(2		)	78
Cash contributed	—			—			1			12			13
Decrease in non-controlling interest	—			—			(493		)	—			(493		)
Disbursements	(139		)	(13		)	—			(43		)	(195		)
At December 31, 2017		$1,290			$480			$—			$11			$1,781

XML

REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Key Management Personnel [Abstract]

Compensation for key management personnel

Compensation for key management personnel (including Directors) was as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Salaries and short-term employee benefits1		$20		$19
Post-employment benefits2	3		2
Share-based payments and other3	12		17
		$35		$38

¹ Includes annual salary and annual short-term incentives/other bonuses earned in the year.

² Represents Company contributions to retirement savings plans.

³ Relates to stock option, RSU, PGSU and PRSU grants and other compensation.

XML

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Share-based Payment Arrangements [Abstract]

Other equity instruments activity

DSU and RSU Activity

	DSUs		Fair value			RSUs		Fair value
At January 1, 2016	465			$3.5		6,627			$24.6
Settled for cash	(26	)	(0.4		)	(1,102	)	(22.7		)
Forfeited	—		—			(2,952	)	(46.3		)
Granted	134		2.2			3,836		55.0
Credits for dividends	—		—			43		0.7
Change in value	—		3.8			—		47.3
At December 31, 2016	573			$9.2		6,452			$58.6
Settled for cash	—		—			(3,610	)	(62.5		)
Forfeited	—		—			(121	)	(2.3		)
Granted	152		2.5			1,760		32.7
Credits for dividends	—		—			56		0.9
Change in value	—		(0.1		)	—		10.3
At December 31, 2017	725			$11.6		4,537			$37.7

Employee stock option activity

	2017				2016
	Shares		Average Price		Shares		Average Price
C$ options
At January 1	0.3			$13	0.3			$13
Granted	—		—		—		—
Cancelled/expired	—		—		—		—
At December 31	0.3			$13	0.3			$13
US$ options
At January 1	1.8			$42	2.6			$42
Forfeited	(0.7	)	40		(0.4	)	45
Cancelled/expired	(0.4	)	45		(0.4	)	39
At December 31	0.7			$40	1.8			$42

Stock options outstanding

	Outstanding						Exercisable
Range of exercise prices	Shares	Average price		Average life (years)	Intrinsic value1($ millions)		Shares	Average price		Intrinsic value1($ millions)
C$ options
$ 9 - $ 17	0.2		$10	4.6		$2	0.1		$10		$1
$ 18 - $ 21	0.1	18		2.6	—		0.1	18		—
	0.3		$13	3.9		$2	0.2		$14		$1
US$ options
$ 32 - $ 41	0.4		$32	2.0		$—	0.4		$33		$—
$ 42 - $ 55	0.3	49		1.0	—		0.3	49		—
	0.7		$40	1.5		$—	0.7		$40		$—

1 Based on the closing market share price on December 31, 2017 of C $18.18 and US $14.47.

Stock options outstanding and exercisable

	Outstanding						Exercisable
Range of exercise prices	Shares	Average price		Average life (years)	Intrinsic value1($ millions)		Shares	Average price		Intrinsic value1($ millions)
C$ options
$ 9 - $ 17	0.2		$10	4.6		$2	0.1		$10		$1
$ 18 - $ 21	0.1	18		2.6	—		0.1	18		—
	0.3		$13	3.9		$2	0.2		$14		$1
US$ options
$ 32 - $ 41	0.4		$32	2.0		$—	0.4		$33		$—
$ 42 - $ 55	0.3	49		1.0	—		0.3	49		—
	0.7		$40	1.5		$—	0.7		$40		$—

1 Based on the closing market share price on December 31, 2017 of C $18.18 and US $14.47.

XML

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS (Tables)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Employee Benefits [Abstract]

Post-employment amounts

The weighted average duration of the defined benefit obligation is 10 years (2016: 10 years).

	Less than a year		Between 1-2 years		Between 2-5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Pension benefits		$18		$19		$54		$313		$404
Other post-retirement benefits	1		1		2		6		10
At December 31, 2016		$19		$20		$56		$319		$414
Pension benefits	14		14		39		200		267
Other post-retirement benefits	1		1		2		5		9
At December 31, 2017		$15		$15		$41		$205		$276

The amounts recognized in the balance sheet are determined as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Present value of funded obligations		$122			$198
Fair value of plan assets	(134		)	(191		)
(Surplus) deficit of funded plans		($12	)		$7
Present value of unfunded obligations	54			59
Total deficit of defined benefit pension plans		$42			$66
Impact of minimum funding requirement/asset ceiling	—			—
Liability in the balance sheet		$42			$66

The table below outlines where the Company’s post-employment amounts and activity are included in the financial statements:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Balance sheet obligations for:
Defined pension benefits		$42		$66
Other post-retirement benefits	6		6
Liability in the balance sheet		$48		$72
Income statement charge included income statement for:
Defined pension benefits		$1		$4
Other post-retirement benefits	—		—
		$1		$4
Measurements for:
Defined pension benefits		$23		$11
Other post-retirement benefits	—		—
		$23		$11

Significant actuarial assumptions

The significant actuarial assumptions were as follows:

As at December 31	Pension Plans 2017	Other Post-Retirement Benefits 2017		Pension Plans 2016	Other Post-Retirement Benefits 2016
Discount rate	2.90-3.95%	3.75	%	2.10-3.90%	3.70	%

XML

CORPORATE INFORMATION (Details)	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017
Zaldívar
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest in joint venture	50.00%
Jabal Sayid
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest in joint venture	50.00%
Porgera | Barrick Niugini Limited
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership in subsidiary	95.00%
Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership in subsidiary	63.90%
Veladero
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold	50.00%
Proportion of ownership in joint operation	50.00%
KCGM
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership in joint operation	50.00%
Barrick Niugini Limited
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership in joint operation	50.00%

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Joint Arrangements and Entities Other Than 100% Owned Barrick Subsidiaries (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions				12 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2017	Jun. 09, 2017	Mar. 28, 2017	Dec. 31, 2017
Joint ventures
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Contractual obligation				$ 301
GNX
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint venture				50.00%
Jabal Sayid
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint venture				50.00%
Kabanga Project
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint venture				50.00%
Zaldívar
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint venture				50.00%
Norte Abierto Project
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint operation				50.00%
Donlin Gold Project
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint operation				50.00%
Kalgoorlie Mine
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint operation				50.00%
Porgera Mine
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint operation				47.50%
Turquoise Ridge Mine
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint operation				75.00%
Veladero
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint operation				50.00%
Proportion of ownership interest sold	50.00%
Cerro Casale
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in subsidiary		50.00%
Economic interest in joint operation		50.00%		50.00%
Proportion of ownership interest sold		25.00%	25.00%	25.00%
Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in subsidiary				63.90%
Proportion of ownership interests held by non-controlling interests				36.10%
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in subsidiary				60.00%
Proportion of ownership interests held by non-controlling interests				40.00%
South Arturo
Disclosure of Joint Arrangements and Subsidiaries [Line Items]
Economic interest in subsidiary				60.00%
Proportion of ownership interests held by non-controlling interests				40.00%

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Estimated Useful Lives of Major Asset Categories (Details)	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017
Minimum | Buildings, plant and equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	7 years
Minimum | Underground mobile equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	5 years
Minimum | Light vehicles and other mobile equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	2 years
Minimum | Furniture, computer and office equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	2 years
Maximum | Buildings, plant and equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	27 years
Maximum | Underground mobile equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	7 years
Maximum | Light vehicles and other mobile equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	3 years
Maximum | Furniture, computer and office equipment
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Useful life	3 years

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Stock-Based Compensation (Details)	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 CAD ($)
Stock options
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	4 years
RSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	3 years
RSUs | Minimum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	2 years 6 months
RSUs | Maximum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	3 years
DSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Minimum required annual retainer (as percent)	75.00%
PRSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	3 years
PRSUs | Minimum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting percentage (as percent)	0.00%
PRSUs | Maximum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting percentage (as percent)	200.00%
PGSUs | Minimum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting percentage (as percent)	100.00%
PGSUs | Maximum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting percentage (as percent)	600.00%
ESPP
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	1 year
Employer matching contribution (as percent)	50.00%
Maximum employer contribution	$ 5,000
ESPP | Minimum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Annual contributions per employee (as percent)	1.00%
ESPP | Maximum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Annual contributions per employee (as percent)	6.00%

XML

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Post-Retirement Benefits (Details)	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017
Employees
Disclosure of defined benefit plans [line items]
Employer matching contribution, percent of salary	6.00%
Officers
Disclosure of defined benefit plans [line items]
Employer matching contribution, percent of salary	15.00%

XML

CRITICAL JUDGMENTS, ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS (Details) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) $ / ounce	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) $ / ounce
Pascua-Lama | Chile
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Amounts received from VAT refunds	$ 484	$ 429
Interest payable	313	236
Revenue, performance obligation	3,538
Pascua-Lama | Argentina
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Value added tax receivables	$ 221	$ 255
Measured, Indicated and Inferred Gold Resources
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Gold price (in dollars per ounce) | $ / ounce	1,500
Silver | Silver Wheaton Corp.
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Contract liabilities	$ 262
Silver | Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero | Silver Wheaton Corp.
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Goods deliverable under contract (as percent)	100.00%
Silver | Pascua-Lama | Silver Wheaton Corp.
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Goods deliverable under contract (as percent)	25.00%
Short-term contracts
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Gold price (in dollars per ounce) | $ / ounce		1,000
Long-term
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Gold price (in dollars per ounce) | $ / ounce	1,200	1,200
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Accounting Judgments and Estimates [Line Items]
Economic interest in subsidiary	60.00%

XML

ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES - Gross Cash Proceeds from Divestiture (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture	$ 990	$ 588
Bald Mountain | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture	0	423
Round Mountain | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture	0	165
Veladero | Continuing operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture	$ 990	$ 0

XML

ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES - Narrative (Details) shares in Thousands, $ in Millions						3 Months Ended				12 Months Ended
	Dec. 01, 2017 USD ($) shares	Jun. 09, 2017 USD ($)	Apr. 06, 2017 USD ($)	Mar. 28, 2017	Jan. 11, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2017 USD ($)	Mar. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2017 USD ($)	Jun. 07, 2017 USD ($) shares
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Cash consideration received										$ 990	$ 588
Goodwill (note 20b)						$ 1,330				1,330	1,371
Decrease in non-controlling interest (note 4b)										$ (493)
Robertson Property
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Cash transferred													$ 16
Number of shares issued (shares) | shares													4,150
Value of shares issued													$ 1
Veladero
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold										50.00%
Proportion of ownership in joint operation										50.00%
Cerro Casale
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold		25.00%		25.00%						25.00%
Gains (losses) recognised when control of subsidiary is lost							$ 193
Economic interest in subsidiary		50.00%
Proportion of ownership in joint operation		50.00%								50.00%
Implied fair value from consideration received in deconsolidation		$ 1,200
Impairment loss (reversal of loss)								$ 1,120
Percentage of voting equity interests acquired		100.00%
Round Mountain | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Cash consideration received										$ 0	165
Economic interest in subsidiary					50.00%
Bald Mountain and Round Mountain | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Cash consideration received					$ 588
Working capital adjustment									$ 22
Gain (loss) on transaction											$ (17)
Shandong | Veladero
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold			50.00%
Cash consideration received			$ 990
Working capital adjustment						30
Gains (losses) recognised when control of subsidiary is lost			$ 718
Economic interest in subsidiary			50.00%
Goodwill (note 20b)						$ 154				$ 154
Goldcorp | Cerro Casale
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold		25.00%
Decrease in non-controlling interest (note 4b)		$ 260
Divestiture consideration, investment commitment		520
Divestiture consideration, minimum payments of project expenditures in first 2 years		60
Divestiture consideration, minimum payments of project expenditures in successive 2 year periods		$ 80
Funding commitment interest rate		475.00%
Divestiture consideration, percent of cash payment of shortfall if minimum project expenditures not met in 2 year period		50.00%
Goldcorp | Cerro Casale | Quebrada Seca Property
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Cash consideration received		$ 40
Percentage of voting equity interests acquired		100.00%
Royalty percent receivable on 25% of the gross revenues from metal production		1.25%
Goldcorp | Cerro Casale | Exeter Resource Corporation
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Divestiture consideration, investment commitment												$ 520
Percentage of voting equity interests acquired												100.00%
Total acquisition cost												$ 157
Receivables recognised in a business combination												181
Kinross | Cerro Casale
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold		25.00%
Short-term debt | Goldcorp | Cerro Casale | Exeter Resource Corporation
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Receivables recognised in a business combination												15
long-term debt | Goldcorp | Cerro Casale | Exeter Resource Corporation
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Receivables recognised in a business combination												$ 166
Reunion Gold Corporation
Disclosure of detailed information about business combination [line items]
Percentage of voting equity interests acquired	15.00%
Number of equity interests acquired (shares) | shares	48,000
Payments to acquire interest in other investments	$ 9

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION - Narrative (Details)	Dec. 31, 2017 minesite_grouping investment company minesite
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Number of minesites	11
Number of minesite groupings | minesite_grouping	1
Number of publicly traded companies | company	1
Number of investments | investment	1
Operating segments
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Number of minesites	4

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION - Consolidated Statements of Income Information (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	$ 8,374	$ 8,558
Depreciation	1,647	1,574
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	354	237
Other expenses (income)	(799)	60
Net income	1,516	861
Accretion	67	50
Share of income (loss)	78	206
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	5,300	5,405
Pierina
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	174	82
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue, attributable to non-controlling interests	567	623
Cost of sales, attributable to non-controlling interests	285	249
Share of income (loss)	276	373
Acacia
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue, attributable to non-controlling interests	271	377
Cost of sales, attributable to non-controlling interests	169	259
Share of income (loss)	69	108
Operating segments
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	8,374	8,558
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	3,624	3,751
Depreciation	1,619	1,556
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	168	115
Other expenses (income)	157	83
Net income	2,806	3,053
Accretion	55	41
Operating segments | Barrick Nevada
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	2,961	2,703
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	1,076	1,089
Depreciation	793	807
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	24	19
Other expenses (income)	16	17
Net income	1,052	771
Operating segments | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	1,417	1,548
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	501	497
Depreciation	229	147
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	0	0
Other expenses (income)	16	3
Net income	671	901
Operating segments | Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	514	548
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	177	180
Depreciation	68	96
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	4	3
Other expenses (income)	6	9
Net income	259	260
Operating segments | Veladero
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	591	685
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	291	346
Depreciation	119	118
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	3	1
Other expenses (income)	5	0
Net income	173	220
Operating segments | Turquoise Ridge
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	280	322
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	131	128
Depreciation	28	27
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	0	0
Other expenses (income)	2	1
Net income	119	166
Operating segments | Acacia
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	751	1,045
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	362	553
Depreciation	107	166
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	0	27
Other expenses (income)	91	0
Net income	191	299
Operating segments | Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	0	0
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	0	0
Depreciation	8	7
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	125	59
Other expenses (income)	(10)	1
Net income	(123)	(67)
Operating segments | Other
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Revenue	1,860	1,707
Direct mining, royalties and community relations	1,086	958
Depreciation	267	188
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses	12	6
Other expenses (income)	31	52
Net income	$ 464	$ 503

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION - Reconciliation of Segment Income to Loss from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Other cost of sales/amortization	$ (5,300)	$ (5,405)
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments	(354)	(237)
General and administrative expenses	(248)	(256)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments	799	(60)
Impairment reversals	212	250
Loss on currency translation	(72)	(199)
Closed mine rehabilitation	(55)	(130)
Income from equity investees	76	20
Finance costs, net (includes non-segment accretion)	(691)	(775)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives	6	12
Income before income taxes	2,747	1,778
Gain (loss) on extinguishment of borrowings	127	129
Operating segments
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments	(168)	(115)
General and administrative expenses	(21)	(55)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments	(157)	(83)
Income before income taxes	2,806	3,053
Reconciling items
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Other cost of sales/amortization	(57)	(98)
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments	(186)	(122)
General and administrative expenses	(248)	(256)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments	901	(18)
Impairment reversals	212	250
Loss on currency translation	(72)	(199)
Closed mine rehabilitation	(55)	(130)
Income from equity investees	76	20
Finance costs, net (includes non-segment accretion)	(636)	(734)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives	6	12
Gain on interest rate hedges	27	73
Gain (loss) on extinguishment of borrowings	127	129
Unrealized gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	$ 1	$ 32

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION - Geographical Information (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	$ 20,624	$ 20,390
Revenue	8,374	8,558
United States
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	6,641	6,768
Revenue	3,299	3,081
Dominican Republic
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	3,480	3,540
Revenue	1,417	1,548
Argentina
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	2,217	2,366
Revenue	591	685
Chile
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	2,469	1,945
Revenue	0	0
Tanzania
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	1,129	1,673
Revenue	751	1,045
Peru
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	734	678
Revenue	676	663
Australia
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	463	478
Revenue	456	472
Zambia
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	787	473
Revenue	612	466
Papua New Guinea
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	351	353
Revenue	322	304
Saudi Arabia
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	371	346
Revenue	0	0
Unallocated
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	1,357	1,267
Revenue	0	0
Canada
Disclosure of geographical areas [line items]
Non-current assets	625	503
Revenue	$ 250	$ 294

XML

SEGMENT INFORMATION - Capital Expenditures (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	$ 1,382	$ 1,119
Cash expenditures	1,396	1,126
Decrease in accrued capital expenditures	14	7
Operating segments
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	1,346	1,083
Operating segments | Barrick Nevada
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	585	358
Operating segments | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	114	101
Operating segments | Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	25	56
Operating segments | Veladero
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	173	95
Operating segments | Turquoise Ridge
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	36	32
Operating segments | Acacia
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	148	191
Operating segments | Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	6	20
Operating segments | Other
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	259	230
Other items not allocated to segments
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Capital expenditures	$ 36	$ 36

XML

REVENUE - Revenue by Type (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Revenue	$ 8,374	$ 8,558
Sales tax	0	2
Gold
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Revenue	7,631	7,908
Spot market sales
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Revenue	7,566	7,650
Concentrate sales
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Revenue	65	258
Copper
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Revenue	608	466
Other
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Revenue	$ 135	$ 184

XML

REVENUE - Narrative (Details) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) $ / pound	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) $ / pound $ / ounce
Gold
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Percentage of composition of principal product (as percent)	90.00%
Provisional pricing gain (loss)	$ 1	$ 0
Average price of sales subject to final settlement (copper in dollars per pound; gold in dollars per oz) | $ / ounce		1,152
Copper
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Provisional pricing gain (loss)	$ 46	$ (22)
Average price of sales subject to final settlement (copper in dollars per pound; gold in dollars per oz) | $ / pound	3.29	2.51

XML

REVENUE - Provisional Copper and Gold Sales (Details) ozt in Thousands, lb in Millions, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) lb ozt	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) lb ozt
Copper
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Volumes subject to final pricing Copper (millions) Gold (000s) | lb	40	44
Impact on net income before taxation of 10% movement in market price US$	$ 13	$ 11
Gold
Disclosure of Disaggregation of Revenue [Line Items]
Volumes subject to final pricing Copper (millions) Gold (000s) | ozt	0	13
Impact on net income before taxation of 10% movement in market price US$	$ 0	$ 2

XML

COST OF SALES (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Cost of Sales [Line Items]
Direct mining cost	$ 3,365	$ 3,520
Depreciation	1,647	1,574
Royalty expense	244	265
Community relations	44	46
Cost of sales	5,300	5,405
Inventory reduction amount	21	68
Employee benefits expense	1,051	1,048
Gold
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Cost of Sales [Line Items]
Direct mining cost	3,063	3,215
Depreciation	1,529	1,504
Royalty expense	206	224
Community relations	38	37
Cost of sales	4,836	4,980
Copper
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Cost of Sales [Line Items]
Direct mining cost	274	228
Depreciation	83	45
Royalty expense	38	41
Community relations	4	5
Cost of sales	399	319
Other
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Cost of Sales [Line Items]
Direct mining cost	28	77
Depreciation	35	25
Royalty expense	0	0
Community relations	2	4
Cost of sales	$ 65	$ 106

XML

EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT EXPENSES (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Minesite exploration and evaluation	$ 47	$ 44
Global exploration and evaluation	126	88
Corporate development	13	14
Business improvement and innovation	32	15
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses	354	237
Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Advanced project costs	122	59
Other
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Advanced project costs	$ 14	$ 17

XML

OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME) - Other Expense (Income) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions			12 Months Ended
	Jun. 09, 2017	Mar. 28, 2017	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Other Operating Expenses [Abstract]
Bank charges			$ 23	$ 20
Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs			53	0
Litigation			24	0
Miscellaneous write-offs			11	0
Other			43	15
Total other expense			154	35
Other Income:
(Gain) loss on sale of long-lived assets			(911)	42
Office closure			0	(4)
Other			(42)	(13)
Total other income			(953)	25
Total			(799)	60
Veladero | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gain (loss) on sale			718
Cerro Casale | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gain (loss) on sale			$ 193
Bald Mountain and Round Mountain | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gain (loss) on sale				(17)
Zaldívar | Discontinued operations
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Gain (loss) on sale				$ (39)
Veladero
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold			50.00%
Cerro Casale
Disclosure of Discontinued Operations [Line Items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold	25.00%	25.00%	25.00%

XML

OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME) - Loss on Currency Translation (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Foreign Exchange Gain (Loss) [Line Items]
Total	$ 72	$ 199
Currency translation losses released as a result of the disposal and reorganization of entities
Disclosure of Foreign Exchange Gain (Loss) [Line Items]
Total	11	91
Foreign currency translation losses
Disclosure of Foreign Exchange Gain (Loss) [Line Items]
Total	$ 61	$ 108

XML

IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of impairment loss and reversal of impairment loss [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ (212)	$ (250)
Impairment (reversals) of long lived assets
Disclosure of impairment loss and reversal of impairment loss [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	(224)	(250)
Impairment of intangibles
Disclosure of impairment loss and reversal of impairment loss [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ 12	$ 0

XML

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Administrative Expense [Line Items]
Administrative expenses	$ 248	$ 256
Severance payments	3	9
Employee costs	98	153
Corporate administration
Disclosure of Administrative Expense [Line Items]
Administrative expenses	227	201
Operating segment administration
Disclosure of Administrative Expense [Line Items]
Administrative expenses	$ 21	$ 55

XML

INCOME TAX EXPENSE - Schedule of Components of Income Tax Expense (Recovery) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Current tax
Charge for the year	$ 1,125	$ 911
Adjustment in respect of prior years	0	(2)
Canada	7	7
International	1,118	902
Current tax	1,125	909
Deferred tax
Origination and reversal of temporary differences in the current year	112	10
Adjustment in respect of prior years	(6)	(2)
Canada	(97)	(30)
International	203	38
Deferred tax	106	8
Income tax expense	$ 1,231	$ 917

XML

INCOME TAX EXPENSE - Narrative (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended		12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Sep. 30, 2017	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Oct. 19, 2017
Disclosure Of Major Components Of Tax Expense (Income) [Line Items]
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances			$ 10	$ 23
Change in tax rate, deferred tax recovery	$ 343
Toll charge	228
Deferred tax asset on AMT credit to offset liability	88		88
Toll charge payable	140		140
Noncurrent toll charge payable	129		129
Income tax expense (recovery)			1,231	917
Increase in provisional liability	252
Provisional income tax expense	150
Deferred tax expense, undistributed foreign earnings	102
Deferred tax liability, non-current	$ 130		130
Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure Of Major Components Of Tax Expense (Income) [Line Items]
Foreign income tax liability					$ 300
Income tax provision				128
Income tax expense (recovery)		$ 172		70
Argentina
Disclosure Of Major Components Of Tax Expense (Income) [Line Items]
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances			$ 10	$ 23

XML

INCOME TAX EXPENSE - Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Income Tax [Abstract]
At 26.5% statutory rate	$ 728	$ 471
Statutory rate (as percent)	26.50%	26.50%
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions	$ (96)	$ (134)
Impact of foreign tax rates	215	113
Expenses not tax deductible	24	54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets	(241)	0
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets	66	0
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances	10	23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments	(7)	(5)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets	21	35
United States tax reform	(203)	0
Non-recognition of US AMT credits	0	13
Adjustments in respect of prior years	(6)	(4)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities	172	70
Impact of tax rate changes	0	(13)
United States withholding taxes	252	0
Other withholding taxes	18	11
Mining taxes	266	267
Other items	12	16
Income tax expense	$ 1,231	$ 917

XML

EARNINGS PER SHARE (Details) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, shares in Millions, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Earnings per share [abstract]
Net income	$ 1,516	$ 861
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests	(78)	(206)
Net income attributable to equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation - Diluted	1,438	655
Net income attributable to equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation - Basic	$ 1,438	$ 655
Weighted average shares outstanding - Basic (in shares)	1,166	1,165
Weighted average shares outstanding - Diluted (in shares)	1,166	1,165
Basic earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation (in USD per share)	$ 1.23	$ 0.56
Diluted earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation (in USD per share)	$ 1.23	$ 0.56

XML

FINANCE COSTS, NET (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	May 02, 2013	Sep. 30, 2008
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Interest	$ 511	$ 591
Amortization of debt issue costs	5	17
Amortization of discount	1	2
Accretion	67	50
Loss on debt extinguishment	127	129
Finance income	(14)	(13)
Total	691	775
Interest paid, classified as financing activities	$ 425	$ 513
4.1% Notes Due 2023
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)	4.10%
6.95% Notes Due 2019
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)	6.95%
2.5 Percent Notes Due 2018
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		2.50%	2.50%
4.4 Percent Notes Due 2021
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		4.40%
4.95 Percent Notes Due 2020
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		4.95%
6.8 Percent Notes Due 2019
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		6.80%		6.80%
6.95 Percent Notes Due 2020
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		6.95%
Interest rate hedges
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Finance Income (Expense) [Line Items]
Gain on interest rate hedges	$ (6)	$ (1)

XML

CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Cash flow arising from changes in:
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)	$ (6)	$ (12)
Stock-based compensation expense	80	82
Income from investment in equity investees (note 16)	(76)	(20)
Change in estimate of rehabilitation costs at closed mines	55	130
Net inventory impairment charges (note 17)	21	68
Change in other assets and liabilities	(196)	(249)
Settlement of rehabilitation obligations	(59)	(62)
Other operating activities	(181)	(63)
Cash flow arising from changes in:
Accounts receivable	8	(5)
Inventory	(372)	(190)
Other current assets	(278)	(72)
Accounts payable	(35)	(190)
Other current liabilities	(51)	29
Change in working capital	$ (728)	$ (428)

XML

INVESTMENTS - Equity Accounting Method Investment Continuity (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Investments, beginning balance	$ 1,185
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(76)	$ (20)
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212)	(250)
Investments, ending balance	1,213	1,185
Joint ventures
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Investments, beginning balance	1,185	1,199
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	76	20
Funds invested	12	9
Working capital adjustments		6
Impairment reversals (note 10)		(49)
Dividend	(60)
Investments, ending balance	1,213	1,185
Kabanga
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Investments, beginning balance	30	30
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(1)	(1)
Funds invested	1	1
Working capital adjustments		0
Impairment reversals (note 10)		0
Dividend	0
Investments, ending balance	30	30
Jabal Sayid
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Investments, beginning balance	180	178
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	26	2
Funds invested	0	0
Working capital adjustments		0
Impairment reversals (note 10)		0
Dividend	0
Investments, ending balance	206	180
Zaldívar
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Investments, beginning balance	974	990
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	61	27
Funds invested	0	0
Working capital adjustments		6
Impairment reversals (note 10)		(49)
Dividend	(60)
Investments, ending balance	975	974
GNX
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Investments, beginning balance	1	1
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees	(10)	(8)
Funds invested	11	8
Working capital adjustments		0
Impairment reversals (note 10)		0
Dividend	0
Investments, ending balance	$ 2	$ 1

XML

INVESTMENTS - Summarized Equity Investee Financial Information (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Revenue	$ 8,374	$ 8,558
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	5,300	5,405
Depreciation	1,647	1,574
Finance expense	691	775
Other expenses (income)	(799)	60
Income before income taxes	2,747	1,778
Income tax expense	(1,231)	(917)
Net income	1,516	861
Total comprehensive income	1,554	1,049
Cash and equivalents (note 25a)	2,234	2,389	$ 2,455
Other current assets (note 18)	321	306
Total current assets	4,684	4,874
Total assets	25,308	25,264
Other current liabilities	331	309
Total current liabilities	1,747	1,819
Other non-current liabilities	1,744	1,461
Total liabilities	14,241	14,951
Total equity	11,067	10,313	$ 9,455
Current inventories	1,890	1,930
Jabal Sayid
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Revenue	214	80
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	116	65
Depreciation	33	12
Finance expense	3	0
Other expenses (income)	2	0
Income before income taxes	60	3
Income tax expense	(8)	0
Net income	52	3
Total comprehensive income	52	3
Cash and equivalents (note 25a)	50	14
Other current assets (note 18)	70	56
Total current assets	120	70
Non-current assets	485	473
Total assets	605	543
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	12	0
Other current liabilities	35	27
Total current liabilities	47	27
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	379	391
Other non-current liabilities	13	11
Total non-current liabilities	392	402
Total liabilities	439	429
Total equity	166	114
Zaldívar
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Revenue	649	518
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)	375	354
Depreciation	111	87
Finance expense	1	2
Other expenses (income)	0	(5)
Income before income taxes	162	80
Income tax expense	(40)	(25)
Net income	122	55
Total comprehensive income	122	55
Cash and equivalents (note 25a)	72	102
Other current assets (note 18)	563	482
Total current assets	635	584
Non-current assets	1,582	1,603
Total assets	2,217	2,187
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	19	23
Other current liabilities	110	84
Total current liabilities	129	107
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)	20	33
Other non-current liabilities	99	80
Total non-current liabilities	119	113
Total liabilities	248	220
Total equity	1,969	1,967
Current inventories	$ 451	$ 429

XML

INVESTMENTS - Reconciliation of Summarized Financial Information to Carrying Value (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Beginning balance	$ 10,313	$ 9,455
Net income	1,516	861
Ending balance	11,067	10,313
Carrying value	1,213	1,185
Jabal Sayid
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Beginning balance	114
Net income	52	3
Investments accounted for using equity method, dividend	0
Ending balance	166	114
Barrick's share of net assets (50%)	83
Equity earnings adjustment	0
Goodwill recognition	123
Carrying value	206	180	$ 178
Loans receivable from related party	$ 165
Economic interest in joint venture	50.00%
Zaldívar
Disclosure of joint ventures [line items]
Beginning balance	$ 1,967
Net income	122	55
Investments accounted for using equity method, dividend	(120)
Ending balance	1,969	1,967
Barrick's share of net assets (50%)	985
Equity earnings adjustment	(10)
Goodwill recognition	0
Carrying value	$ 975	$ 974	$ 990
Economic interest in joint venture	50.00%

XML

INVENTORIES - Inventories By Type (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Inventory [Line Items]
Ore in Stockpiles	$ 2,227	$ 2,139
Ore on Leach pads	405	406
Current inventories	1,890	1,930
Gold
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Inventory [Line Items]
Ore in Stockpiles	2,125	2,067
Ore on Leach pads	405	406
Mine operating supplies	515	585
Work in process	174	219
Finished products	168	50
Inventories	3,387	3,327
Non-current ore in stockpiles	(1,681)	(1,536)
Current inventories	1,706	1,791
Copper
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Inventory [Line Items]
Ore in Stockpiles	102	72
Ore on Leach pads	0	0
Mine operating supplies	79	62
Work in process	0	0
Finished products	3	5
Inventories	184	139
Non-current ore in stockpiles	0	0
Current inventories	$ 184	$ 139

XML

INVENTORIES - Inventory Impairment Charges (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Inventory impairment charges	$ 21	$ 68
Barrick Nevada
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Inventory impairment charges	0	57
Golden Sunlight
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Inventory impairment charges	6	7
Porgera
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Inventory impairment charges	4	3
Pierina
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Inventory impairment charges	$ 11	$ 1

XML

INVENTORIES - Ore in Stockpiles and on Leach Pads (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	$ 2,227	$ 2,139
Ore on Leach pads	405	406
Gold
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	2,125	2,067
Ore on Leach pads	405	406
Gold | Barrick Nevada
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	1,040	1,128
Ore on Leach pads	105	109
Gold | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	538	475
Gold | Porgera
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	55	77
Gold | Kalgoorlie
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	138	127
Gold | Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	147	91
Ore on Leach pads	143	97
Gold | Buzwagi
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	109	64
Gold | North Mara
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	47	41
Gold | Veladero
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	22	38
Ore on Leach pads	145	172
Gold | Turquoise Ridge
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	26	22
Gold | Other
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	3	4
Gold | Pierina
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore on Leach pads	12	28
Copper
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	102	72
Ore on Leach pads	0	0
Copper | Lumwana
Disclosure of operating segments [line items]
Ore in Stockpiles	$ 102	$ 72

XML

INVENTORIES - Narrative (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Inventories [Abstract]
Purchase obligation for supplies and consumables	$ 1,147	$ 970

XML

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Accounts receivable
Amounts due from concentrate sales	$ 110	$ 110
Receivable from Dominican Republic government	1	30
Other receivables	128	109
Accounts receivable	239	249
Other current assets
Derivative assets (note 25f)	2	1
Goods and services taxes recoverable	167	239
Prepaid expenses	68	48
Other	84	18
Other current assets	321	306
Tanzania
Disclosure of Trade Receivable and Other Current Assets [Line Items]
VAT and fuel tax recoverables	32	124
Argentina
Disclosure of Trade Receivable and Other Current Assets [Line Items]
VAT and fuel tax recoverables	49	52
Chile
Disclosure of Trade Receivable and Other Current Assets [Line Items]
VAT and fuel tax recoverables	3	32
Dominican Republic
Disclosure of Trade Receivable and Other Current Assets [Line Items]
VAT and fuel tax recoverables	19	10
Peru
Disclosure of Trade Receivable and Other Current Assets [Line Items]
VAT and fuel tax recoverables	$ 8	$ 6

XML

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT - Property, Plant and Equipment by Type (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	$ 14,103	$ 14,434
Additions	2,343	1,276
Disposals	(1,197)	(117)
Depreciation	(1,697)	(1,789)
Impairment charges		299
Impairment reversals	254
Transfers	0	0
Property, plant and equipment	13,806	14,103
Cost
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	49,523	48,484
Property, plant and equipment	49,784	49,523
Accumulated depreciation and impairments
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	(35,420)	(34,050)
Property, plant and equipment	(35,978)	(35,420)
Buildings, plant and equipment
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	4,556	4,684
Additions	158	71
Disposals	(72)	(80)
Depreciation	(878)	(794)
Impairment charges		217
Impairment reversals	(102)
Transfers	551	458
Property, plant and equipment	4,213	4,556
Buildings, plant and equipment | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	14,111	13,782
Property, plant and equipment	14,209	14,111
Buildings, plant and equipment | Accumulated depreciation and impairments
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	(9,555)	(9,098)
Property, plant and equipment	(9,996)	(9,555)
MIning property costs subject to depreciation
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	7,194	7,300
Additions	219	272
Disposals	(32)	0
Depreciation	(819)	(995)
Impairment charges		79
Impairment reversals	(359)
Transfers	449	538
Property, plant and equipment	6,652	7,194
MIning property costs subject to depreciation | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	20,778	19,968
Property, plant and equipment	21,068	20,778
MIning property costs subject to depreciation | Accumulated depreciation and impairments
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	(13,584)	(12,668)
Property, plant and equipment	(14,416)	(13,584)
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	2,353	2,450
Additions	1,966	933
Disposals	(1,093)	(37)
Depreciation	0	0
Impairment charges		3
Impairment reversals	715
Transfers	(1,000)	(996)
Property, plant and equipment	2,941	2,353
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	14,634	14,734
Property, plant and equipment	14,507	14,634
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation | Accumulated depreciation and impairments
Reconciliation of changes in property, plant and equipment [abstract]
Property, plant and equipment	(12,281)	(12,284)
Property, plant and equipment	$ (11,566)	$ (12,281)

XML

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT - Mineral Property Costs Not Subject to Depreciation (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	$ 13,806	$ 14,103	$ 14,434
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	2,941	2,353	$ 2,450
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation | Norte Abierto Project
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	612	444
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation | Donlin Gold
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	166	156
MIning property costs not subject to depreciation | Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	1,499	1,263
Construction-in-progress
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	640	466
Acquired mineral resources and exploration potential
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)	$ 24	$ 24

XML

PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT - Narrative (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Capital commitments	$ 1,382	$ 1,119
Operating lease commitments	68
Less than 1 year
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Operating lease commitments	21
Payable within two to five years
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Operating lease commitments	46
Over 5 years
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Operating lease commitments	2
MIning property costs subject to depreciation | Revision of LOM Plan
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Accumulated expense decrease	91	67
Construction activities
Disclosure of detailed information about property, plant and equipment [line items]
Capital commitments	$ 118	$ 103

XML

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS - Intangible Assets (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, beginning balance	$ 272	$ 271
Additions	16	4
Disposals	(16)
Amortization and impairment losses	(17)	(3)
Intangible assets, ending balance	255	272
Cost
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	425
Accumulated amortization and impairment losses
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	170
Water rights
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, beginning balance	87	87
Additions	0	0
Disposals	(16)
Amortization and impairment losses	0	0
Intangible assets, ending balance	71	87
Water rights | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	71
Water rights | Accumulated amortization and impairment losses
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	0
Technology
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, beginning balance	11	12
Additions	0	0
Disposals	0
Amortization and impairment losses	(2)	(1)
Intangible assets, ending balance	9	11
Technology | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	17
Technology | Accumulated amortization and impairment losses
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	8
Supply contracts
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, beginning balance	14	16
Additions	0	0
Disposals	0
Amortization and impairment losses	(3)	(2)
Intangible assets, ending balance	11	14
Supply contracts | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	39
Supply contracts | Accumulated amortization and impairment losses
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	28
Exploration potential
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, beginning balance	160	156
Additions	16	4
Disposals	0
Amortization and impairment losses	(12)	0
Intangible assets, ending balance	164	$ 160
Exploration potential | Cost
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	298
Exploration potential | Accumulated amortization and impairment losses
Reconciliation of changes in intangible assets other than goodwill [abstract]
Intangible assets, ending balance	$ 134

XML

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS - Goodwill (Details) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)
Reconciliation of changes in goodwill [abstract]
Goodwill, beginning balance	$ 1,371
Disposals	(41)
Goodwill, ending balance	1,330
Barrick Nevada
Reconciliation of changes in goodwill [abstract]
Goodwill, beginning balance	514
Disposals	0
Goodwill, ending balance	514
Veladero
Reconciliation of changes in goodwill [abstract]
Goodwill, beginning balance	195
Disposals	(41)
Goodwill, ending balance	154
Turquoise Ridge
Reconciliation of changes in goodwill [abstract]
Goodwill, beginning balance	528
Disposals	0
Goodwill, ending balance	528
Hemlo
Reconciliation of changes in goodwill [abstract]
Goodwill, beginning balance	63
Disposals	0
Goodwill, ending balance	63
Kalgoorlie
Reconciliation of changes in goodwill [abstract]
Goodwill, beginning balance	71
Disposals	0
Goodwill, ending balance	$ 71

XML

GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS - Gross Amount and Accumulated Impairment Losses of Goodwill (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Impairments
Goodwill	$ 1,330	$ 1,371
Cost
Impairments
Goodwill	8,618
Accumulated impairment losses
Impairments
Goodwill	$ 7,288

XML

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS - Impairment Losses (Reversals) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ (212)	$ (250)
Individual assets | Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	740	0
Individual assets | Veladero
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	0	(275)
Individual assets | Cerro Casale
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	(1,120)	0
Individual assets | Lumwana
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	(259)	0
Individual assets | Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	3	(28)
Individual assets | Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	407	0
Individual assets | Zaldívar
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	0	49
Individual assets | Exploration sites
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	12	0
Individual assets | Other
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ 5	$ 4

XML

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS - Narrative (Details)			3 Months Ended					5 Months Ended	6 Months Ended		7 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Jun. 09, 2017 USD ($)	Mar. 28, 2017 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Mar. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Sep. 30, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($)	May 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) $ / pound	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) $ / pound $ / ounce	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) $ / ounce	Sep. 30, 2017 USD ($)
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												$ (212,000,000)	$ (250,000,000)
Estimated change in WACC (as percent)												1.00%
Cerro Casale
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment loss (reversal of loss)				$ (1,120,000,000)
Implied fair value from consideration received in deconsolidation		$ 1,200,000,000
Non-current assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												$ (224,000,000)	(250,000,000)
Goodwill
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges					$ 0
Zaldívar
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Economic interest in subsidiary						50.00%
Zaldívar | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Recoverable amount														$ 950,000,000
Zaldívar | Non-current assets | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges						$ 49,000,000
Zaldívar | Goodwill | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges						$ 427,000,000
Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Estimated change in WACC (as percent)												1.00%
Bulyanhulu | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												$ 740,000,000	0
Veladero | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges			$ (259,000,000)
Recoverable amount			747,000,000		1,600,000,000				$ 747,000,000		$ 1,600,000,000	747,000,000	1,600,000,000
Veladero | Non-current assets | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges					$ (275,000,000)
Lagunas Norte | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												3,000,000	(28,000,000)
Recoverable amount							$ 630,000,000
Lagunas Norte | Non-current assets | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges							$ (28,000,000)
Pascua-Lama | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												407,000,000	$ 0
Pascua-Lama | Non-current assets | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges			(429,000,000)
Recoverable amount			850,000,000						850,000,000			$ 850,000,000
Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Royalty tax rate								15.00%
Estimated change in mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | $ / pound												0.25
Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Estimated mineral price in year two and more measurement of fair value less costs of disposal | $ / ounce													1,200
Estimated change in mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | $ / ounce												100
Gold | Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Estimated change in mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | $ / ounce												100
Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Economic interest in subsidiary												63.90%
Acacia Mining PLC | Bulyanhulu | Non-current assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges			(740,000,000)									$ 0
Recoverable amount			$ 600,000,000						$ 600,000,000			$ 600,000,000
Recoverable amount of asset or cash generating unit, percent of asset basis			100.00%						100.00%			100.00%
Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Estimated change in mineral price used in current measurement of fair value less cost of disposal (as a percent)			(10.00%)						(10.00%)			(10.00%)
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Economic interest in subsidiary												60.00%
Cerro Casale
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Proportion of ownership interest sold	25.00%	25.00%										25.00%
Proportion of ownership in joint operation	50.00%											50.00%
Implied fair value from consideration received in deconsolidation	$ 1,200,000,000
Economic interest in subsidiary	50.00%
Price Range One | Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Royalty tax rate											4.00%
Copper price | $ / pound											2.04
Price Range Two | Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Royalty tax rate											5.00%
Price Range Three | Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Royalty tax rate											6.00%
Copper price | $ / pound											2.72
Minimum | Lumwana | Non-current assets | Individual assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												$ (303,000,000)
Minimum | Price Range Two | Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Copper price | $ / pound											2.04
Maximum | Price Range Two | Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Copper price | $ / pound											2.72
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Gold | Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												172,000,000
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Gold | Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												(311,000)
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Pueblo Viejo | Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												(651,000)
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Pueblo Viejo | Gold | Non-current assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												425,000,000
$100 Increase in Gold Price | Gold | Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												(172,000,000)
$100 Increase in Gold Price | Gold | Bulyanhulu | Non-current assets
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												63,000,000
$100 Increase in Gold Price | Pueblo Viejo | Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges												546,000
Cash-generating units | Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Carrying Value			$ 600,000,000						$ 600,000,000			600,000,000
Cash-generating units | Lumwana
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Carrying Value			849,000,000						849,000,000			849,000,000
Cash-generating units | Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Carrying Value			458,000,000						458,000,000			458,000,000
Cash-generating units | Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Carrying Value			38,000,000						38,000,000			38,000,000
Cash-generating units | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Carrying Value			3,077,000,000						3,077,000,000			3,077,000,000
Cash-generating units | At fair value | Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Carrying Value			$ 750,000,000						$ 750,000,000			$ 750,000,000		$ 850,000,000
Tax contingent liability | Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessment | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Royalty tax rate									4.00%	6.00%
Clearing fee on minerals exported									1.00%

XML

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS - Assumptions (Details) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) $ / pound ozt $ / ounce	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) $ / pound $ / ounce
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ (212,000)	$ (250,000)
Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | $ / ounce	1,200	1,050
NAV multiple	0.012	0.012
LOM year	17 years	15 years
Gold | Average
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
WACC	6.00%	4.00%
Gold | Minimum
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | ozt	30
WACC	3.00%	3.00%
Gold | Maximum
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | ozt	55
WACC	11.00%	6.00%
Copper | Average
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
WACC	9.00%	9.00%
Silver | Minimum
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | ozt	0.41
Silver | Maximum
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | ozt	0.76
Long-term | Copper
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Mineral price (gold, in dollars per ounce; copper, in dollars per pound) | $ / pound	2.75	2.75
$100 Increase in Gold Price | Pueblo Viejo | Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ 546
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Pueblo Viejo | Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	(651)
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Lagunas Norte | Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	(311)
$100 Decrease in Gold Price | Veladero | Gold
Disclosure of information for impairment loss recognised or reversed for individual asset or cash-generating unit [line items]
Impairment (reversals) charges	$ (188)

XML

IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS - Cash Generating Units (Details) - Cash-generating units $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)
Lumwana
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	$ 849
Bulyanhulu
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	600
Buzwagi
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	194
Veladero
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	1,016
Norte Abierto Project
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	817
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	3,077
Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	38
Deferred income	812
Lagunas Norte
Disclosure of information for cash-generating units [line items]
Carrying Value	$ 458

XML

OTHER ASSETS (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Non-Current Assets [Line Items]
Derivative assets (note 25f)	$ 1	$ 1
Goods and services taxes recoverable	398	303
Notes receivable	279	274
Restricted cash	119	118
Prepayments	42	51
Norte Abierto JV Partner Receivable	166	0
Other	265	199
Other non-current assets	$ 1,270	946
Discontinued operations | Jabal Sayid
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Non-Current Assets [Line Items]
Economic interest in joint venture	50.00%
Argentina
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Non-Current Assets [Line Items]
Non-current value added tax receivables	$ 220	255
Tanzania
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Non-Current Assets [Line Items]
Non-current value added tax receivables	132	8
Chile
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Non-Current Assets [Line Items]
Non-current value added tax receivables	$ 46	$ 40

XML

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Subclassifications of assets, liabilities and equities [abstract]
Accounts payable	$ 760	$ 749
Accruals	299	335
Trade and other current payables	$ 1,059	$ 1,084

XML

OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Current Liabilities [Line Items]
Provision for environmental rehabilitation (note 27b)	$ 152	$ 67
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)	30	50
Share-based payments (note 34b)	17	53
Other	40	36
Other current liabilities	331	309
Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Current Liabilities [Line Items]
Deposit on agreement	7	26
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information about Other Current Liabilities [Line Items]
Deposit on agreement	$ 85	$ 77

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Cash and Equivalents (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	$ 2,234	$ 2,389	$ 2,455
Carrying value
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash deposits	662	1,009
Term deposits	427	654
Money market investments	1,145	726
Cash and equivalents	2,234	2,389
Carrying value | Cash held in subsidiaries with restrictions
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	$ 305	$ 943

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Debt and Interest (Details) - USD ($)		12 Months Ended
	May 02, 2013	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015	Jun. 30, 2011	Oct. 16, 2009
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		$ 7,931,000,000	$ 9,968,000,000
Proceeds		0	5,000,000
Repayments		(1,533,000,000)	(2,062,000,000)
Amortization and other		25,000,000	20,000,000
Borrowings		6,423,000,000	7,931,000,000	$ 9,968,000,000
Less: current portion		(59,000,000)	(143,000,000)	(203,000,000)
Non-current portion of non-current borrowings		6,364,000,000	7,788,000,000	9,765,000,000
Proceeds from current borrowings		0	0
Proceeds from non-current borrowings		0	5,000,000
Less: Repayments of current borrowings		0	0
Repayments of non-current borrowings		(1,533,000,000)	(2,062,000,000)
Gross amount
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		6,410,000,000
BNAF Notes Due 2021 and 2041
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		1,467,000,000	2,182,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		0	(721,000,000)
Amortization and other		1,000,000	6,000,000
Borrowings		1,468,000,000	1,467,000,000	2,182,000,000
BNAF Notes Due 2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		629,000,000
Repayments			(721,000,000)
Borrowings		629,000,000	629,000,000
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)					4.40%
BNAF Notes Due 2041
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		850,000,000
Borrowings		850,000,000	850,000,000
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)					5.70%
3.85%/5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		1,078,000,000	1,077,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		0	0
Amortization and other		1,000,000	1,000,000
Borrowings		1,079,000,000	1,078,000,000	1,077,000,000
5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		395,000,000	395,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		0	0
Amortization and other		0	0
Borrowings		395,000,000	395,000,000	395,000,000
Notional amount		$ 400,000,000	400,000,000
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		580.00%
6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		$ 593,000,000	592,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		0	0
Amortization and other		0	1,000,000
Borrowings		593,000,000	593,000,000	592,000,000
Notional amount		$ 600,000,000	600,000,000
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		635.00%
Other fixed rate notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		$ 1,607,000,000	2,451,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		(279,000,000)	(848,000,000)
Amortization and other		(2,000,000)	4,000,000
Borrowings		1,326,000,000	1,607,000,000	2,451,000,000
BPDAF notes due 2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		248,000,000
Repayments			(152,000,000)
Borrowings		248,000,000	248,000,000
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)						4.95%
BNAF notes due 2038
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		250,000,000
Borrowings		250,000,000	250,000,000
BPADF Notes Due 2039
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		850,000,000
Borrowings		850,000,000	850,000,000
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)						5.95%
Pueblo Viejo Project financing
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		400,000,000	646,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		(423,000,000)	(254,000,000)
Amortization and other		23,000,000	8,000,000
Borrowings		0	400,000,000	646,000,000
Less: current portion		0	(72,000,000)
Capital leases
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		114,000,000	153,000,000
Proceeds		0	2,000,000
Repayments		(68,000,000)	(41,000,000)
Amortization and other		0	0
Borrowings		46,000,000	114,000,000	153,000,000
Less: current portion		(27,000,000)	(38,000,000)
Pascua-Lama Capital Lease
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		50,000,000
Borrowings		13,000,000	50,000,000
Laguna Norte Capital Lease
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		56,000,000
Borrowings		27,000,000	56,000,000
Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		609,000,000	654,000,000
Proceeds		0	3,000,000
Repayments		(4,000,000)	(46,000,000)
Amortization and other		(2,000,000)	(2,000,000)
Borrowings		603,000,000	609,000,000	654,000,000
Less: current portion		(4,000,000)	(5,000,000)
Other debt obligations | Gross amount
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		9,000,000
4.10%/5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		1,569,000,000	1,690,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		(731,000,000)	(123,000,000)
Amortization and other		4,000,000	2,000,000
Borrowings		842,000,000	1,569,000,000	1,690,000,000
Notional amount		850,000,000
4.10%/5.75% notes | Gross amount
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	$ 3,000,000,000
Acacia Credit Facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		99,000,000	128,000,000
Proceeds		0	0
Repayments		(28,000,000)	(29,000,000)	(14,000,000)
Amortization and other		0	0
Borrowings		71,000,000	99,000,000	$ 128,000,000
Less: current portion		(28,000,000)	$ (28,000,000)
Acacia Credit Facility | Gross amount
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		$ 71,000,000

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Debt Narrative (Details) - USD ($)				1 Months Ended			12 Months Ended
	May 02, 2013	Oct. 16, 2009	Mar. 19, 2009	Jan. 31, 2013	Jan. 31, 2012	Sep. 30, 2008	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015	Dec. 31, 2013	Nov. 30, 2017	Apr. 03, 2012	Jun. 30, 2011	Apr. 30, 2010
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							$ 6,423,000,000	$ 7,931,000,000	$ 9,968,000,000
Repayments							1,533,000,000	2,062,000,000
BNAF Notes Due 2014
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)													1.75%
Repayments										$ 700,000,000
Barrick Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)													2.90%
Repayments								229,000,000		871,000,000
BNAF Notes Due 2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)													4.40%
Borrowings							629,000,000	629,000,000
Repayments								721,000,000
BNAF Notes Due 2041
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)													5.70%
Borrowings							850,000,000	850,000,000
3.85%/5.25% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							1,079,000,000	1,078,000,000	1,077,000,000
Repayments							$ 0	$ 0
Effective rate (as percent)							4.87%	4.87%
3.85% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)												3.85%
Repayments									913,000,000
5.25% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)												5.25%
Other fixed rate notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							$ 1,326,000,000	$ 1,607,000,000	2,451,000,000
Repayments							$ 279,000,000	$ 848,000,000
Effective rate (as percent)							6.38%	6.75%
BPADF Notes Due 2039
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		5.95%
Borrowings							$ 850,000,000	$ 850,000,000
Term of borrowings		30 years
BPDAF Notes Due 2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)		4.95%
Borrowings							248,000,000	248,000,000
Repayments								152,000,000
Term of borrowings		10 years
6.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)			6.95%
Repayments							279,000,000	$ 196,000,000	275,000,000
Term of borrowings			10 years
6.125% Notes Due 2013
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)						6.125%
Term of borrowings						5 years
6.8 Percent Notes Due 2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)						6.80%		6.80%
Term of borrowings						10 years
7.50% Notes Due 2038
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)						7.50%
Term of borrowings						30 years
Pueblo Viejo Project financing
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							0	$ 400,000,000	646,000,000
Repayments							$ 423,000,000	$ 254,000,000
Effective rate (as percent)							7.04%	6.23%
Credit Facility Due 2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Repayments	$ 2,000,000,000
Basis spread (as percent)					2.00%
Commitment fee (as percent)					0.35%
Portion of borrowing capacity terminating at initial maturity date					$ 23,000,000
Credit Facility Due 2021 Amendment
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Maximum borrowing capacity available until extended maturity date											$ 3,977,000,000
4.10%/5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							$ 842,000,000	$ 1,569,000,000	1,690,000,000
Repayments							$ 731,000,000	$ 123,000,000
Effective rate (as percent)							5.12%	4.98%
2.5 Percent Notes Due 2018
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)	2.50%							2.50%
Repayments							$ 123,000,000		129,000,000	398,000,000
4.10% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)	4.10%
Repayments							731,000,000		769,000,000
5.75% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings, interest rate (as percent)	5.75%
Acacia Credit Facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							71,000,000	$ 99,000,000	128,000,000
Repayments							$ 28,000,000	$ 29,000,000	$ 14,000,000
Term of borrowings				7 years
Repayment holiday period				2 years
Effective rate (as percent)				3.60%			3.59%	3.59%
Gross amount
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							$ 6,410,000,000
Gross amount | BNAF Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings													$ 4,000,000,000
Gross amount | BNAF Notes Due 2014
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings													700,000,000
Gross amount | Barrick Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings													1,100,000,000
Gross amount | BNAF Notes Due 2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings													1,350,000,000.00
Gross amount | BNAF Notes Due 2041
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings													$ 850,000,000
Gross amount | 3.85%/5.25% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings												$ 2,000,000,000
Gross amount | 3.85% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							337,000,000					1,250,000,000.00
Gross amount | 5.25% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							750,000,000					$ 750,000,000
Gross amount | Other fixed rate notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		$ 1,250,000,000.00
Gross amount | BPADF Notes Due 2039
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		850,000,000
Gross amount | BPDAF Notes Due 2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings		$ 400,000,000
Gross amount | 6.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings			$ 750,000,000
Gross amount | LLCs Notes Due 2013, Due 2019 and Due 2038
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings						$ 1,250,000,000.00
Gross amount | 6.125% Notes Due 2013
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings						500,000,000
Repayments										$ 500,000,000
Gross amount | 6.8 Percent Notes Due 2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings						500,000,000
Repayments							500,000,000
Gross amount | 7.50% Notes Due 2038
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings						$ 250,000,000	250,000,000
Gross amount | Pueblo Viejo Project financing
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings														$ 1,035,000,000.000
Gross amount | Credit Facility Due 2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Credit facility available					$ 4,000,000,000
Gross amount | 4.10%/5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	$ 3,000,000,000
Gross amount | 2.5 Percent Notes Due 2018
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	650,000,000
Gross amount | 4.10% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	1,500,000,000.0
Gross amount | 5.75% Notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	$ 850,000,000						850,000,000
Gross amount | Acacia Credit Facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings							$ 71,000,000
Credit facility available				$ 142,000,000
Variable rate | Acacia Credit Facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Basis spread (as percent)				2.50%

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Debt Interest Costs (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Jan. 31, 2013
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 511	$ 609
Deposits on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement (note 29)
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 66	$ 63
Effective rate (as percent)	8.37%	8.37%
Deposits on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement (note 29)
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 35	$ 37
Effective rate (as percent)	6.14%	6.34%
4.4%/5.7% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 77	$ 104
Effective rate (as percent)	5.23%	5.09%
3.85%/5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 53	$ 53
Effective rate (as percent)	4.87%	4.87%
5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 23	$ 23
Effective rate (as percent)	5.85%	5.85%
5.75%/6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 38	$ 38
Effective rate (as percent)	6.41%	6.41%
Other fixed rate notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 93	$ 128
Effective rate (as percent)	6.38%	6.75%
Pueblo Viejo Project financing
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 14	$ 33
Effective rate (as percent)	7.04%	6.23%
Capital leases
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 3	$ 5
Effective rate (as percent)	3.60%	4.02%
Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 31	$ 36
Effective rate (as percent)	6.55%	6.09%
4.10%/5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 72	$ 82
Effective rate (as percent)	5.12%	4.98%
Acacia Credit Facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Interest cost	$ 6	$ 7
Effective rate (as percent)	3.59%	3.59%	3.60%

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Scheduled Debt Repayments (Details) - USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015	May 02, 2013	Apr. 03, 2012	Sep. 30, 2008
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	$ 6,423,000,000	$ 7,931,000,000	$ 9,968,000,000
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	46,000,000
Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	603,000,000	609,000,000	654,000,000
Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	71,000,000	$ 99,000,000	$ 128,000,000
2018
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	27,000,000
2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	11,000,000
2020
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	4,000,000
2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	1,000,000
2022
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	1,000,000
2023 and thereafter
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Minimum annual payments under capital leases	2,000,000
Gross amount
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	6,410,000,000
Gross amount | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	248,000,000
Gross amount | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	7,000,000
Gross amount | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	629,000,000
Gross amount | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	337,000,000				$ 1,250,000,000.00
Gross amount | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	7,000,000
Gross amount | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	5,000,000
Gross amount | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	32,000,000
Gross amount | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	15,000,000
Gross amount | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	200,000,000
Gross amount | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	200,000,000
Gross amount | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	200,000,000
Gross amount | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	300,000,000
Gross amount | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	600,000,000
Gross amount | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	250,000,000					$ 250,000,000
Gross amount | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	850,000,000
Gross amount | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	850,000,000
Gross amount | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	750,000,000				$ 750,000,000
Gross amount | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	850,000,000			$ 850,000,000
Gross amount | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	9,000,000
Gross amount | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	71,000,000
Gross amount | 2018
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	32,000,000
Gross amount | 2018 | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2018 | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	4,000,000
Gross amount | 2018 | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	28,000,000
Gross amount | 2019
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	33,000,000
Gross amount | 2019 | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2019 | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	5,000,000
Gross amount | 2019 | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	28,000,000
Gross amount | 2020
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	263,000,000
Gross amount | 2020 | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	248,000,000
Gross amount | 2020 | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2020 | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	15,000,000
Gross amount | 2021
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	636,000,000
Gross amount | 2021 | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	7,000,000
Gross amount | 2021 | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	629,000,000
Gross amount | 2021 | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2021 | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	337,000,000
Gross amount | 2022 | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	337,000,000
Gross amount | 2022 | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2022 | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	5,109,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 4.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 7.31% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 4.40% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 3.85% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 7.73% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	7,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 7.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	5,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 7.37% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	32,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 8.05% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	15,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 6.38% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	200,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	200,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 5.80% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	200,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 6.45% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	300,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 6.35% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	600,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 7.50% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	250,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 5.95% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	850,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 5.70% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	850,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 5.25% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	750,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | 5.75% notes
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	850,000,000
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | Other debt obligations
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	0
Gross amount | 2023 and thereafter | Acacia credit facility
Disclosure of detailed information about borrowings [line items]
Borrowings	$ 0

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Summary of Derivatives (Details) - Dec. 31, 2017 ozt in Thousands, bbl in Thousands, lb in Millions, K in Millions, $ in Millions, $ in Millions, $ in Millions	CAD ($) lb ozt bbl	USD ($) lb ozt bbl	PGK (K) lb ozt bbl	AUD ($) lb ozt bbl
Interest rate contracts | Interest rate risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		$ 71
Interest rate contracts | Interest rate risk | Hedge | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		71
Interest rate contracts | Interest rate risk | Hedge | Fair value hedges
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		1
Interest rate contracts | Interest rate risk | Non-Hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		0
Interest rate contracts | Less than 1 year | Interest rate risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		28
Interest rate contracts | 2 to 3 years | Interest rate risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		43
Interest rate contracts | 4 to 5 years | Interest rate risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount | $		$ 0
Currency swap contract | Currency risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	$ 8		K 32	$ 21
Currency swap contract | Currency risk | Hedge | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	0		0	0
Currency swap contract | Currency risk | Hedge | Fair value hedges
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	0		0	0
Currency swap contract | Currency risk | Non-Hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	8		32	21
Currency swap contract | Less than 1 year | Currency risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	8		32	21
Currency swap contract | 2 to 3 years | Currency risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	0		0	0
Currency swap contract | 4 to 5 years | Currency risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	$ 0		K 0	$ 0
Gold collar sell contracts | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	105	105	105	105
Gold collar sell contracts | Commodity price risk | Hedge | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	0	0	0	0
Gold collar sell contracts | Commodity price risk | Hedge | Fair value hedges
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	2,000	2,000	2,000	2,000
Gold collar sell contracts | Commodity price risk | Non-Hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	105	105	105	105
Gold collar sell contracts | Less than 1 year | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	105	105	105	105
Gold collar sell contracts | 2 to 3 years | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	0	0	0	0
Gold collar sell contracts | 4 to 5 years | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	0	0	0	0
Copper bought floor contracts | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	60	60	60	60
Copper bought floor contracts | Commodity price risk | Hedge | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	60	60	60	60
Copper bought floor contracts | Commodity price risk | Hedge | Fair value hedges
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	(8)	(8)	(8)	(8)
Copper bought floor contracts | Commodity price risk | Non-Hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	0	0	0	0
Copper bought floor contracts | Less than 1 year | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	60	60	60	60
Copper bought floor contracts | 2 to 3 years | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	0	0	0	0
Copper bought floor contracts | 4 to 5 years | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	0	0	0	0
Fuel contracts | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	1,286	1,286	1,286	1,286
Fuel contracts | Commodity price risk | Hedge | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	840	840	840	840
Fuel contracts | Commodity price risk | Hedge | Fair value hedges
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	(24,000)	(24,000)	(24,000)	(24,000)
Fuel contracts | Commodity price risk | Non-Hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	446	446	446	446
Fuel contracts | Less than 1 year | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	1,244	1,244	1,244	1,244
Fuel contracts | 2 to 3 years | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	42	42	42	42
Fuel contracts | 4 to 5 years | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	0	0	0	0

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Fair Values of Derivative Instruments (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Asset Derivatives	$ 3	$ 2
Liability Derivatives	32	78
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Asset Derivatives	2	1
Liability Derivatives	7	7
Commodity contracts | Other assets
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Asset Derivatives	2	1
Commodity contracts | Other liabilities
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Liability Derivatives	7	7
Total derivatives classified as hedging instruments
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Asset Derivatives	1	1
Liability Derivatives	25	71
Interest rate contracts | Other assets
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Asset Derivatives	1	1
Interest rate contracts | Other liabilities
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Liability Derivatives	0	0
Commodity contracts | Other assets
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Asset Derivatives	0	0
Commodity contracts | Other liabilities
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Liability Derivatives	$ 25	$ 71

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Derivative Narrative (Details) ozt in Thousands, bbl in Thousands, lb in Millions, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) lb $ / pound ozt bbl $ / bbl counterparty	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2017 AUD ($) lb $ / pound ozt bbl $ / bbl counterparty	Dec. 31, 2015 bbl	Dec. 31, 2014 lb	Dec. 31, 2013 AUD ($)
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Number of counterparties | counterparty	18		18
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	$ (16)	$ 16
Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	6	12
Fuel contracts
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	0	5
Gold and Copper Contracts
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	4
Gold
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gain (loss) on non-hedge derivatives	$ 4	2
Commodity price risk | Fuel contracts
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	206		206
Commodity price risk | Gold
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	210		210
Commodity price risk | Gold positions
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | ozt	105		105
Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	$ (19)	25
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	5
Interest rate contracts | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	0	0
Interest rate contracts | Cash flow hedge | Interest rate risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount	71
Currency contracts | Cash flow hedge | Currency risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount			$ 0			$ 990,000,000
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)		(14)
Fuel contracts | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	(8)	$ 23
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	$ 5
WTI Fuel Contract | Cash flow hedge | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | bbl	840		840	8,040
Average price of hedging instrument (fuel in USD/barrell; copper in USD/lb) | $ / bbl	79		79
Silver | Cash flow hedge | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	$ 190
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb					65
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	2
Copper | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	$ (11)
Copper | Cash flow hedge | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Notional amount (gold in ounces; copper in pounds; and fuel in barrels) | lb	60		60
Derivatives purchased during period | lb	115
Copper put option contracts | Cash flow hedge | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Average price of hedging instrument (fuel in USD/barrell; copper in USD/lb) | $ / pound	2.83		2.83
Copper call contracts | Cash flow hedge | Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Average price of hedging instrument (fuel in USD/barrell; copper in USD/lb) | $ / pound	3.25		3.25
Net Asset Position
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Number of counterparties | counterparty	6		6
Derivative financial assets (liabilities)	$ 2
Net Liability Position
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Number of counterparties | counterparty	12		12
Derivative financial assets (liabilities)	$ (31)

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	$ (189)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(16)	$ 16
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	23	64
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	(169)	(189)
Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	(43)	(140)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(19)	25
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	27	72
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	(30)	(43)
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	5
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	(14)
Gold/Silver | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	9	14
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	(7)	(5)
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	2	9
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	2
Copper | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	0
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(11)
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	4
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	(7)	0
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	(7)
Fuel | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	(32)	(102)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(8)	23
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	27	47
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	(8)	(32)
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction	5
Fuel | Cash flow hedge | Operating costs
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	(8)
Currency contracts | Cash flow hedge | Operating costs
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	0	(30)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		2
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)		28
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	0	0
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	0
Currency contracts | Cash flow hedge | General and administrative costs
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	0	0
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		0
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)		0
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	0	0
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	0
Currency contracts | Cash flow hedge | Capital expenditures
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	0	0
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		0
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)		0
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	0	0
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	0
Interest rate contracts | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about hedges [line items]
Accumulated other comprehensive income, beginning balance	(20)	(22)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	0	0
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	3	2
Accumulated other comprehensive income, ending balance	(17)	$ (20)
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2017 earnings	$ (1)

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Other current assets
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	$ (16)	$ 16
Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)	(23)	(64)
Cash flow hedge
Other current assets
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(19)	25
Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)	(27)	(72)
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	5	0
Cash flow hedge | Interest rate contracts
Other current assets
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(1)	0
Cash flow hedge | Interest rate contracts | Finance income/ finance costs
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)	(3)	(2)
Cash flow hedge | Foreign exchange contracts
Other current assets
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	0	2
Cash flow hedge | Foreign exchange contracts | Cost of sales/general and administrative costs/PP&E
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)	0	(28)
Cash flow hedge | Commodity contracts
Other current assets
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(18)	23
Cash flow hedge | Commodity contracts | Revenue/cost of sales
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)	(24)	(42)
Derivative Instruments Not Designated as Hedging
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	(5)	0
Derivative Instruments Not Designated as Hedging | Interest rate contracts
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	0	0
Derivative Instruments Not Designated as Hedging | Foreign exchange contracts
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	0	0
Derivative Instruments Not Designated as Hedging | Commodity contracts
Other current assets
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	$ (5)	$ 0

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Gains (Losses) on Non-hedge Derivatives (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	$ 6	$ 12
Non-hedging contracts
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Hedge ineffectiveness	(5)	0
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	11	12
Gold
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	4	2
Silver
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	7	6
Copper
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	(1)	0
Fuel
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	0	5
Currency contracts
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Gains (losses) on change in fair value of derivatives	$ 1	$ (1)

XML

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS - Derivative Assets and Liabilities (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Net deferred tax liabilities	$ 78
Change in fair value of non-hedge derivatives	6	$ 12
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(16)	16
Net deferred tax liabilities	32	78
Other current assets	2	1
Other long-term assets	1	1
Other current liabilities	(30)	(50)
Other long-term obligations	(2)	(28)
Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Net deferred tax liabilities	(76)	(263)
Derivative cash (inflow) outflow, operating activities	62	156
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments	(19)	25
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)	5	0
Excluded from effectiveness changes	(5)	0
Net deferred tax liabilities	(29)	(76)
Other current assets	2	1
Other long-term assets	1	1
Other current liabilities	(30)	(50)
Other long-term obligations	(2)	(28)
Assets (liabilities)	(29)	(76)
Non-hedging contracts
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Net deferred tax liabilities	7
Change in fair value of non-hedge derivatives	11	12
Net deferred tax liabilities	7	7
Non-hedging contracts | Cash flow hedge
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Change in fair value of non-hedge derivatives	$ 4	$ 6

XML

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS - Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring Basis at Aggregate Fair Value (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	$ 25,308	$ 25,264
Liabilities	(14,241)	(14,951)
Recurring fair value measurement
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets (liabilities)	2,348	2,441
Recurring fair value measurement | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets (liabilities)	2,267	2,407
Recurring fair value measurement | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets (liabilities)	81	34
Recurring fair value measurement | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets (liabilities)	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Derivatives
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Liabilities	(29)	(76)
Recurring fair value measurement | Derivatives | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Liabilities	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Derivatives | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Liabilities	(29)	(76)
Recurring fair value measurement | Derivatives | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Liabilities	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Cash and equivalents
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	2,234	2,389
Recurring fair value measurement | Cash and equivalents | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	2,234	2,389
Recurring fair value measurement | Cash and equivalents | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Cash and equivalents | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Other investments
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	33	18
Recurring fair value measurement | Other investments | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	33	18
Recurring fair value measurement | Other investments | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Other investments | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	110	110
Recurring fair value measurement | Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales | Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	0	0
Recurring fair value measurement | Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales | Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	110	110
Recurring fair value measurement | Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales | Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Assets	$ 0	$ 0

XML

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS - Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring Basis (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Carrying amount
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	$ 608	$ 419
Financial liabilities	6,707	8,225
Carrying amount | Debt
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial liabilities	6,423	7,931
Carrying amount | Derivatives
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial liabilities	32	78
Carrying amount | Other liabilities
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial liabilities	252	216
Carrying amount | Other assets
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	572	399
Carrying amount | Other investments
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	33	18
Carrying amount | Derivatives
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	3	2
Estimated fair value
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	608	419
Financial liabilities	7,999	8,573
Estimated fair value | Debt
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial liabilities	7,715	8,279
Estimated fair value | Derivatives
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial liabilities	32	78
Estimated fair value | Other liabilities
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial liabilities	252	216
Estimated fair value | Other assets
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	572	399
Estimated fair value | Other investments
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	33	18
Estimated fair value | Derivatives
Disclosure Of Fair Value Measurement Of Assets And Liabilities1 [Line Items]
Financial assets	$ 3	$ 2

XML

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS - Assets Measured on Non-Recurring Basis (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	$ 25,308	$ 25,264
Impairment reversals	254
Other assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	45
Impairment loss	30
Other assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	0
Other assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	0
Other assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	45
Property, plant and equipment | Non-recurring fair value measurement
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	6,105
Property, plant and equipment | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	0
Property, plant and equipment | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	0
Property, plant and equipment | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	6,105
Intangible assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	34
Impairment loss	12
Intangible assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	0
Intangible assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	0
Intangible assets | Non-recurring fair value measurement | Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)
Disclosure of fair value measurement of assets [line items]
Total assets	$ 34

XML

PROVISIONS - Provisions by Type (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions	$ 3,141	$ 2,363
Environmental rehabilitation (PER)
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions	2,944	2,179
Post-retirement benefits
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions	48	72
Share-based payments
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions	37	34
Other employee benefits
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions	27	45
Other
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions	$ 85	$ 33

XML

PROVISIONS - Environmental Rehabilitation (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Provisions, noncurrent	$ 3,141	$ 2,363
Environmental rehabilitation
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Environmental rehabilitation, beginning balance	2,246	1,982
Environmental rehabilitation, ending balance		2,246
Provisions, noncurrent	2,944	2,179
Discontinued operations | Environmental rehabilitation
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
PERs divested during the year	(31)	0
Other increase (decrease) during period	46	146
Cash payments	(41)	(28)
Settlement gains	(1)	(1)
Accretion	12	10
Continuing operations | Environmental rehabilitation
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Environmental rehabilitation, beginning balance	2,246
Other increase (decrease) during period	836	134
Cash payments	(18)	(34)
Settlement gains	(1)	(3)
Accretion	48	40
Environmental rehabilitation, ending balance	3,096	2,246
Current provisions	(152)	(67)
Provisions, noncurrent	$ 2,944	$ 2,179

XML

PROVISIONS - Narrative (Details) - Environmental rehabilitation - USD ($) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2017
Disclosure of other provisions [line items]
Increase in other provisions	$ 864	$ 850
Discount rate change (as percent)		1.00%
Expected decrease in other provisions with 1% increase in discount rate		$ (385)
Expected increase in other provisions with 1% decrease in discount rate		$ 257

XML

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT - Narrative (Details) ozt in Thousands, lb in Millions, bbl in Millions, $ in Millions	2 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Feb. 28, 2018 ozt	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) lb ozt bbl	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($)
Commodity price risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Volume of fuel consumed in production process (in barrels) | bbl		4
Commodity price risk | Copper
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Nominal amount of hedging instrument (gold, in ounces; copper, in pounds) | lb		60
Interest rate risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Reasonably possible change in risk variable, percent		1.00%
Reasonably possible change in risk variable, impact on equity		$ 10	$ 13
Reasonably possible change in risk variable, impact on net earnings		10	13
Interest rate risk | Cash and equivalents
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Financial assets		2,200
Interest rate risk | Borrowings | Variable rate
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Financial liabilities		100
Liquidity risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Debt net of cash and equivalents		4,200	5,500
Undrawn borrowing facilities		$ 4,000
Required ratio of debt to total capitalization		0.60
Debt to total capitalization ratio, actual		0.27
Liquidity risk | Borrowings
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Financial liabilities		$ 6,400	$ 7,900
Acacia | Commodity price risk | Gold
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Nominal amount of hedging instrument (gold, in ounces; copper, in pounds) | ozt		105
Major purchases of assets | Acacia | Commodity price risk | Gold
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Purchase of put options | ozt	120

XML

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT - Maximum Exposure Credit Risk (Details) - Credit risk - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Maximum exposure to credit risk	$ 2,475	$ 2,639
Cash and equivalents
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Maximum exposure to credit risk	2,234	2,389
Accounts receivable
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Maximum exposure to credit risk	239	249
Derivatives
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Maximum exposure to credit risk	$ 2	$ 1

XML

FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT - Expected Maturity of Financial Assets and Liablities (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	$ 2,234	$ 2,389	$ 2,455
Accounts receivable	239	249
Liquidity risk
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	2,234	2,389
Accounts receivable	239	249
Derivative assets	3	2
Trade and other payables	1,059	1,084
Debt	6,456	7,989
Derivative liabilities	32	78
Other liabilities	511	216
Liquidity risk | Less than 1 year
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	2,234	2,389
Accounts receivable	239	249
Derivative assets	2	1
Trade and other payables	1,059	1,084
Debt	59	143
Derivative liabilities	30	51
Other liabilities	30	42
Liquidity risk | 1 to 3 years
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	0	0
Accounts receivable	0	0
Derivative assets	1	1
Trade and other payables	0	0
Debt	311	533
Derivative liabilities	2	27
Other liabilities	231	51
Liquidity risk | 3 to 5 years
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	0	0
Accounts receivable	0	0
Derivative assets	0	0
Trade and other payables	0	0
Debt	975	997
Derivative liabilities	0	0
Other liabilities	64	3
Liquidity risk | Over 5 years
Disclosure of detailed information about financial instruments [line items]
Cash and equivalents	0	0
Accounts receivable	0	0
Derivative assets	0	0
Trade and other payables	0	0
Debt	5,111	6,316
Derivative liabilities	0	0
Other liabilities	$ 186	$ 120

XML

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES - Other Non-Current Liabilities by Type (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Long-term income tax payable	$ 259	$ 0
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)	2	28
Provision for offsite remediation	45	48
Other	174	137
Other non-current liabilities	1,744	1,461
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Deposit on agreement	459	499
Pascua-Lama
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Deposit on agreement	$ 805	$ 749

XML

OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES - Narrative (Details) ozt in Thousands, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) $ / ounce ozt	Sep. 29, 2015 USD ($)
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Economic interest in subsidiary	60.00%
Royal Gold
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Expected initial revenue payments (as percent)	30.00%
Expected revenue payment from contracts with customers, as percent of prevailing spot prices on volume of mineral resources in deliveries thereafter (as percent)	60.00%
Royal Gold | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Deposits from customers | $		$ 610
Silver | Royal Gold
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Threshold delivery volume (in ounces)	23,100
Silver | Royal Gold | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Percent of interest in mineral resource production sold until initial delivery maximum achieved (as percent)	75.00%
Initial delivery maximum (in ounces)	50,000
Percent of interest in mineral resource production to be delivered thereafter (as percent)	37.50%
Fixed recovery rate (as percent)	70.00%
Silver | Pascua-Lama | Silver Wheaton Corp.
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Goods deliverable under contract (as percent)	25.00%
Deposits from customers | $	$ 625
Contract duration	3 years
Selling price (in dollars per ounce) | $ / ounce	3.90
Annual inflation adjustment (as percent)	1.00%
Starting period after project period to apply annual inflation adjustment	3 years
Gold | Royal Gold
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Threshold delivery volume (in ounces)	550
Gold | Royal Gold | Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Percent of interest in mineral resource production sold until initial delivery maximum achieved (as percent)	7.50%
Initial delivery maximum (in ounces)	990
Percent of interest in mineral resource production to be delivered thereafter (as percent)	3.75%
Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero | Silver | Silver Wheaton Corp.
Disclosure of Detailed Information About Other Noncurrent Liabilities [Line Items]
Goods deliverable under contract (as percent)	100.00%

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES - Narrative (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Undistributed profits of foreign subsidiaries	$ 3,916
Deferred tax assets	1,069	$ 977
Deferred tax assets expected to be realized in more than one year	1,064
Deferred tax liabilities	1,245	1,520
Deferred tax liabilities expected to be realized in more than one year	1,228
Unused tax losses, net	9,153
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	2,449	2,613
Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	661	569
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	388	377
2018
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses, net	4,843
2019
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses, net	922
2020
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses, net	217
2021
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses, net	296
After 2021
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses, net	1,009
No expiry date
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses, net	1,866
Subsidiaries
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Tax on undistributed earnings	239
Deferred tax liability on undistributed earnings	155
Subsidiaries | Foreign countries [member]
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	98	126
Non-capital tax losses
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	690	638
Capital tax losses | No expiry date
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	452	440
Alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) credits
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	0	113
Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	21	41
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	$ 1,307	$ 0

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES - Sources of Deferred Income Tax Assets and Liabilities (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	$ 1,069	$ 977
Deferred tax liabilities	(1,245)	(1,520)
Deferred tax liability (asset)	176	543
Before offset amount
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	1,902	1,953
Deferred tax liabilities	(176)	(543)
Tax loss carry forwards
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	926	735
Environmental rehabilitation
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	594	639
Property, plant and equipment
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	175	273
Deferred tax liabilities	(1,571)	(1,963)
Post-retirement benefit obligations and other employee benefits
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	49	47
Accrued interest payable
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	40	75
Other working capital
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	23	54
Derivative instruments
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	74	89
Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax assets	21	41
Inventory
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deferred tax liabilities	$ (507)	$ (533)

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES - Expiry Dates of Tax Losses and AMT (Details) - Non-capital tax losses $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	$ 12,892
Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	2,093
Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	271
Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	6,614
Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	1,052
Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	1,756
Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	531
Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	575
2018
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	4,849
2018 | Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2018 | Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2018 | Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	4,727
2018 | Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2018 | Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2018 | Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	115
2018 | Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	7
2019
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	922
2019 | Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2019 | Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2019 | Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	922
2019 | Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2019 | Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2019 | Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2019 | Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2020
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	217
2020 | Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2020 | Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2020 | Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	217
2020 | Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2020 | Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2020 | Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2020 | Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2021
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	296
2021 | Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2021 | Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	271
2021 | Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	13
2021 | Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2021 | Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
2021 | Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	12
2021 | Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
After 2021
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	3,232
After 2021 | Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	2,093
After 2021 | Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
After 2021 | Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	735
After 2021 | Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
After 2021 | Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
After 2021 | Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	404
After 2021 | Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
No expiry date
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	3,376
No expiry date | Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
No expiry date | Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
No expiry date | Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
No expiry date | Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	1,052
No expiry date | Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	1,756
No expiry date | Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	0
No expiry date | Other
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Unused tax losses for which no deferred tax asset recognised	$ 568

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES - Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	$ 2,449	$ 2,613
Australia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	158	162
United States
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	0	115
Chile
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	993	890
Argentina
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	515	599
Barbados
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	66	66
Tanzania
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	209	183
Zambia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	50	151
Saudi Arabia
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	70	70
Canada
Disclosure of temporary difference, unused tax losses and unused tax credits [line items]
Deductible temporary differences for which no deferred tax asset is recognised	$ 388	$ 377

XML

DEFERRED INCOME TAXES - Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances and Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities(Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	$ 367	$ (30)
Income from continuing operations before income taxes	(106)	(8)
OCI	(12)	(22)
Net additions based on uncertain tax positions related to prior years	178	70
Reductions for tax positions of prior years	0	(3)
Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities	128	61
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities	306	128
Cerro Casale
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Disposition	469	0
Veladero
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Disposition	16	0
Property, plant and equipment
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	295	(297)
Environmental rehabilitation
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	(45)	79
Tax loss carry forwards
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	191	259
Inventory
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	26	(94)
Derivatives
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	(16)	(16)
Other
Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
Increase (decrease) in deferred tax liability (asset)	$ (84)	$ 39

XML

CAPITAL STOCK (Details) - USD ($) $ / shares in Units, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Dividends paid	$ 125	$ 86
Common shares
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Number of shares issued (shares)	1,166,577,478
Par value per share (in dollars per share)	$ 0
Preferred shares | First Preferred Shares, Series A
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Number of shares issued (shares)	0
Number of shares authorized (shares)	10,000,000
Preferred shares | First Preference Shares, Series B
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Number of shares issued (shares)	0
Number of shares authorized (shares)	10,000,000
Preferred shares | First Preferred Shares, Series C Special Voting Share
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Number of shares issued (shares)	0
Number of shares authorized (shares)	1
Preferred shares | Second Preferred Shares, Series A
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Number of shares issued (shares)	0
Number of shares authorized (shares)	15,000,000
Capital stock
Disclosure of classes of share capital [line items]
Dividends reinvested	$ 16	$ 8

XML

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS - Activity (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Non-controlling interests, beginning balance	$ 2,378
Share of income (loss)	78	$ 206
Cash contributed	13	70
Decrease in non-controlling interest	493
Disbursements	(195)	(175)
Non-controlling interests, ending balance	1,781	2,378
Subsidiaries
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Non-controlling interests, beginning balance	2,378	2,277
Share of income (loss)	78	206
Cash contributed	13	70
Decrease in non-controlling interest	(493)
Disbursements	(195)	(175)
Non-controlling interests, ending balance	$ 1,781	2,378
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership interests held by non-controlling interests	40.00%
Non-controlling interests, beginning balance	$ 1,311	1,232
Share of income (loss)	118	174
Cash contributed	0	0
Decrease in non-controlling interest	0
Disbursements	(139)	(95)
Non-controlling interests, ending balance	$ 1,290	1,311
Acacia
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership interests held by non-controlling interests	36.10%
Non-controlling interests, beginning balance	$ 704	677
Share of income (loss)	(211)	34
Cash contributed	0	0
Decrease in non-controlling interest	0
Disbursements	(13)	(7)
Non-controlling interests, ending balance	$ 480	704
Cerro Casale
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Proportion of ownership interests held by non-controlling interests	25.00%
Non-controlling interests, beginning balance	$ 319	318
Share of income (loss)	173	(1)
Cash contributed	1	2
Decrease in non-controlling interest	(493)
Disbursements	0	0
Non-controlling interests, ending balance	0	319
Other
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Non-controlling interests, beginning balance	44	50
Share of income (loss)	(2)	(1)
Cash contributed	12	68
Decrease in non-controlling interest	0
Disbursements	(43)	(73)
Non-controlling interests, ending balance	$ 11	$ 44

XML

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS - Summarized Balance Sheets (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Current assets	$ 4,684	$ 4,874
Total assets	25,308	25,264
Current liabilities	1,747	1,819
Total liabilities	14,241	14,951
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Current assets	488	833
Non-current assets	3,489	3,703
Total assets	3,977	4,536
Current liabilities	907	1,357
Non-current liabilities	248	603
Total liabilities	1,155	1,960
Acacia
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Current assets	464	673
Non-current assets	1,333	1,725
Total assets	1,797	2,398
Current liabilities	212	71
Non-current liabilities	280	381
Total liabilities	$ 492	$ 452

XML

NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS - Summarized Statements of Income (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Revenue	$ 8,374	$ 8,558
Net income	1,516	861
Other comprehensive income (loss)	38	188
Total comprehensive income	1,554	1,049
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	2,065	2,640
Net cash used in investing activities	(337)	(412)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(1,886)	(2,297)
Net decrease in cash and equivalents	(155)	(66)
Pueblo Viejo
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Revenue	1,417	1,548
Net income	293	810
Other comprehensive income (loss)	0	0
Total comprehensive income	293	810
Dividends paid to NCI	0	0
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	283	602
Net cash used in investing activities	(112)	(54)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(539)	(350)
Net decrease in cash and equivalents	(368)	198
Acacia
Disclosure of subsidiaries [line items]
Revenue	751	1,045
Net income	(630)	81
Other comprehensive income (loss)	0	0
Total comprehensive income	(630)	81
Dividends paid to NCI	13	7
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	(15)	324
Net cash used in investing activities	(160)	(190)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(62)	(49)
Net decrease in cash and equivalents	$ (237)	$ 85

XML

REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Key Management Personnel [Abstract]
Salaries and short-term employee benefits	$ 20	$ 19
Post-employment benefits	3	2
Share-based payments and other	12	17
Key management personnel compensation	$ 35	$ 38

XML

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION - Narrative (Details) shares in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($) shares
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Intrinsic value of options exercised	$ 0	$ 0
Unrecognized compensation cost	12,931.344000000	0
Global Employee Share Plan (GESP)
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Expense (recovery) from share-based payment transactions with employees	9,000,000
RSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Expense (recovery) from share-based payment transactions with employees	$ 42,000,000	$ 60,000,000
Vesting period	3 years
Weighted average remaining contractual life	1 year 69 days	1 year 33 days
Number of units outstanding (shares) | shares	4,537,000	6,452,000	6,627,000
Fair value of shares outstanding	$ 37,700,000	$ 58,600,000	$ 24,600,000
RSUs | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Fair value of shares outstanding	$ 2,000,000	$ 3,000,000
RSUs | Minimum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	2 years 6 months
RSUs | Maximum
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	3 years
DSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Maximum election amount of required annual retainer	100.00%
Number of units outstanding (shares) | shares	725,000	573,000	465,000
Fair value of shares outstanding	$ 11,600,000	$ 9,200,000	$ 3,500,000
DSUs | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Fair value of shares outstanding	$ 0	$ 1,000,000
PRSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Vesting period	3 years
Number of units outstanding (shares) | shares	0	489
Fair value of shares outstanding		$ 6,000,000
PRSUs | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Fair value of shares outstanding	$ 0	$ 8,000,000
PGSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Number of units outstanding (shares) | shares	2,174	1,536
Fair value of shares outstanding	$ 14,000,000	$ 11,000,000
ESPP
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Expense (recovery) from share-based payment transactions with employees	$ 400,000	300,000
Vesting period	1 year
Stock options
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Expense (recovery) from share-based payment transactions with employees	$ 0	$ 0
Vesting period	4 years
Exercise period	7 years
Number of shares available for grant (shares) | shares	1,000	2,100
Recognition period	1 year	1 year

XML

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION - DSU and RSU Activity (Details) shares in Millions, $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) shares
DSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Number of units outstanding beginning of period (shares) | shares	573	465
Settled for cash (shares) | shares	0	(26)
Forfeited (shares) | shares	0	0
Granted (shares) | shares	152	134
Credits for dividends (shares) | shares	0	0
Number of units outstanding end of period (shares) | shares	725	573
Fair value, beginning of period	$ 9.2	$ 3.5
Settled for cash	0.0	(0.4)
Forfeited	0.0	0.0
Granted	2.5	2.2
Credits for dividends	0.0	0.0
Change in value	(0.1)	3.8
Fair value, end of period	$ 11.6	$ 9.2
RSUs
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Number of units outstanding beginning of period (shares) | shares	6,452	6,627
Settled for cash (shares) | shares	(3,610)	(1,102)
Forfeited (shares) | shares	(121)	(2,952)
Granted (shares) | shares	1,760	3,836
Credits for dividends (shares) | shares	56	43
Number of units outstanding end of period (shares) | shares	4,537	6,452
Fair value, beginning of period	$ 58.6	$ 24.6
Settled for cash	(62.5)	(22.7)
Forfeited	(2.3)	(46.3)
Granted	32.7	55.0
Credits for dividends	0.9	0.7
Change in value	10.3	47.3
Fair value, end of period	$ 37.7	$ 58.6

XML

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION - Employee Stock Options (Details) shares in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 CAD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2016 CAD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) shares
Canada
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Number of options at January 1 (shares) | shares	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
Number of options granted (shares) | shares	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Number of options cancelled/expired (shares) | shares	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Number of options at December 31 (shares) | shares	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
Average price of stock options outstanding at January 1 (in dollars per share) | $	$ 13		$ 13
Average price of options granted (in dollars per share) | $	0		0
Average price of options cancelled/expired (in dollars per share) | $	0		0
Average price of stock options outstanding at December 31 (in dollars per share) | $	$ 13		$ 13
United States
Disclosure of terms and conditions of share-based payment arrangement [line items]
Number of options at January 1 (shares) | shares	1.8	1.8	2.6	2.6
Number of options forfeited (shares) | shares	(0.7)	(0.7)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Number of options cancelled/expired (shares) | shares	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)	(0.4)
Number of options at December 31 (shares) | shares	0.7	0.7	1.8	1.8
Average price of stock options outstanding at January 1 (in dollars per share) | $		$ 42		$ 42
Average price of options forfeited (in dollars per share) | $		40		45
Average price of options cancelled/expired (in dollars per share) | $		45		39
Average price of stock options outstanding at December 31 (in dollars per share) | $		$ 40		$ 42

XML

STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION - Stock Options (Details) $ / shares in Units, $ / shares in Units, shares in Millions	Dec. 31, 2017 CAD ($) shares year $ / shares	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) shares year $ / shares	Dec. 31, 2016 CAD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2015 CAD ($) shares	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($) shares
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Closing market share price (in dollars per share) | (per share)	$ 18.18	$ 14.47
Canada
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Stock options outstanding (shares) | shares	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
Stock options outstanding, average price (in dollars per share)	$ 13		$ 13		$ 13
Stock options outstanding, average life | year	3.9	3.9
Stock options outstanding, intrinsic value	$ 2,000,000
Stock options exercisable (in shares) | shares	0.2	0.2
Stock options exercisable, average price (in dollars per option)	$ 14
Stock options exercisable, intrinsic value	$ 1,000,000
United States
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Stock options outstanding (shares) | shares	0.7	0.7	1.8	1.8	2.6	2.6
Stock options outstanding, average price (in dollars per share)		$ 40		$ 42		$ 42
Stock options outstanding, average life | year	1.5	1.5
Stock options outstanding, intrinsic value		$ 0
Stock options exercisable (in shares) | shares	0.7	0.7
Stock options exercisable, average price (in dollars per option)		$ 40
Stock options exercisable, intrinsic value		$ 0
$9 - $17 | Minimum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)	$ 9
$9 - $17 | Maximum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)	$ 17
$9 - $17 | Canada
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Stock options outstanding (shares) | shares	0.2	0.2
Stock options outstanding, average price (in dollars per share)	$ 10
Stock options outstanding, average life | year	4.6	4.6
Stock options outstanding, intrinsic value	$ 2,000,000
Stock options exercisable (in shares) | shares	0.1	0.1
Stock options exercisable, average price (in dollars per option)	$ 10
Stock options exercisable, intrinsic value	1,000,000
$18 - $21 | Minimum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)	18
$18 - $21 | Maximum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)	$ 21
$18 - $21 | Canada
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Stock options outstanding (shares) | shares	0.1	0.1
Stock options outstanding, average price (in dollars per share)	$ 18
Stock options outstanding, average life | year	2.6	2.6
Stock options outstanding, intrinsic value	$ 0
Stock options exercisable (in shares) | shares	0.1	0.1
Stock options exercisable, average price (in dollars per option)	$ 18
Stock options exercisable, intrinsic value	$ 0
$32 - $41 | Minimum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)		$ 32
$32 - $41 | Maximum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)		$ 41
$32 - $41 | United States
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Stock options outstanding (shares) | shares	0.4	0.4
Stock options outstanding, average price (in dollars per share)		$ 32
Stock options outstanding, average life | year	2.0	2.0
Stock options outstanding, intrinsic value		$ 0
Stock options exercisable (in shares) | shares	0.4	0.4
Stock options exercisable, average price (in dollars per option)		$ 33
Stock options exercisable, intrinsic value		0
$42 - $55 | Minimum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)		42
$42 - $55 | Maximum
Disclosure of range of exercise prices of outstanding share options [line items]
Exercise price of outstanding options (in dollars per share)		$ 55
$42 - $55 | United States
Disclosure of number and weighted average remaining contractual life of outstanding share options [line items]
Stock options outstanding (shares) | shares	0.3	0.3
Stock options outstanding, average price (in dollars per share)		$ 49
Stock options outstanding, average life | year	1.0	1.0
Stock options outstanding, intrinsic value		$ 0
Stock options exercisable (in shares) | shares	0.3	0.3
Stock options exercisable, average price (in dollars per option)		$ 49
Stock options exercisable, intrinsic value		$ 0

XML

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS - Post-employment Amounts (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	$ 48	$ 72
Income statement charge	1	4
Measurements	23	11
Defined pension benefits
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	42	66
Income statement charge	1	4
Measurements	$ 23	$ 11
Defined pension benefits | Maximum
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Discount rate	3.95%	3.90%
Defined pension benefits | Present value of obligations
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	$ 42	$ 66
Defined pension benefits | Impact of minimum funding requirement/asset ceiling
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	0	0
Defined pension benefits | Funded plans
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	(12)	7
Defined pension benefits | Funded plans | Present value of obligations
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	122	198
Defined pension benefits | Funded plans | Fair value of plan assets
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	(134)	(191)
Defined pension benefits | Unfunded plans | Present value of obligations
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	54	59
Other post-retirement benefits
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Liability in the balance sheet	6	6
Income statement charge	0	0
Measurements	$ 0	$ 0
Discount rate	3.75%	3.70%
Other post-retirement benefits | Minimum
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Discount rate	2.90%	2.10%

XML

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS - Other Post-Retirement Benefits (Details) $ in Thousands	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($) year	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($) year
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Weighted average duration of defined benefit obligation | year	10	10
Estimate of contributions, Less than a year	$ 15	$ 19
Estimate of contributions, between 1-2 years	15	20
Estimate of contributions, between 2-5 years	41	56
Estimate of contributions, over 5 years	205	319
Total	276	414
Defined pension benefits
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Estimate of contributions, Less than a year	14	18
Estimate of contributions, between 1-2 years	14	19
Estimate of contributions, between 2-5 years	39	54
Estimate of contributions, over 5 years	200	313
Total	267	404
Other post-retirement benefits
Disclosure of net defined benefit liability (asset) [line items]
Estimate of contributions, Less than a year	1	1
Estimate of contributions, between 1-2 years	1	1
Estimate of contributions, between 2-5 years	2	2
Estimate of contributions, over 5 years	5	6
Total	$ 9	$ 10

XML

POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS - Defined Contribution Pension Plans (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions	12 Months Ended
	Dec. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Employee Benefits [Abstract]
Post-employment benefit expense, defined contribution plans	$ 33	$ 32

XML

CONTINGENCIES (Details)															1 Months Ended						3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended			12 Months Ended
	Nov. 27, 2017 defendant	Oct. 19, 2017 USD ($)	Oct. 10, 2017 charge	Aug. 15, 2017 defendant	Dec. 02, 2016 charge	Jun. 08, 2016 claim	Mar. 11, 2016 defendant	Sep. 29, 2015	Oct. 20, 2014 plaintiff	Sep. 05, 2014 USD ($)	May 26, 2014 USD ($)	May 23, 2014 USD ($)	Apr. 24, 2014 USD ($)	Apr. 17, 2014 USD ($) claim	Jul. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Mar. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Jan. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Nov. 30, 2011 government	Mar. 31, 2011	Nov. 30, 2008 individual	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2017 committee	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Jun. 30, 2017	Sep. 30, 2014 claim	Dec. 31, 2017 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2016 USD ($)	Jan. 17, 2018 USD ($)	Dec. 27, 2017 USD ($)	Sep. 14, 2017 investigation	Mar. 03, 2017 container	Apr. 14, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($)	May 30, 2013 USD ($)
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Impairment reversals (note 10)																										$ (212,000,000)	$ (250,000,000)
Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Economic interest in subsidiary																										63.90%
Legal proceedings contingent liability | U.S. Shareholder Class Action
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					$ 0		$ 0			$ 0
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of additional plaintiffs | plaintiff									2
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions | Canada
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim																									8
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions | Ontario and Alberta
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim														2
General damages sought														$ 4,300,000,000
Special damages sought														$ 350,000,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions | Ontario
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim																									4
Damages sought										$ 3,000,000,000			$ 3,000,000,000
Number of additional plaintiffs | plaintiff									1
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions | Alberta
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim																									2
Damages sought												$ 6,000,000,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions | Saskatchewan
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim																									1
Damages sought											$ 6,000,000,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Canadian Securities Class Actions | Quebec
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim																									1
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Pascua Lama SMA Regulatory Sanctions | Compañía Minera Nevada
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of claims filed | claim						2
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																																		$ 16,000,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																																$ 10,000,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Criminal Matters | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Number of defendants | defendant							9
Charges laid against specific individuals																					0		0			0
Number of investigations consolidated | investigation																														2
Number of defendants with confirmed indictment | defendant	4			8
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Operations and Regulatory Infringement | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of charges in claim | charge					2
Legal proceeding provision																													$ 5,600,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Veladero Cyanide Leaching Process, Civil Action | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Veladero release of gold-bearing process solution | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Number of charges in claim | charge			2
Legal proceeding provision																													$ 5,600,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Provincial Amparo Action | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Federal Amparo Action | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Pueblo Viejo, Amparo Action | Minera Argentina Gold SRL
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Perilla Complaint
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			0
Number of named individuals in claim | individual																				2
Number of unnamed residents in claim | individual																				200,000
Legal proceedings contingent liability | Writ of Kalikasan
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			$ 0
Number of service days to return Writ																			10 days
Number of local governments seeking intervenor status | government																		2
Other contingent liabilities | Temporary Closure Plan | Compañía Minera Nevada
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Obligation monitoring period								2 years
Environment related contingent liability | Cerro Casale
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Economic interest in subsidiary																										50.00%
Environment related contingent liability | Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		0			$ 0
Tax contingent liability
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					306,000,000		$ 306,000,000			306,000,000	128,000,000						$ 61,000,000
Tax contingent liability | Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessment | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Tax assessment															$ 190,000,000,000	$ 190,000,000,000					3,000,000,000
Number of containers approved for export prior to ban | container																															27
Number of government presidential committees conducting investigations | committee																						2
Royalty tax rate																							4.00%	6.00%
Clearing fee on minerals exported																							1.00%
Economic benefit shared with government		50.00%
Free carry interest rate		16.00%
Payment to resolve tax claim		$ 300,000,000
Tax contingent liability | Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessment Related to Withholding Tax | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		$ 0			0
Tax assessment																	$ 41,300,000
Tax contingent liability | Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessment Related To Resident Allegation | Acacia Mining PLC
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Tax assessment																	$ 500,700,000
Commencement of legal proceeding | Commencement of major litigation | Pascua Lama SMA Regulatory Sanctions | Compañía Minera Nevada
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																												$ 11,500,000
Impairment (reversals) of long lived assets
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Impairment reversals (note 10)																										(224,000,000)	(250,000,000)
Pascua-Lama | Environment related contingent liability | Water Quality Review
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Estimated financial effect of contingent liabilities																					0		$ 0			0
Pascua-Lama | Individual assets or cash-generating units [member]
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Impairment reversals (note 10)																										$ 407,000,000	$ 0
Pascua-Lama | Individual assets or cash-generating units [member] | Impairment (reversals) of long lived assets
Disclosure of contingent liabilities [line items]
Impairment reversals (note 10)																					$ (429,000,000)

XML

Label	Element	Value
Brent Fuel Contract [Member] | Commodity price risk [member]
Derivative, Nonmonetary Notional Amount	invest_DerivativeNonmonetaryNotionalAmount	79,000