NEW BARRICK A new champion for long-term value creation. Investor Days Nov 2018

Transcription

1 NEW BARRICK A new champion for long-term value creation Investor Days Nov

2 Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information Barrick Gold Corporation Certain information contained in this presentation, 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 statements. The words believe, expect, anticipate, target, plan, objective, assume, intend, project, goal, continue, budget, estimate, potential, may, will, can, could, would and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. In particular, this presentation contains forward-looking statements including, without limitation, with respect to: (i) estimates of cash costs per ounce for gold and per pound for copper, and all-in-sustaining costs per ounce for gold and per pound for copper; (ii) our ability to convert resources into reserves through various projects; (iii) our ability to successfully implement growth projects and strategy; (iv) achievement of greater levels of efficiency and productivity in order to decrease unit costs and increase throughputs; (v) the existence of future opportunities for Barrick and Shandong Gold to establish joint ventures; (vi) the ability of mine exploration drilling to strengthen the quality of Barrick s production profile; (vii) potential mineralization, including with respect to Fourmile, Blasdel and Goldrush; (viii) proposed management structure; (ix) asset sales, joint ventures and partnerships; and (x) our pipeline of greenfield projects at or near existing operations. 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 Barrick as at the date of this presentation 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; 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; 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 Barrick 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; 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 possibility that future exploration results will not be consistent with Barrick 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, Barrick; risks associated with the fact that certain of the initiatives described in this presentation 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; and availability and increased costs associated with mining inputs and labor. 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 presentation 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 presentation. Barrick disclaims 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.

3 Disclaimer Randgold Resources CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this news release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the US Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the future price of gold, the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, the realisation of mineral reserve estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, reserve determination and reserve conversion rates, as well as statements relating to the expected effects of the proposed transaction (the Merger ) of Randgold Resources Limited ( Randgold ) with Barrick Gold Corporation ( Barrick ), and the timing and scope of the Merger. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as 'will', 'plans', 'expects' or 'does not expect', 'is expected', 'budget', 'scheduled', 'estimates', 'forecasts', 'intends', 'anticipates' or 'does not anticipate', or 'believes', or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results 'may', 'could', 'would', 'might' or 'will be taken', 'occur' or 'be achieved'. Assumptions upon which such forward-looking statements are based are in turn based on factors and events that are not within the control of Randgold Resources Limited ( Randgold ) and there is no assurance they will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of Randgold to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to: risks related to mining operations, including political risks and instability and risks related to international operations, actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, the ability to consummate the Merger, the ability to obtain requisite court and shareholder approvals and the satisfaction of other conditions on the proposed terms and schedule, receipt of regulatory approvals, the ability of Barrick and Randgold to successfully integrate their respective operations and retain key employees, the potential impact of the consummation of the Merger on relationships, including with employees, suppliers, customers and competitors, future market conditions, changes in general economic, business and political conditions, the behaviour of other market participants, the anticipated benefits from the proposed transaction not being realised as a result of changes in general economic and market conditions in the countries in which Barrick and Randgold operate, weak, volatile or illiquid capital and/or credit markets, changes in tax rates, interest rate and currency value fluctuations, the degree of competition in the geographic and business areas in which Barrick and Randgold operate and changes in laws or in supervisory expectations or requirements, as well as those factors discussed in Randgold s filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC'). Although Randgold has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Randgold does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. CAUTIONARY NOTE TO US INVESTORS: The SEC permits companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proven and probable ore reserves. We use certain terms in this report, such as 'resources', that the SEC does not recognise and strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any parts of our resources will ever be converted into reserves which qualify as 'proven and probable reserves' for the purposes of the SEC's Industry Guide number 7.

4 The New Barrick Striving to be the world s most valued gold mining business by finding, developing and owning the best assets, with the best people, to deliver sustainable returns for our owners and partners Mark Bristow

5 Mining is about geology and orebodies Quality of reserves = value It s about how much we can add to reserves Value exploration production development discovery Time Discovery and development build real value

6 Its all in how we execute our strategy across the value chain.. BOARD Financial Legal & Compliance Commercial & Supply Chain Exploration Evaluation Capital Projects Profitable Operations Owns the orebody Feasibility Holds teams accountable Strategy we are all accountable Process Guarantee post construction Metallurgy Engineering Mining HS&E, Sustainability Human Resources Corporate Communications Owns the plans and accountable for delivery

7 Scenario planning is critical to our business Gold Price $1400/oz Disabling Politics and Social Environment Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Enabling Politics and Social Environment Gold Price $1000/oz

8 We invest in people and communication Communication with shareholders consistent quarterly engagement with shareholders as well as an annual roadshow, site visit and our investor days every 2 years In-Country communication media briefings and ministry meetings every quarter in our host countries Annual mass meetings conducted by CEO with employees, Unions and local authorities and representatives at our operations Our employees are stakeholders and the In-Reach programme aims at transferring our DNA to the entire workforce, creating committed employees who feel informed and involved in the business One team, One mission is the slogan

9 A proven management team committed to value creation John Thornton Executive Chairman New Barrick Board of Directors Mark Bristow President and CEO Kevin Thomson SEVP Strategic Matters Strategic Initiatives Legal Compliance COO Catherine Raw North America John Steele Metallurgy, Engineering & Capital Projects COO Mark Hill Latin America Kathy Sipos Corporate Office COO Willem Jacobs Africa & Middle East tba HSE Sustainability Rodney Quick Project Evaluation Darian Rich Human Resources Rob Krcmarov Exploration & Geology Lois Wark Corporate Communications Graham Shuttleworth SEVP CFO Treasury Tax Internal Audit Financial Reporting Commercial IT

10 North America Catherine Raw COO North America

11 Barrick North America Gold assets Copper Assets Greenfields Projects KCGM (50%) Porgera (47.5%) Donlin Gold (50%) Turquoise Ridge (75%) 43% of Barrick s 2017 production 35% Barrick s 2017 M&I resources 2 Tier One Gold assets 1 2 Potential Tier One Gold assets 1 Legal, Permitting & Closure Operational Excellence Safety, Environment & Assurance Golden Sunlight COO North America Hemlo Barrick Nevada (Goldstrike & Cortez) Goldrush/Fourmile Pueblo Viejo (60%) Lagunas Norte Massawa (83.3%) Mineral Resource Management Zaldívar (50%) Norte Abierto (50%) Pascua-Lama Veladero (50%) Alturas Government Projects Site GMs Affairs Jabal Sayid (50%) Loulo-Gounkoto (80%) Morila (40%) Tongon (89.7%) Kibali (45%) Acacia (63.9%) Lumwana 1. A Tier One Gold Asset is a mine with a stated life in excess of 10 years with 2017 production of at least 500,000 ounces of gold and 2017 total cash cost per ounce within the bottom half of Wood Mackenzie s cost curve tools (excluding state-owned and privately-owned mines). For more information, see Endnote #2.

12 Regional Strategy 2019 Focus Areas Improve operational performance Deliver on project execution Reduce overheads Projects in Execution Improve orebody knowledge Progress and build on project pipeline Develop holistic Nevada strategy Current Status Capex Turquoise Ridge 3rd Shaft 2 Surface Earthworks $ M 2 Earthworks + Shaft Sinking Shaft Equipping Production Lifespan to beyond 2034 Goldrush Feasibility ~$1.0B Decline Construction Feasibility and Permitting Construction/ Initial Production Production Lifespan to 2042 Cortez Deep South 1 Feasibility ~$100M Decline Construction Permitting Construction Initial Production Production Lifespan to 2028 Earlier stage project pipeline Nevada Processing Expansion Nevada (Preliminary Economic Assessment) Cortez Robertson Nevada (Pre-feasibility) Fourmile Nevada (Exploration) 1. See Endnote #3 2. On an attributable basis (75%). See Endnote #4 Hemlo Life Extension Ontario (MinEx, Optimization) Donlin Gold Alaska (Permitting, Optimization)

13 Nevada Endowment

14 Barrick s Nevada operations in context Twin Creeks Turquoise Ridge Goldstrike (Barrick Nevada) Carlin North (Carlin Operations) Long Canyon Lone Tree (Phoenix) Boulder Valley Road Carlin South (Carlin Operations) Dunphy terminal Emigrant (Carlin Operations) Phoenix Robertson (Cortez - BNV) Railroad-Pinion Newmont McCoy-Cove Mill Creek Road Cortez (Barrick Nevada) Goldrush (Cortez BNV) Barrick Sprott Other Interstate 80 Road Mine Heap Leach Union Pacific Railway Plant SX-EW Rail siding

15 Unlocking Nevada s Potential Cortez Stockpiles Cortez Property Cortez UG CURRENT ORE SOURCES Goldstrike Property Cortez OP Goldstrike OP Goldstrike UG Goldstrike Stockpiles Roaster Roaster CURRENT PROCESSING OPTIONS Oxide Heap Leach Heap Leach Oxide Mill/CIL Roaster Autoclave NEVADA PROCESS EXPANSION Autoclave FUTURE ORE SOURCES Goldrush Cortez District Turquoise Ridge UG Potential Partnerships Autoclave

16 Barrick Nevada Operating Results 2017 Reserves 2 Proven Probable Total Contained A 2016A 2017A m Gold Production (koz) 2,052 2,155 2,312 1,480 COS (US$/oz) AISC (US$/oz) Cash costs (US$/oz) Strategy Operational improvement through roll out of SIC, automation and applying AI to processing Improving orebody knowledge to improve planning and provide foundations for Nevada growth strategy Major Growth Projects Cortez Deep South: ~300koz pa of sustained production at Cortez Hills from Draft EIS published, RoD due H As at end Q3 18, spent US31M of US$106M initial capex Goldrush: Potential Tier 1 Gold Asset, ~500koz pa sustained production from ~2023. HCCEUP exploration decline development underway; as of end Q3 18, spent US$33M. Potential to increase value through increasing resource Nevada Processing Expansion (NPE): Studying processing facility expansion in the region to unlock district potential Goldstrike Cortez 6.0Moz (3.46g/t, 54.0Mt) 0.9Moz (1.46g/t, 19.1Mt) 2.4Moz (5.44g/t, 13.8Mt) 9.2M oz (1.92g/t, 148.8Mt) Goldrush - 1.5Moz (8.12g/t, 5.7Mt) South Arturo (60%) 0.2Moz (3.28g/t, 2.3Mt) 0.1Moz (2.52g/t, 1.6Mt) 8.4Moz 10.1Moz 1.5Moz 0.4Moz 2017 Resources 2 Measured Indicated M&I Goldstrike Cortez Goldrush South Arturo (60%) 0.6Moz (5.99g/t, 3.3Moz) 0.2Moz (1.88g/t, 2.6Mt) 0.05Moz (10.44g/t, 0.1Mt) 0.1Moz (1.19g/t, 2.9Mt) 1.0Moz (4.75g/t, 6.2Mt) 1.7Moz (1.85g/t, 28.8Mt) 9.4Moz (9.27g/t, 31.4Mt) 0.3Moz (1.12g/t, 8.4Mt) 1.6Moz 1.9Moz 9.4Moz 0.4Moz 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information see Note 1 of Appendix A 2. See Endnote #1 3. See Endnote #2 4. Numbers may not add due to rounding

17 Turquoise Ridge (75%) Operating Results 2017 Reserves 2 Proven Probable Total Contained A 2016A 2017A m Gold Production (koz) COS (US$/oz) AISC (US$/oz) Cash costs (US$/oz) Turquoise Ridge (75%) 3.5Moz (15.56g/t, 7.1Mt) 2.3Moz (15.48g/t, 4.7Mt) 5.9Moz 2017 Resources 2 Measured Indicated M&I Turquoise Ridge (75%) 0.9Moz (9.03g/t, 2.9Mt) 0.7Moz (9.37g/t, 2.2Mt) 1.5Moz Strategy Become a Tier 1 Gold Asset 3 through growing production, increasing mechanization, innovation and growing resource Growth Projects 3 rd Shaft: improve access to North Zone. Adds koz production from ~2022 As of September 30, spent $59M out of a total estimated capital cost of $ M (100% basis) Orebody remains open at depth, with further mineral potential identified through minex drilling 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information see Note 1 of Appendix A 2. See Endnote #1 3. See Endnote #2 4. Numbers may not add due to rounding

18 Hemlo Operating Results 2017 Reserves 2 Proven Probable Total Contained 2015A 2016A 2017A m Gold Production (koz) COS (US$/oz) AISC (US$/oz) Cash costs (US$/oz) Hemlo 0.1Moz (3.66g/t, 0.9Mt) 1.7Moz (2.16g/t, 24.0Mt) 1.8Moz 2017 Resources 2 Measured Indicated M&I Hemlo 0.1Moz (2.67g/t, 1.1Mt) 1.8Moz (1.36g/t, 40.2Mt) 1.9Moz Strategy Improve operational efficiencies, particularly underground, to bring down cost structure UG ramp up in production from 1.2mtpa to 1.9mtpa over next four years Tailings expansion required to enable production Highly prospective to the west of existing operations, with recent 2018 drill results indicating favourable geology with potentially economic drill intercepts In Q3, purchased 2.5% gross royalty for US$14.9m from Newmont meaning growth potential to the west is now royalty free 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information see Note 1 of Appendix A 2. See Endnote #1

19 Donlin Gold (50%) 2017 Resources 1 Measured Indicated Measured & Indicated Inferred Donlin Gold (50%) 0.3Moz (2.52g/t, 3.9Mt) 19.2Moz (2.24g/t, 266.8Mt) 19.5Moz 3.0Moz (2.02g/t, 46.1Mt) Ownership: Barrick and NovaGold (50% each) Project Location: Located 450 km W of Anchorage, Alaska. Remote project with access by river and air Mining: Open-pit truck and shovel Processing: Sulfide flotation, pressure oxidation (POX), carbon-inleach recovery (CIL), fully lined tailings storage facility, surplus water treatment and discharge Permitting: Received Record of Decision (RoD) in August 2018, concluding 6 years of federal permitting Current activity: Barrick and NOVAGOLD focusing on project review 1. See Endnote #1

20 Latin American & Australia Pacific Operations Mark Hill COO Latin America and Australia Pacific

21 Organizational Structure COO LATAM & Australia Pacific Site General Managers Country Managers Project Director Chief Financial Officer Mineral Resource Manager Legal & Joint Ventures Pueblo Viejo P E R U C H I L E Lagunas Norte Pierina Zaldívar A R G E N T I N A KCGM Porgera Pascua-Lama Alturas Norte Abierto Veladero Legend Operating Mine Development Project

22 Regional Strategy 2019 Key Focus Areas Drive down cost structure Improve LTO in Latin America and PNG Divestment of non core assets Pursue organic growth opportunities within the El Indio belt Continue to develop project pipeline Operational Excellence Veladero Develop into a Tier 1 asset post phase 6 expansion Pueblo Viejo Increase LOM margins by maintaining production profile Expand reserve base Porgera Obtain Special Mining Lease Extension Pascua Lama Minimize current liability and holding costs Explore and partner on alternative development options

23 Pueblo Viejo 1 Historical Operating Results (60%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Gold Cost of Sales ($/oz) Gold Cash Costs ($/oz) Gold AISC ($/oz) Reserves 3 (60%) Major Growth Projects: Pre-oxidation heap leach and flotation concentrator plant expansion, increasing ore feed +50% and bringing ounces and cash flow forward Supporting tailings expansion to allow for additional resource to reserve conversion (~7Mozs) Quisqueya 1 Power Plant conversion to NG; sell excess 80 MW capacity back to grid Strategy: Completion of plant PFS for internal review by end of 2019 New Bonao substation & plant connection H Maintain high production levels for 10+ years while continuing to reduce cost structures and evaluate future growth options 1. See Endnote #5. 2. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information, see Note 1 of Appendix A. 3. See Endnote #1. Proven 5.3 Moz (2.67 g/t, 62.1M tonnes) Probable 1.9 Moz (3.06 g/t, 19.2M tonnes) 2017 Resources 3 (60% - exclusive of 2P) Measured 0.6 Moz (2.39 g/t, 7.8M tonnes) Indicated 7.5 Moz (2.47 g/t, 93.9M tonnes) Pilot pre-oxidation pad construction Quisqueya 1 Power Plant

24 1. Figures are stated on a 100% basis until June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis thereafter. 2. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information, see Note 1 of Appendix A. 3. See Endnote #1. Veladero Historical Operating Results (50%) A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Gold Cost of Sales ($/oz) ,027 Gold Cash Costs ($/oz) Gold AISC ($/oz) Reserves 3 (50%) Major Growth Projects: Phases 6-9 expansion of heap leach pad Cuatro Esquinas conversion from resources to reserves Potential for additional satellite ore bodies around Pecos-Las Brujas and Corion Strategy: Successful construction of Phase 6 pad expansion commence operations in H Improve pressure and flow capacity of leach pad to ensure maximum drawdown of recoverable ounces Leverage Shandong expertise through JV to maximize site value Proven 0.3 Moz (0.72 g/t, 14.2M tonnes) Probable 2.5 Moz (0.78 g/t, 99.7M tonnes) 2017 Resources 3 (50% - exclusive of 2P) Measured 0.1 Moz (0.48 g/t, 3.3M tonnes) Indicated 1.2 Moz (0.57 g/t, 66.8M tonnes) Phase 6 construction

25 figures are stated on a 100% basis until December 1, 2015 and on a 50% basis thereafter. 2. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information, see Note 1 of Appendix A. 3. See Endnote #1. Zaldivar Historical Operating Results (50%) A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Cu Production (Mlb) Cu Cost of Sales ($/lb) Cu C1 Cash Costs ($/lb) Cu AISC ($/lb) Reserves 3 (50%) Proven 1,440 Mlb (0.49 %, 132.5M tonnes) Probable 970 Mlb (0.54 %, 81.8M tonnes) 2017 Resources 3 (50% - exclusive of 2P) Measured 556 Mlb (0.40 %, 62.6M tonnes) Indicated 216 Mlb (0.39 %, 25.2M tonnes) Major Growth Projects: Sulphide leaching expansion resulting in extended mine life and improved recoveries on sulphide ore Strategy: Completion of sulphide expansion PFS by end of 2018 Leverage JV with Antofagasta to unlock full value for asset Arial view of processing facilities

26 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information, see Note 1 of Appendix A. 2. See Endnote #1. Lagunas Norte Historical Operating Results 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Gold Cost of Sales ($/oz) Gold Cash Costs ($/oz) Gold AISC ($/oz) Major Growth Projects: Carbonaceous Material Oxides Project (CMOP) to treat carbonaceous ore using dry/wet screening, then processed through mill/cil Refractory Material Project (PMR) to treat refractory sulphide ores using POX and CIL, which we are not currently progressing Potential for additional ore feed from Tres Cruces satellite deposit Strategy: Capital spend optimization to improve CMOP project economics over PMR project Minimize capital spend and closure liabilities on non-core asset 2017 Reserves 2 Proven 1.8 Moz (2.23 g/t, 25.7M tonnes) Probable 2.2 Moz (2.27 g/t, 29.7M tonnes) 2017 Resources 2 (exclusive of 2P) Measured 0.1 Moz (0.87 g/t, 1.9M tonnes) Indicated 0.9 Moz (0.96 g/t, 29.0M tonnes) PMR Expansion

27 figures are stated on a 95% basis until August 31, 2015 and on a 47.5% basis thereafter. 2. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information, see Note 1 of Appendix A. 3. See Endnote #1. Porgera Historical Operating Results (47.5%) A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Gold Cost of Sales ($/oz) ,129 Gold Cash Costs ($/oz) Gold AISC ($/oz) 2 1, ,116 Strategy: Return to pre-earthquake production and cost levels Special Mining Lease negotiation JV focus on improving margins and growth potential Maintain high production levels while continuing to reduce cost structures 2017 Reserves 3 (47.5%) Proven 0.2 Moz (9.21 g/t, 0.6M tonnes) Probable 1.9 Moz (4.56 g/t,12.6m tonnes) 2017 Resources 3 (47.5% - exclusive of 2P) Measured Moz (5.22 g/t, 0.1M tonnes) Indicated 1.8 Moz (4.62 g/t, 12.3M tonnes)

28 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information, see Note 1 of Appendix A. 2. See Endnote #1. KCGM Historical Operating Results (50%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Gold Cost of Sales ($/oz) Gold Cash Costs ($/oz) Gold AISC ($/oz) Reserves 2 (50%) Proven 2.2 Moz (0.89 g/t, 75.1M tonnes) Probable 1.7 Moz (2.21 g/t, 23.9M tonnes) 2017 Resources 2 (50% - exclusive of 2P) Measured 0.1 Moz (0.96 g/t, 3.2M tonnes) Indicated 0.5 Moz (1.21 g/t, 12.1M tonnes) Strategy: Leverage Newmont expertise to improve margins and growth potential Optimize economics while minimizing risk of LOM plan post wall failure Commence satellite starter pit at Morrison deposit while reevaluating economics of full Morrison and Brownhill laybacks Maintain high production levels while continuing to reduce cost structures Potential sale of asset, if deemed non-strategic, to minimize capital spend and closure liabilities

29 Major Latin America Projects Alturas Improving Project Returns Focus of 2018 season is to improve geological understanding of high grade and shallow ore body areas Define mineral inventory of the Del Carmen prospect Re-evaluate project potential through a new scoping study in 2019 with the higher grade resource 2017 Resources already show large, untapped potential Inferred resource of 6.8 Moz (1.00 g/t, 211M tonnes) Norte Abierto (50%) Through deal structure, Goldcorp to cover Barrick s first $260M in expenditure on property PFS study underway on combined Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits. Primary focus for 2018 is the drill program to increase geological confidence of both deposits Study completion anticipated in 2020 Pascua Lama Conclusion of the PFS delivery for the potential underground project indicates that while the concept may be feasible from a technical standpoint, it does not yet meet Barrick s investment criteria Barrick is focusing on adjusting the project closure plan for surface infrastructure at Pascua Shandong is completing a review on the Lama project for potential future JV development

30 Africa and Middle East Willem Jacobs COO Africa and Middle East

31 African and Middle Eastern mine locality COO AFRICA CFO AFRICA GM Operations West Africa GM Operations Central & East Africa MRM Country Managers Saudi Arabia Jabal Sayid Senegal Massawa Loulo Gounkoto Morila Tongon Côte d Ivoire Mali D R C Lumwana Kibali North Mara Bulyanhulu Buzwagi Tanzania

32 Regional strategy 2019 Key Focus Areas Operational Excellence Engage with newly elected DRC Government on reform of 2018 Mining Code Engage with Zambian Government on 2018 Mining Code Negotiate and implement settlement with Tanzanian Government regarding Acacia assets Increase project footprint in DRC Evaluate copper/cobalt opportunities in DRC Negotiate and implement tax settlement in Mali Add to Tongon LOM Integrate operating teams into Barrick Deliver guidance for all operations on safety, production, cost and resource conversion

33 Kibali gold mine, DRC Historical Operating Results (45%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Total Cash Costs ($/oz)* Key points TVA payback resumed with signed agreement Successfully transitioned to underground owner mining Shaft and associated infrastructure fully commissioned and operating to nameplate Azambi hydropower station commissioned and delivering at designed capacity to Kibali grid Community development projects continued including a water reticulation system providing potable water to approximately people in the town of Durba * As reported by Randgold 2017 Reserves (45%) Proven 1.1 Moz (4.1 g/t, 8.6Mt) Probable 2.8 Moz (4.1 g/t, 21.1Mt 2017 Resources (45%) Measured 1.3 Moz (4.1 g/t, 9.9Mt) Indicated 4.6 Moz (3.1 g/t, 46.8Mt)

34 Loulo-Gounkoto gold complex, Mali Historical Operating Results (100%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Total Cash Costs ($/oz)* Key points Preliminary economic assessment completed on potential of Loulo 3 expanded open pit and underground project Drilling continues to expand high grade mineralisation in south of the Yalea orebody Exploration on the Gounkoto permit leads to a larger review of the Faraba structure where multiple zones of mineralisation show potential to be extended and combined Both mines remain ISO certified $1.1 million spent on construction of 10 drinking water boreholes for communities, village houses, seeds and fertilizers for local farmers * As reported by Randgold 2017 Reserves (100%) Proven 2.4 Moz (4.1 g/t, 18.1Mt) Probable 5.8 Moz (4.8 g/t, 38.0Mt) 2017 Resources (100%) Measured 3.76 Moz (4.3 g/t, 27.1Mt) Indicated 7.9 Moz (4.5 g/t, 54.0Mt)

35 Tongon gold mine, Côte d Ivoire... Historical Operating Results (100%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Total Cash Costs ($/oz)* Key points Illegal industrial action by the workforce impacted gold production, recovery and throughput as the mine ceased operations from 13 July to 4 September Operations have returned to normal and production guidance has been revised to oz for the year 5 million working hours recorded without a lost time injury Community projects continued during the quarter with an emphasis on education 4 classrooms were built at Korhogo Secondary School and study materials and support awarded to best students in the community 2017 Reserves (100%) Proven 0.5 Moz (2.2 g/t, 7.0Mt) Probable 0.7 Moz (2.5 g/t, 9.3Mt) 2017 Resources (100%) Measured 0.6 Moz (2.3 g/t, 7.9Mt) Indicated 1.3 Moz (2.6 g/t, 16.0Mt) * As reported by Randgold

36 Morila mine, Mali Historical Operating Results (40%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Gold Production (koz) Total Cash Costs ($/oz)* Key points Government endorsement for pioneering closure plan Official launch attended by Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines & Petroleum Agricultural firm, Songhai, employed to assist with development of existing agricultural initiatives 2017 Reserves (40%) Probable 0.1 Moz (0.6 g/t, 11.0Mt) 2017 Resources (40%) Measured 0.1 Moz (0.26 g/t, 16.0Mt) * As reported by Randgold

37 Lumwana copper mine, Zambia Historical Operating Results (100%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Cu Production (Mlb) Cost of sales ($/lb) Cu Cash Costs ($/lb) Cu AISC ($/lb) Key points Barrick acquired the asset through the Equinox acquisition in 2011 Copper mine located in Zambia s Copperbelt, one of the most prospective copper regions in the world Lumwana ore, which is predominantly sulfide, is treated through a conventional sulfide flotation plant, producing copper concentrate Copper concentrate is trucked km to in country smelters 2017 Reserves 2 (100%) Proven Mlb (0.50 %, 32,711Mt) Probable Mlb (0.57 %, 368,685Mt) 2017 Resources 2 (100% - exclusive of 2P) Measured 239.9Mlb (0.39 %, 28,041Mt) Indicated Mlb (0.51 %, 553,524Mt) 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information see Note 2 of Appendix A 2. See Endnote #1

38 Jabal Sayid copper mine, Saudi Arabia Historical Operating Results (50%) 2015A 2016A 2017A Q3/18 YTD Cu Production (Mlb) Cost of sales ($/lb) Cu Cash Costs ($/lb) Cu AISC ($/lb) Key points Barrick acquired the Jabal Sayid asset through the Equinox acquisition in 2011 and formed a 50/50 JV with Ma aden Mining in December 2014 The first shipment of copper concentrate occurred in December 2015 and the mine commenced commercial production in July 2016 The mine is currently ramping up production until average production of 100Mlbs of copper in concentrate is achieved in 2018 This production rate is then expected to be maintained for the next 10 years 1. These are non-gaap financial measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS. For further information see Note 2 of Appendix A 2. See Endnote # Reserves 2 (50%) Proven Mlb (2.38 %, 5,556Mt) Probable Mlb (2.42 %, 6,282Mt) 2017 Resources 2 (50%) Measured 7.7Mlb (1.62 %, 216Mt) Indicated Mlb (2.00 %, 2,404Mt)

39 Technical Information The scientific and technical information contained in this presentation has been reviewed and approved by Geoffrey Locke, P. Eng., Manager, Metallurgy of Barrick, Rick Sims, Registered Member SME, Vice President, Reserves and Resources of Barrick; and Robert Krcmarov, FAusIMM, Executive Vice President, Exploration and Growth of Barrick, who are each a "Qualified Person" as defined in National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Endnotes 1. Estimated in accordance with National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Estimates are as of December 31, Complete mineral reserve and mineral resource data for all mines and projects referenced in this presentation, including tonnes, grades, and ounces, can be found on pages of Barrick s most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities.. 2. A Tier One Gold Asset is a mine with a stated life in excess of 10 years with 2017 production of at least 500,000 ounces of gold and 2017 total cash cost per ounce within the bottom half of Wood Mackenzie s cost curve tools (excluding state-owned and privately-owned mines). For purposes of determining Tier One Gold Assets, Total cash cost per ounce is based on data from Wood Mackenzie as of August 31, The Wood Mackenzie calculation of Total cash cost per ounce may not be identical to the manner in which Barrick calculates comparable measures. Total cash cost per ounce is a non-gaap financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. Total cash cost per ounce should not be considered by investors as an alternative to operating profit, net profit attributable to shareholders, or to other IFRS measures. Barrick believes that Total cash cost per ounce is a useful indicator for investors and management of a mining company s performance as it provides an indication of a company s profitability and efficiency, the trends in cash costs as the company s operations mature, and a benchmark of performance to allow for comparison against other companies. Wood Mackenzie is an independent third party research and consultancy firm that provides data for, among others, the metals and mining industry. Wood Mackenzie does not have any affiliation to Barrick. 3. For additional detail regarding Cortez, see the Technical Report on the Cortez Joint Venture Operations, Lander and Eureka Counties, State of Nevada, U.S.A., dated March 21, 2016, and filed on SEDAR at and EDGAR at on March 28, For additional detail regarding Turquoise Ridge, see the Technical Report on the Turquoise Ridge Mine, State of Nevada, U.S.A., dated March 19, 2018, and filed on SEDAR at and EDGAR at on March 23, For additional detail regarding Pueblo Viejo, see the Technical Report on the Pueblo Viejo Mine, Sanchez Ramirez Province, Dominican Republic, dated March 19, 2018, and filed on SEDAR at and EDGAR at on March 23, 2018.

40 APPENDIX A Note 1 Cash costs per ounce and All-in sustaining costs per ounce are non-gaap financial performance measures. Cash costs per ounce starts with cost of sales applicable to gold production, but excludes the impact of depreciation, the non-controlling interest of cost of sales, and includes by-product credits. All-in sustaining costs per ounce begin with Cash costs per ounce and add further costs which reflect the additional costs of operating a mine, primarily sustaining capital expenditures, general & administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs, and reclamation cost accretion and amortization. Barrick believes that the use of cash costs per ounce and All-in sustaining costs per ounce will assist investors, analysts and other stakeholders 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. Cash costs per ounce and All-in sustaining costs per ounce are intended to provide additional information only and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS. Although a standardized definition of all-in sustaining costs was published in 2013 by the World Gold Council (a market development organization for the gold industry comprised of and funded by 24 gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick), it is not a regulatory organization, and other companies may calculate this measure differently. These measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. Further details on these non-gaap measures are provided in the MD&A accompanying Barrick s financial statements filed from time to time on SEDAR at and on EDGAR at

41

42

43

44

45 Note 2 C1 cash costs per pound and All-in sustaining costs per pound are non-gaap financial performance measures. C1 cash costs per pound is based on cost of sales but excludes the impact of depreciation and royalties and includes treatment and refinement charges. All-in sustaining costs per pound begins with C1 cash costs per pound and adds further costs which reflect the additional costs of operating a mine, primarily sustaining capital expenditures, general & administrative costs and royalties. Barrick believes that the use of C1 cash costs per pound and All-in sustaining costs per pound will assist investors, analysts, and other stakeholders in understanding the costs associated with producing copper, understanding the economics of copper 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. C1 cash costs per pound and All-in sustaining costs per pound are intended to provide additional information only, do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS, and may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other companies. These measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. Further details on these non-gaap measures are provided in the MD&A accompanying Barrick s financial statements filed from time to time on SEDAR at and on EDGAR at

46 Financial Review Graham Shuttleworth SEVP & CFO

47 Disclaimer THIS PRESENTATION AND ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN OR INTO OR FROM ANY JURISDICTION WHERE SUCH DISTRIBUTION IS UNLAWFUL. This presentation has been prepared solely for information and for use in connection with the merger (the Merger ) of Randgold Resources Limited ( Randgold ) by Barrick Gold Corporation ( Barrick ) and does not purport to contain all the information that may be necessary or desirable to fully and accurately evaluate Barrick, Randgold or the business prospects of the Merger. For the purposes of this notice, "presentation" includes this document, any oral presentation, any question and answer session and any written or oral material discussed or distributed by Barrick or Randgold during any such presentation. By attending this presentation and/or accepting, reading or accessing a copy of this document, you agree to be bound by the limitations, terms and conditions set out below and, in particular, will be taken to have represented, warranted and undertaken that you have read and agree to comply with the contents of this notice. As a consequence of legal restrictions, the release, publication or distribution of this presentation in certain jurisdictions or to certain persons may be restricted or unlawful. All persons resident or located outside Canada, Jersey, the United States and the United Kingdom must first satisfy themselves that they are not subject to any local requirements that prohibit or restrict them from attending, reading or otherwise accessing this presentation and should inform themselves of, and observe, any applicable legal or regulatory requirements applicable in their jurisdiction. The information set out in this presentation is not intended to form the basis of any contract. No shares are being offered to the public by means of this presentation. This presentation does not constitute or form part of, and should not be construed as, any offer, invitation or recommendation to purchase, sell or subscribe for any securities or the solicitation of any vote for approval in any jurisdiction and neither the issue of the information nor anything contained herein shall form the basis of or be relied upon in connection with, or act as an inducement to enter into, any investment activity, or the making of any investment decision. This presentation does not purport to contain all of the information that may be required to evaluate the Merger or any investment in Barrick or Randgold or any of their securities. Any investment decision should be made solely on the basis of approved formal offer-related documentation that has been or will be released in connection with the Merger. Any person considering making an investment decision in relation to Barrick, Randgold or the Merger is advised to obtain independent advice as to the legal, tax, accounting, financial, credit and other related advice prior to making an investment. This presentation has not been independently verified and none of Barrick, Randgold, their shareholders, subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, or their respective directors, officers, partners, employees, representatives and advisers makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this presentation, or otherwise made available, nor as to the reasonableness of any assumption contained herein or therein, and any liability therefor (including in respect of direct, indirect, consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed and no liability is assumed by any such persons for any information, opinions, errors or omissions in this presentation. Nothing contained herein or therein is, or shall be relied upon as, a promise or representation, whether as to the past or the future and no reliance, in whole or in part, should be placed on the fairness, accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information contained herein or therein. Further, nothing in this presentation should be construed as constituting legal, business, tax or financial advice. Other than in accordance with their respective legal or regulatory obligations, Barrick and Randgold are not under any obligation, and they expressly disclaim any intention or obligation, to amend, correct or update this presentation or to provide the recipient with access to any additional information that may arise in connection with it. All information presented or contained in this presentation is subject to verification, correction, completion and change without notice. No statement in this presentation is intended as a profit forecast or estimate for any period and no statement in this presentation should be interpreted to mean that earnings or earnings per share (or other metrics) for the current or future financial years would necessarily match or exceed the historical published earnings or earnings per share (or other metrics). This presentation contains industry, market and competitive position data which have come from third party sources. Third party industry publications, studies and surveys generally state that the data contained therein have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but that there is no guarantee of the accuracy or completeness of such data. While Barrick and Randgold believe that each of these publications, studies and surveys has been prepared by a reputable source, neither Barrick nor Randgold has independently verified the data contained therein. Accordingly, undue reliance should not be placed on any of the industry, market or competitive position data contained in this presentation.

48 Disclaimer FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS This presentation (including information incorporated by reference in this presentation), oral statements made regarding the Merger, and other information published by Barrick and Randgold contain statements which are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements (or forward-looking information ), under applicable securities laws including for the purposes of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of Forward-looking statements are prospective in nature and are not based on historical facts, but rather on current expectations and projections of the management of Barrick and Randgold about future events, and are therefore subject to risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from the future results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this presentation include statements relating to the expected effects of the Merger on Barrick and Randgold, the expected timing and scope of the Merger and other statements other than historical facts. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as plans, expects or does not expect, is expected, is subject to, budget, scheduled, estimates, forecasts, intends, anticipates or does not anticipate, or believes, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results may, could, should, would, might or will be taken, occur or be achieved. Although Barrick and Randgold believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, Barrick and Randgold can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that will occur in the future. There are a number of factors that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include: risks relating to the Barrick Group s and the Randgold Group s credit rating; local and global political and economic conditions; the Barrick Group s and the Randgold Group s economic model and liquidity risks; fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, copper, or certain other commodities (such as silver, diesel fuel, natural gas, and electricity); financial services risk; the risks associated with Barrick s and Randgold s brand, reputation and trust; environmental risks; safety and technology risks; the ability to realise the anticipated benefits of the Merger or implementing the business plan for the New Barrick Group, including as a result of a delay in completing the Merger or difficulty in integrating the businesses of the companies involved (including the retention of key employees); changes in or enforcement of 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, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and other jurisdictions in which the Barrick Group and Randgold Group carry on business or in which the New Barrick Group 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; legal or regulatory developments and changes; the outcome of any litigation, arbitration or other dispute proceeding; the impact of any acquisitions or similar transactions; competition and market risks; the impact of foreign exchange rates; pricing pressures; the possibility that future exploration results will not be consistent with 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; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties, or over access to water, power and other required infrastructure; and business continuity and crisis management. Other unknown or unpredictable factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements should therefore be construed in the light of such factors. Neither Barrick nor Randgold, nor any of their respective associates or directors, officers or advisers, provides any representation, assurance or guarantee that the occurrence of the events expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements in this presentation will actually occur. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Other than in accordance with their legal or regulatory obligations (including under the Listing Rules and the Disclosure and Transparency Rules of the FCA), neither Barrick nor Randgold is under any obligation, and Barrick and Randgold expressly disclaim any intention or obligation, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

49 New Barrick Leading Market Position Based on Barrick and Randgold s current combined market capitalisation, New Barrick would rank as one of the top 25 largest firms listed on the TSX Further, New Barrick would solidify its position as the largest miner on the exchange, by a considerable margin, as well as the largest gold mining business globally TSX-Listed Firms By Market Cap 1 TSX-Listed Mining Companies By Market Cap 1 Global Gold Mining Companies By Market Cap 1 Rank Company Market Cap (US$bn) 19 Imperial Oil $ Great-West Lifeco $ New Barrick $ Sun Life $ TELUS $ Waste Connections $ Pembina Pipeline $ CGI $ Magna International $ Loblaw Companies $ Shopify $ Power Financial $ National Bank $ Barrick $14.8 Rank Company Market Cap (US$bn) - New Barrick $ Barrick $ Teck $ Franco-Nevada $ Agnico $8.2 5 Goldcorp $8.0 6 Wheaton Precious Metals $7.1 7 First Quantum $6.3 8 Cameco $4.5 9 Kirkland Lake $ Turquoise Hill $ Kinross $ Lundin Mining $ B2Gold $ Yamana $2.0 Rank Company Market Cap (US$bn) - New Barrick $ Newmont $ Barrick $ Newcrest $ Polyus $8.7 5 Zijin $8.4 6 Agnico $8.2 7 Shandong $8.2 8 Goldcorp $8.0 9 Fresnillo $ Randgold $ Polymetal $ Kirkland Lake $ AngloGold $ Northern Star $ Market data as of November 14, Source: FactSet. Barrick and Randgold s fully-diluted shares outstanding as per the 4 October 2018 Scheme Document.

50 Industry Leading Metrics Among Senior Gold Peers Annual Adjusted EBITDA 1,6 Adjusted EBITDA Margin 1,6 Lowest Total Cash Cost 2,6 New Barrick $4.7 New Barrick 49% New Barrick $611 Newmont $2.7 Agnico 41% Newcrest $749 Goldcorp $1.3 Newcrest 39% Newmont $760 Newcrest $1.3 Goldcorp 38% Agnico $768 Agnico $0.9 Newmont 37% Goldcorp $816 (2017 Adjusted EBITDA, US$bn) (2017 Adjusted EBITDA Margin) (2017 Total Cash Cost, US$/oz Au) Greatest Enterprise Value 3 Largest Reserve Base 4 Leader in Profitable Production 5 New Barrick $27.9 New Barrick 78 New Barrick 6.5 Newmont $19.3 Newmont 68 Newmont 5.3 Newcrest $12.4 Newcrest 62 Goldcorp 2.6 Goldcorp $10.6 Goldcorp 54 Newcrest 2.3 Agnico $9.4 Agnico 21 Agnico 1.7 (Enterprise Value, US$bn) (2P Reserves, Moz Au) (2017 Production, Moz Au) 1. Source: FactSet. Adjusted EBITDA as per 2017 calendar year. For purposes of comparison, New Barrick s 2017 Adjusted EBITDA comprises the aggregate Adjusted EBITDA of Barrick and Randgold as per FactSet. The 2017 Adjusted EBITDA margin for New Barrick would be 48% based on the actual Barrick figures and restated actual Randgold figures that employ Barrick s methodology. FactSet figures have been used in order to facilitate the comparison with peers. See Endnote #4. 2. Source: Wood Mackenzie. Shown on a calendarized basis. Total cash cost comprises C1 cash cost, royalties, and other indirect costs. Reported 2017 cash cost and total cash cost figures for Barrick and Randgold are US$526/oz and US$620/oz, respectively. The 2017 total cash cost for New Barrick would be US$538/oz based on actual Randgold figures and restated actual Barrick figures that employ Randgold s methodology. Wood Mackenzie figures have been used in order to facilitate the comparison with peers. See Endnote #3. 3. Source: FactSet. Market data as of November 14, Enterprise value calculated as fully-diluted market capitalisation less cash and cash equivalents plus debt and minority interests. Balance sheet items as per most recent financial disclosure. Fully-diluted shares outstanding as per most recent company disclosure. Barrick and Randgold s fully-diluted shares outstanding as per the 4 October 2018 Scheme Document. 4. Source: company disclosure. Shown on an attributable basis. Reserve data based on individual companies assumptions. See Endnote #5. 5. Source: company disclosure. Stated on an attributable basis as per calendar year. 6. Non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardised meaning under IFRS. For further information on Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA margin, see Endnote #2. For additional information on total cash costs, see Endnote #1.

51 Proven Financial Discipline Barrick reduced total debt by ~$10B in just over 5 years Total Barrick Debt (US$bn) $13.1 S&P and Moody s upgraded Barrick credit rating in first quarter of 2018 Merger described as credit positive by S&P and Moody s $10.0 $7.9 $6.4 $6.4 $ YE 2014 YE 2015 YE 2016 YE 2017 Q Q3 2018

52 Strong Balance Sheet Leading Adjusted EBITDA Margin 1 and Strong Balance Sheet Net Debt & Gross Debt to 2017 Adjusted EBITDA 1,3,4 Barrick Randgold Combined New Barrick New Barrick 0.7x 1.2x Enterprise Value 2,3 (US$bn) $20.7 $7.3 $27.9 Revenue 4 (US$bn) $8.3 $1.3 $9.6 Newmont 0.4x 1.5x Adjusted EBITDA 1,4 (US$bn) $4.1 $0.6 $4.7 Newcrest 0.8x 1.5x Adjusted EBITDA Margin 1,4 49% 50% 49% Agnico 1.3x 1.9x Credit Rating (S&P / Moody s) BBB / Baa2 NR Merger described as "credit positive" by S&P/Moody s Gross Debt 3 (US$bn) $5.7 $0.0 $5.7 Goldcorp 2.0x 2.1x Net Debt 3 (US$bn) $4.0 ($0.7) $3.4 Net Debt / Adjusted EBITDA Gross Debt / Adjusted EBITDA 1. Leading Adjusted EBITDA Margin among Senior Gold Peers. Non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardised meaning under IFRS. For further information on Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA margin, see Endnote #2. 2. Source: FactSet. Market data as of November 14, Enterprise value calculated as fully-diluted market capitalisation less cash and cash equivalents plus debt and minority interests. Balance sheet items as per most recent financial disclosure. Fully-diluted shares outstanding as per most recent company disclosure. Barrick and Randgold s fully-diluted shares outstanding as per the 4 October 2018 Scheme Document. 3. Balance sheet items have been extracted from the most recent financial disclosure. Cash and minority interest for New Barrick do not include pro forma adjustments. 4. Revenue and adjusted EBITDA are representative of the 2017 calendar year, as per FactSet. For purposes of comparison, New Barrick s 2017 Adjusted EBITDA comprises the aggregate adjusted EBITDA of Barrick and Randgold. FactSet figures have been used in order to facilitate the comparison with peers. See Endnote #4.

53 Liability Management Barrick s Debt Maturities 1 As of September 30, 2018 (US$m) $1,600 $1,200 ~$0.7 billion remains due before 2033 $5.1bn 2015 repayments 2016 repayments 2017 repayments 2018 repayments to date Remaining debt maturities $800 $400 Over 85% (~$5bn) of Barrick s debt matures subsequent to 2032 Average maturity on outstanding public notes is ~19 years $ Excluding capital leases.

54 Revolving Credit Facility Barrick has just completed an amendment and extension to its undrawn revolving credit facility agreement: Right-sizing of facility from $4 billion to $3 billion Extension of the termination date to January 2024 Reduction in drawn and undrawn pricing Drawn pricing at current BBB/Baa2 rating: LIBOR bps (25 bps reduction) Undrawn pricing at current BBB/Baa2 rating: 17.5 bps (7.5 bps reduction) Annual holding cost of the facility cut by more than half since 2017

55 Dividends Barrick expects to pay a dividend of US$0.16/share with respect to 2018 financial year This represents a 33% increase on the 2017 dividend Barrick intends to grow its dividend over time underpinned by stronger cash flow generation, additional overhead cost savings, asset sale proceeds and lower interest costs Barrick Dividend Yield 1 (%) Randgold s Dividend History 2 (US$/share) 1.7% $3.00 $ % 1.3% $ % 0.8% $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 Newmont Agnico Barrick Goldcorp Newcrest 1. Market data as of November 14, Based on the most recently stated annualised dividend. 2. In respect of the year under review but declared and paid in the following year.

56 Decentralisation and Accountability Randgold has developed a very successful management structure and ethos over 23 years There is a significant opportunity at New Barrick to instil: More accountability at the operations Heightened capital discipline Culture of reduced corporate burden G&A Per Ounce Comparison (US$/oz) $50 $45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $ Actual 2018 Guidance Randgold Barrick Senior Gold Peers 1. Source: company reports. As per 2017 calendar year. Gold equivalent calculation conducted at company reported realised prices. 2. Barrick s 2018 G&A per ounce figure is based on revised guidance of US$235m, the midpoint range of 2018 gold production guidance of Moz and the midpoint range of 2018 copper production guidance of Mlbs. Gold equivalent calculation conducted at gold price of $1,300/oz, copper price of $3.10/lb, silver price of $17.00/oz, zinc price of $1.40/lb and lead price of $1.10/lb. Note: Randgold s G&A per ounce figure has been provided by the company and is intended to adjust for G&A costs which Randgold recognizes at individual mine sites in order to be comparable to Barrick s G&A figure. Senior Gold Peers include: Agnico, Goldcorp, Newcrest and

57 Supply Chain Philosophy Working with supply partners/suppliers to reduce overall cost Focus on collaborative demand planning to optimise inventory levels Decentralized supply chain operation with centralized strategic sourcing group Target number of months stock of 1.5x for key consumables and reagents Empower our people with supply chain knowledge to ensure an effective and integrated supply chain

58 Working Capital Management Randgold s disciplined management of inventory, stockpiles and logistics is among the best of the Senior Gold Peers Applying these best-practices to Barrick s business has potential to unlock value Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO) 160 days 140 days 120 days 100 days 80 days 60 days 40 days 132 days 78 days 52 days 20 days 0 days Randgold Barrick Senior Gold Peers Senior Gold Peers include: Agnico, Goldcorp, Newcrest and Newmont. Source: Factset.

59 Supply Chain Opportunities Input Cost Strategic sourcing of global commodities to leverage economies Crystalize synergies with major mobile equipment OEM s Consolidation of current supplier base across the organisation Scalability Optimize the use of systems to support efficient, scalable supply chain Logistics Leverage global volumes to reduce logistics rates Inventory Management Critical spares sharing to reduce slow moving inventory levels Obsolete inventory at one mine site could be shared with another

60 IT - Philosophy Connectivity is everything - focus on LAN and WAN improvement programs and speed of connectivity / latency at remote sites Less is more - drive to reduce IT infrastructure footprint and move key workloads from sites and central datacenters to the cloud Outsource all non essential or specialised skills to suitable partners Continue to invest in areas that drive value to the business, for instance small quick win BI projects, or collaboration projects Use off the shelf technology and work with suppliers to get the best return on investment Leading edge not bleeding edge technology

61 Connectivity is everything Key focus for 2018 was upgrading core network infrastructure: Bandwidth upgraded at every single office and mining site Cutting edge SD-WAN technology implemented which makes it possible to combine links from different providers to provide a much more reliable and flexible connectivity landscape Noticeably less reliance on high latency connectivity 600mbps total bandwidth on remote sites in 2018 vs 100mbps in 2017 At least one commercial fiber internet provider at every mining site or country office has now been connected This allows for central services and cloud based solutions in remote sites Office 365 deployed across all users to allow employees to collaborate and share work from anywhere in the world, without the need for physical server infrastructure

62 Way forward and immediate next steps Immediate focus on integration of business processes: Simplification of the underlying business processes and alignment on management information and reporting Maintain existing ERP systems and upgrade software to latest releases Identify non-critical or duplicate systems and workstreams which don t add value and eliminate Merge consolidation and business planning software (BI) Review existing corporate structures and right size corporate/regional functions to align with decentralized management philosophy Longer term - designing and implement a unified plan for systems and processes which ties in to the overall New Barrick structure and strategy

63 Transaction Timeline Announcement Filing of shareholder circulars / scheme document Barrick and Randgold Shareholder Meetings Jersey Court Hearing Effective Date 24 Sep Oct 2018 Early Nov Dec (indicative) 18 Dec Declaration and announcement of Randgold dividend (assuming Scheme is sanctioned) 1 Jan ,2 (indicative) 28 Dec Randgold Dividend Record Date 28 Dec Barrick Dividend Record Date 11 Jan Payment of Randgold dividend to holders of Randgold Shares and Randgold ADSs 14 Jan Payment of Barrick dividend to holders of Barrick Shares on December 28 Note: All defined terms as per the Randgold Scheme Document published October 4, Subject to Board approval. These dates are indicative only and will depend, among other things, on the date upon which: (i) the Conditions are satisfied or (where applicable) waived, (ii) the Jersey Court sanctions the Scheme, and (iii) the Scheme Court Order sanctioning the Scheme is delivered to the Registrar of Companies. 2. Assuming the conditions to the Merger are satisfied or, if applicable, waived, prior to such time, Randgold intends to deliver the Jersey Court Order to the Jersey Registrar for registration (which is a requirement of the Jersey Companies Law in order for the Scheme to become effective) on 1 January 2019, so that the Effective Date of the Scheme occurs on the first day of the next fiscal year of both Barrick and Randgold. 3. Subject to Barrick s Board approval.

64 Market Reaction Since Announcement Strong shareholder and market support More than 99% of votes cast at the Barrick shareholder meeting voted in favour of the merger Randgold experienced record voting levels with the majority vote of 95% comfortably clearing the required hurdle of 75% Relative Share Price Performance (%, Since Announcement) 35% 30% 25% 20% 24.6% 21.4% 15% 10% 5% - (5%) 23-Sep 30-Sep 7-Oct 14-Oct 21-Oct 28-Oct 4-Nov 11-Nov Barrick Randgold Peers GDX Gold 1.0% 0.3% (2.0%) Note: market data as of November 14, US Tickers include ABX-US and GOLD-US. Peers include: Agnico, Goldcorp, Newcrest, and Newmont. VanEck Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) tracks the performance of the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR), which is intended to track the overall performance of gold mining companies. Source: Bloomberg Financial Markets.

65 Technical Information The technical and scientific information contained in this presentation in respect of Randgold has been reviewed and approved for release by Simon Bottoms and Rodney Quick, Randgold s Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The technical and scientific information contained in this presentation in respect of Barrick has been reviewed and approved for release by Rick Sims, Registered Member SME, Vice President, Resources and Reserves of Barrick, and a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Non-GAAP Financial Performance Measures Certain financial performance measures used in this presentation namely Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA margin, total cash costs, enterprise value, enterprise value to Adjusted EBITDA ratio, free cash flow and price to operating cash flow ratio are not prescribed by IFRS. These non-gaap financial performance measures are included because management has used the information to analyze the combined business performance and financial position of the New Barrick Group. These non-gaap financial measures are intended to provide additional information only and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. These non-gaap financial measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. In order to provide the combined business performance and financial position of the New Barrick Group, certain non-gaap financial performance measures of each of Barrick and Randgold have been combined to show an aggregate number. In order to provide a relative comparison of the New Barrick Group to its Senior Gold Peers, certain financial comparisons between the New Barrick Group and its Senior Gold Peers are made on the basis of data presented by either Factset, Wood Mackenzie or Bloomberg which contain non-gaap financial performance measures. These non-gaap financial performance measure comparisons are based solely on the data presented by Factset, Wood Mackenzie or Bloomberg (as applicable) and are intended to provide additional information only and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS and may be calculated differently by Barrick or Randgold. See Third Party Data below for further information. Third Party Data Certain comparisons of the New Barrick Group to its Senior Gold Peers (such as Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA margin, total cash costs, enterprise value, enterprise value to Adjusted EBITDA ratio and price to operating cash flow ratio) are based on data obtained from Wood Mackenzie as of 31 August 2018 and Factset and Bloomberg as of 14 November 2018 (unless otherwise stated). Wood Mackenzie is an independent third party research and consultancy firm that provides data for, among others, the metals and mining industry. Factset is a financial data and software company which provides financial information and analytic software for, among others, investment professionals. Bloomberg is a software, data and media company which delivers business and market news, data and analysis. Neither Wood Mackenzie, Factset nor Bloomberg has any affiliation to Barrick or Randgold. Where figures for the New Barrick Group are compared to its Senior Gold Peers, the data from either Wood Mackenzie, Factset or Bloomberg (as applicable) has been used to ensure consistency in the compared measures across the New Barrick Group and the comparator group. Neither Barrick nor Randgold has the ability to verify the Wood Mackenzie, Factset or Bloomberg figures and the non- GAAP financial performance measures used by Wood Mackenzie, Factset and Bloomberg may not correspond to the non-gaap financial performance measures calculated by Barrick, Randgold or any of the Senior Gold Peers.

66 Endnotes 1. Total cash cost per ounce is based on data from Wood Mackenzie as of 31 August Financial comparisons between the New Barrick Group and its Senior Gold Peers are made on the basis of the data presented by Wood Mackenzie to ensure that consistent measures are used in comparing assets and companies; however, the Wood Mackenzie calculation of total cash cost and total cash cost per ounce may not be identical to the manner in which Barrick and Randgold calculate comparable measures. Total cash cost is a non-gaap financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. Total cash costs and total cash cost per ounce should not be considered by investors as an alternative to operating profit, net profit attributable to shareholders, or to other IFRS measures. Barrick and Randgold believe that total cash cost per ounce is a useful indicator for investors and management of a mining company s performance as it provides an indication of a company s profitability and efficiency, the trends in cash costs as the company s operations mature, and a benchmark of performance to allow for comparison against other companies. 2. Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA margin are based on data from Factset as of 14 November 2018 and 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. Financial comparisons between the New Barrick Group and the Senior Gold Peers are made on the basis of the data presented by Factset which may not be calculated in the same manner as Barrick and Randgold calculate comparable measures. Barrick and Randgold use Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA margin because they believe that this non- GAAP financial performance measure is an important indicator of recurring operations, as it excludes items that may not be indicative of, or are unrelated to, their core operating results, and provides a measure of profitability. See Appendix A for more detail, including an explanation of why Barrick and Randgold use this non-gaap financial measure and a reconciliation of Barrick and Randgold Adjusted EBITDA to net earnings of each of Barrick and Randgold respectively. 3. The Rule 2.7 announcement issued by Randgold with the consent of Barrick reference combined total cash costs of USD 538 per ounce (for the financial year ended 31 December 2017) in contrast to the USD 611 contained in this presentation. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the total cash cost figures shown in this presentation are based on data from Wood Mackenzie to ensure consistency when comparing New Barrick to its Senior Gold Peers. Total Cash Costs is a non-gaap financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS. As a result, the manner in which total cash cost is calculated by Barrick and Randgold may vary from the methodology used by Wood Mackenzie. For further information on total cash costs as calculated by Barrick and Randgold, including a reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure, see Appendix A. 4. The Rule 2.7 announcement issued by Randgold with the consent of Barrick references Adjusted EBITDA margin of 48% (for the financial year ended 31 December 2017) in contrast to the 49% contained in this presentation. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Adjusted EBITDA margin figures shown in this presentation are based on data from Factset to ensure consistency when comparing New Barrick to its Senior Gold Peers. Adjusted EBITDA margin is a non-gaap financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS. As a result, the manner in which Adjusted EBITDA margin is calculated by Barrick and Randgold may vary from the methodology used by Factset. For further information on Adjusted EBITDA margin as calculated by Barrick and Randgold, including a reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure, see Appendix A. 5. The potential combined gold reserves figure of 78 million ounces (rounded to the nearest million) is an aggregate of the gold Mineral Reserves reported at US$1200/oz by Barrick in its annual information form for the year ended 31 December 2017 (comprising attributable proven gold Mineral Reserves of 398 million tonnes, at a grade of 1.91 grams/tonne, containing 24 million ounces and attributable probable gold Mineral Reserves of 896 million tonnes, at a grade of 1.39 grams/tonne, containing 40 million ounces, for aggregate attributable proven and probable gold Mineral Reserves of 1,295 million tonnes, at a grade of 1.55 grams/tonne, containing 64 million ounces) and the gold Ore Reserves reported by Randgold at US$1000/oz in its annual report for the year ended 31 December 2017 (comprising total proved gold Ore Reserves of 44 million tonnes, at a grade of 3.78 grams/tonne, containing 3.5 million attributable ounces and total probable gold Ore Reserves of 128 million tonnes, at a grade of 3.78 grams/tonne, containing 10 million attributable ounces, for aggregate total proven and probable gold mineral reserves of 172 million tonnes, at a grade of 3.78 grams/tonne, containing 14 million attributable ounces). The assumptions on which the Mineral Reserves for Barrick are reported are set out in Barrick s annual information form published on 23 March 2018 and available from The assumptions on which the Ore Reserves for Randgold are reported are set out in Randgold s annual report published on 29 March 2018 and available from The Barrick Mineral Reserves have been prepared according to Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ( CIM ) 2014 Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as incorporated by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The Randgold Ore Reserves have been prepared according to the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves standards and guidelines, published and maintained by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and the Minerals Council of Australia (the JORC (2012) Code ). Randgold has reconciled the reported Ore Reserves to the CIM 2014 Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as incorporated by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and there are no material differences. The Barrick tonnage and grade figures are reported on an attributable basis and the Randgold tonnage and grade figures are reported on a total basis. The Barrick Mineral Reserves are reported using US$1200/oz except for Kalgoorlie, which uses A$1600/oz and Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi which use US$1100/oz and the Randgold Ore Reserves are reported using US$1000/oz, except for Kibali KCD open pit, which uses an US$1100/oz pit design. As a result, the respective Mineral Reserves and Ore Reserves of Barrick and Randgold may not be directly comparable. The potential combined reserves should be treated as forward looking statements and are subject to change under differing gold price assumptions.

67 Appendix A Total Cash Costs Randgold uses the term total cash costs 1, which is a non-gaap financial performance measure, calculated using guidance issued by the Gold Institute. The Gold Institute was a non-profit industry association comprising leading gold producers, refiners, bullion suppliers and manufacturers. This institute has now been incorporated into the National Mining Association. The guidance was first issued in 1996 and revised in November Total cash costs, as defined in the Gold Institute s guidance, include mine production, transport and refinery costs, general and administrative costs, movement in production inventories and ore stockpiles, and royalties. Total cash costs exclude costs associated with capitalized stripping activities. Total cash costs is calculated on a consistent basis for the periods presented. Total cash costs should not be considered by investors as an alternative to operating profit or net profit attributable to shareholders, as an alternative to other IFRS measures. The data does not have a meaning prescribed by IFRS and therefore amounts presented may not be comparable to data presented by gold producers who do not follow the guidance provided by the Gold Institute. In particular depreciation and amortization would be included in a measure of total costs of producing gold under IFRS, but are not included in total cash costs under the guidance provided by the Gold Institute. Furthermore, while the Gold Institute has provided a definition for the calculation of total cash costs, the calculation of these numbers may vary from company to company and may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies. However, Barrick and Randgold believe that total cash costs is a useful indicator to investors and management of a mining company s performance as it provides an indication of a company s profitability and efficiency, the trends in cash costs as the company s operations mature, and a benchmark of performance to allow for comparison against other companies. Below is a reconciliation of Randgold s total cash costs to the most directly comparable GAAP measure. Gold sales per IFRS ($000s) $ 1,280,217 Gold sales adjustments for joint ventures $ 374,112 Gold sales $ 1,654,329 Mine productions costs $ 473,909 Movement in production inventory and ore stockpiles $ (12,095) Royalties $ 82,087 Royalty adjustment for joint ventures $ (16,424) Total royalties $ 65,663 Other mining and processing costs $ 63,125 Cash cost adjustments for joint ventures $ 224,745 Total cash costs $ 815,347 Ounces sold (oz) $ 1,314,984 Total cash cost per ounce ($/oz) $ Randgold reports total cash costs and a full reconciliation can be found on page F-41 of Randgold s Annual Financial Statement for the financial year ended 31 December 2017.

68 Appendix A Barrick uses the term cash costs per ounce 1 for the most comparable measure to total cash costs. Cash costs per ounce is a non-gaap financial performance measure which is 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 24 gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick). The WGC is not a regulatory organization. Barrick uses this measures to monitor the performance of its 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. Barrick believes that its use of cash 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 its 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 accordance with IFRS and the amount of free cash flow that is being generated by a mine and therefore Barrick believes this measure is a useful non-gaap operating metric and supplements its IFRS disclosure. This measure is not representative of all of Barrick s cash expenditures as it does not include income tax payments, interest costs or dividend payments. This measure does not include depreciation or amortization. Cash costs per ounce is intended to provide additional information only and does not have a standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. This measure is 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 this measure differently. Below is a reconciliation of Barrick s cash costs per ounce to the most directly comparable GAAP measure. Cost of sales related to gold production ($ millions) $ 4,836 Depreciation $ (1,529) By-product credits $ (135) Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives $ 23 Non-recurring items $ - Other (Pierina COS) $ (106) Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia) $ (299) Cash costs $ 2,790 Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces) 5,302 Cash costs per ounce $ Barrick reports cash cost per ounce and a full reconciliation can be found on page 76 of the 2017 Annual Report.

69 Appendix A For purposes of presenting a combined total cash cost figure for the New Barrick Group, a reconciliation of Barrick s cash costs per ounce to total cash costs was undertaken. The reconciliation calculation is set out below. Barrick cash costs ($millions) 1 $ 2,790 add back Barrick non-controlling interest $ 299 Barrick total cash costs $ 3,089 Randgold total cash costs 2 $ 815 Combined total cash costs $ 3,904 Barrick ounces sold - equity basis (thousands) 1 5,302 add Barrick non-controlling interest ounces sold Barrick consolidated ounces 5,941 Randgold consolidated ounces sold 2 1,315 Combined consolidated ounces sold 7,256 Combined total cash cost per ounce 4 $ Barrick reports cash cost per ounce. See the table above for a full reconciliation of cash cost per ounce to the most directly comparable GAAP measure. A full reconciliation can also be found on page 76 of the 2017 Annual Report. Barrick cash costs per ounce are reported on an attributable ounce basis whereas Randgold s reports total cash costs on a consolidated ounce basis. In order to convert Barrick s cash costs to total cash costs, the cash costs have been grossed up to include the non-controlling interest portion of costs and ounces for Barrick s non-wholly owned subsidiaries. 2. Randgold reports total cash costs. For a full reconciliation of total cash costs to the most directly comparable GAAP measure, see the table above and also pages F-41 and F-42 of Randgold s Annual Financial Statement for the financial year ended 31 December The combined total cash cost per ounce is calculated by taking the combined total cash costs and dividing such figure by the combined ounces sold.

70 Appendix A Adjusted EBITDA EBITDA is a non-gaap financial performance measure, which excludes the following from net earnings: (i) income tax expense; (ii) finance costs; (iii) finance income; and (iv) depreciation. Barrick and Randgold believe that EBITDA is a valuable indicator of their ability to generate liquidity by producing operating cash flow to fund working capital needs, service debt obligations, and fund capital expenditures. Barrick and Randgold use 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. Barrick also reports Adjusted EBITDA which removes the effect of impairment charges; acquisition/disposition gains/losses; foreign currency translation gains/losses; other expense adjustments; and unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments. Barrick believes these items provide a greater level of consistency with the adjusting items included in Barrick s Adjusted Net Earnings reconciliation, with the exception that these amounts are adjusted to remove any impact on finance costs/income, income tax expense and/or depreciation as they do not affect EBITDA. Barrick and Randgold believe this additional information will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders in better understanding the New Barrick Group s ability to generate liquidity from operating cash flow, by excluding these amounts from the calculation as they are not indicative of the performance of its 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 is not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA differently. Below is a reconciliation of Barrick s and Randgold s Adjusted EBITDA to the most directly comparable GAAP measure. For the year ended 31 December 2017 ($ millions) Barrick 1 Randgold 2 Combined Net earnings (loss) $ 1,516 $ 335 $ 1,851 Income tax expense 1, ,377 Finance costs, net 624 (3) 621 Depreciation 1, ,830 EBITDA $ 5,018 $ 661 $ 5,679 Impairment charges (reversals) of long-lived assets (212) - (212) Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses (911) - (911) Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses 72 (10) 62 Other expense adjustments Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments (1) - (1) Adjusted EBITDA $ 4,017 $ 651 $ 4, Barrick EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA figures can be found on page 82 of the MD&A accompanying the Barrick financial statements for the year ended 31 December Randgold EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA figures are calculated using figures from the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income on page F-10 and note 20 on page F-41 of Randgold s Annual Financial Statement for the financial year ended 31 December The Randgold foreign currency translation gain is set out on page 3 of the Randgold report for the fourth quarter and year ended 31 December 2017.

71 Appendix A Adjusted EBITDA Margin Adjusted EBITDA Margin is calculated by dividing Adjusted EBITDA by revenue. Barrick and Randgold use Adjusted EBITDA margin because they believe that this non-gaap financial performance measure is an important indicator of recurring operations, as it excludes items that may not be indicative of, or are unrelated to, their core operating results, and provides a measure of profitability. Adjusted EBITDA margin is a non-gaap financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For the year ended 31 December 2017 ($millions) Barrick 1 Randgold 2 Combined Revenue $ 8,374 $ 1,280 $ 9,654 Adjusted EBITDA 4, ,668 Adjusted EBITDA Margin 48% 1. Barrick revenue and Adjusted EBITDA figures can be found on pages 42 and 82, respectively, of the MD&A accompanying the Barrick financial statements for the year ended 31 December Randgold revenue can be found on page F-10 of Randgold s Annual Financial Statement for the financial year ended 31 December 2017 and the Adjusted EBITDA figure for the year ended 31 December 2017 is calculated above.

72 Global Exploration Rob Krcmarov EVP Exploration and Growth Investor Day November 2018

73 New Barrick 5 out of the Top 10 Tier One Gold Assets (> 500 koz; > 10 year mine life; bottom half of cost curve) 2 Top 10 Global Tier One Gold Assets By Total Cash Cost 1,2 (US$/oz) $426 New Barrick Asset $482 $552 $578 $580 $621 $623 $649 $675 $697 Cortez (Barrick) Sukari (Centamin - 50%) Olimpiada (Polyus) Loulo-Gounkoto (Randgold - 80%) Cadia (Newcrest) Merian (Newmont - 75%) Pueblo Viejo (Barrick - 60%) Kibali (Randgold - 45%) Tarkwa (Gold Fields - 90%) Goldstrike (Barrick) Unrivalled portfolio of Tier One Gold Assets for investors 1. Source: Wood Mackenzie. Top Tier One Gold Assets are ranked by Total Cash Cost. Total cash cost is a non-gaap financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS, and includes C1 cash cost, royalties, and other indirect costs. See Endnote #1. 2. A Tier One Gold Asset is a mine with a stated mine life in excess of 10 years with 2017 production of at least five hundred thousand ounces of gold and 2017 total cash cost per ounce within the bottom half of Wood Mackenzie s cost curves tools (excluding state-owned and privately owned mines).. For additional information on total cash costs per ounce, see Endnote #1.

74 New Barrick- Exploration Powerhouse $12, Industry Exploration Spend (Au) New Barrick Discoveries $10,000 Gold discovered 3 year average (000's oz) $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 >1Moz deposits 3 year rolling average, SNL Mining and Metals, Barrick

75 Strong credible track record Reserves (Moz of gold) 1 Spent $4.36B on exploration 2 Overall finding cost ~$28/oz Total found through exploration NEW BARRICK ~ Value Generation from Organic Growth DIVESTED Total mined 172 Total acquired See Endnote #1 2. Barrick Internal, Randgold Exploration expenditure source SNL

76 Exploration value growth- impressive combination Goldstrike Cortez Pueblo Viejo Loulo Veladero Lagunas Norte Kibali Goldrush Turquoise Ridge Morila Alturas Massawa Gounkoto Tongon Acquired Added Growth through organic discovery and post acquisition addition Low cost accretive value for Barrick

77 2017 Peer Reserves and Grades- New Barrick P&P Reserves 2 (Moz) P&P Reserve Grade 2 (g/t) 100 New Barrick 1 Newmont New Barrick g/t Goldcorp 54 Kinross 36 Peer Avg Newmont 1.14 g/t Goldcorp 0.91g/t Kinross 0.7g/t 1. New Barrick post-merger attributable proven and probable gold mineral reserves figure as at year-end 31 December 2017, on a combined basis, after giving effect to the merger of Barrick and Randgold (as if it had closed on 31 December 2017). New Barrick reserve grade is calculated using a weighted average of attributable year-end 31 December 2017 reserve grade from each of Barrick and Randgold. See Endnote #1 2. Source: company disclosure. Shown on an attributable basis. Reserve and grade data based on individual companies assumptions. 3. Peer Average grade figure is based on the published gold reserves and grade of Newmont, Goldcorp and Kinross referred to in footnote #2 and is calculated on a weighted average basis.

78 Exploration Strategy Extensive land positions in many of the world s prolific gold districts Western Cordillera Operating presence in world s most prolific gold districts Focused brownfields in Tier one districts Balanced with early stage exploration in Porgera emerging prospective districts Superior Craton South West US Northern Andes Operating Districts El Indio Belt Central Chile Exploration Focus Areas * Past Production + Reserves+ Resources as reported, source SNL and Barrick Guiana Shield Birimian Shield Congo Tanzanian Craton Gold deposits and high grade copper-gold Fimiston porphyries

79 Track Record: West Africa Morila Yalea Tongon Kibali Massawa Loulo - Gounkoto Discovery Type Folded metamorphosed sediments in contact with batholith. Metasediments. Lower amphibolite facies. Quartz ± ankerite vein lodes, disseminated sulfide stringer, highly altered shears Gold Skarn Basaltic-andesitic crystal tuffs in greenstone belt Greenstone/BIF Volcano sedimentary with ironstone chert horizons. Greenschist metamorphism Intermediate volcaniclastics, sedimentary Rocks, Felsic intrusives Shear zone hosted, fine grained sedimentary sandstone with rare limestone Gold Production Statistics 6.6 Moz produced since Production 70Koz Loulo Satellite 1.74 Moz produced since Production 288Koz 2.4 Moz produced since Production 596Koz _ 5.6 Moz produced since Production 730Koz 2017 Gold Reserves* 0.19 Moz (0.56g/t, 11M tonnes) Probable Reserves _ 1.2 Moz (3.2g/t, 16M tonnes) Proven Reserves: 0.49 Moz (2.2g/t,7M tonnes) Probable Reserves: 0.74 Moz (2.5g/t, 9.3M tonnes) 8.7 Moz (4.1g/t, 66M tonnes) Proven Reserves: 2.5 Moz (4.1g/t,19M tonnes) Probable Reserves: 6.2 Moz (4.1g/t, 47M tonnes) 2.7 Moz (3.6g/t, 23M tonnes) Probable Reserves Gounkoto: 3 Moz (4.6g/t, 20M tonnes) Proven Reserves: 0.78 Moz (3.9g/t,6.1M tonnes) Probable Reserves: 2.2 Moz (3.9g/t, 14M tonnes) Loulo: 5.2 Moz (4.5g/t, 36M tonnes) Proven Reserves: 1.6 Moz (4.2g/t, 12M tonnes) Probable Reserves: 3.6 Moz (4.7g/t, 24M tonnes) Current Status Production Production (Loulo complex) Production Production Feasibility Study Production (Loulo Complex) *Reserves and Resources stated at 100% basis, see Randgold company site for breakdown

80 Reserves and Resources stated at 100% basis, December 2017 except for CH Underground. Approximate accumulated historic production 1. As disclosed in Technical Report on the Cortez Joint Venture Operations, Lander and Eureka Counties, State of Nevada, U.S.A., dated March 21, 2016, and filed on SEDAR at and EDGAR at on March 28, Track Record: Great Basin, Nevada Goldstrike South Arturo Cortez Hills Underground Goldrush Fourmile Discovery Carlin type ~600Koz Au Reserves at time of acquisition (1986) Sulphidized/oxide dissolution breccia hosted Carlin type mineralization Structurally controlled, sulphidized breccia and replacement mineralization. Stratiform, lithological control, replacement style Carlin type mineralization Sulphidized dissolution breccia hosted Carlin type mineralization Prod. Statistics ~49Moz produced to date* 2Moz produced 2016 and 2017 ~250Koz produced 2016 and 2017 ~990Koz produced 2016 and Reserves/ Resources Current Status Reserves ~8.4 Moz Au (3.8g/t, 67.9M tonnes) Resources MI ~1.5 Moz Au (5.2g/t, 9.5M tonnes) Inf ~400Koz Au (8.2g/t, 1.5M tonnes) Reserves ~510Koz Au (2.9g/t, 5.3M tonnes) Resources MI ~570Koz Au (1.1g/t, 15.8 tonnes) 2016 Reserves 1 ~4.3 Moz Au (10.7g/t, 12.3M tonnes) 2016 Resources 1 MI ~770Koz Au (8.9g/t, 2.6M tonnes) Inf ~460Koz Au (10.8g/t, 1.3M tonnes) Reserves ~1.5 Moz Au (8.1g/t, 5.6M tonnes) Resources MI ~9.3Moz Au (9.2g/t, 31M tonnes) Inf ~2.3Moz Au (8.2g/t, 8.8 M tonnes) N/A Maiden resource expected 2019 OP UG Production OP Production UG Production UG Permitting Exploration (UG target)

81 Strength in Combining Extensive Exploration Portfolios Mines Barrick Nevada USA Turquoise Ridge USA Golden Sunlight USA Hemlo Canada Pueblo Viejo Dom. Rep. Lagunas Norte Peru Veladero Argentina Porguera PNG 1 KCGM Australia 1 Jabal Sayid KSA Zaldivar Chile 1 Lumwana Zambia Feasibility Projects Goldrush USA TOTAL 376 Mines Feasibility Projects Morila Mali Massawa - Senegal Loulo Mali Tongon Cote d Ivoire Gounkoto Mali Kibali DRC Reserve Definition MI Resources RESERVE AND RESOURCE DEFINITION Inferred Resources Advanced Targets Follow-up Targets Identified Targets North America 1 Mines included under Partnerships South America 4 Africa & Arab Peninsula Partnerships Senegal Mali Cote d Ivoire EXPLORATION TARGETS DRC IDENTIFIED GEOLOGICAL TARGETS

82 Strength in Combining Extensive Exploration Portfolios TOTAL 376 Reserve Definition MI Resources Inferred Resources Advanced targets Follow-up targets Identified Targets 2 North America South America Africa 14 RESERVE AND RESOURCE DEFINITION EXPLORATION TARGETS Rest of World IDENTIFIED GEOLOGICAL TARGETS Mines Barrick Nevada USA Turquoise Ridge USA Golden Sunlight USA Hemlo Canada Pueblo Viejo Dominican Rep. Lagunas Norte Peru Veladero Argentina Zaldivar Chile Morila Mali Loulo Mali Tongon Cote d Ivoire Gounkoto Mali Kibali DRC Lumwana Zambia Porguera PNG KCGM Australia Jabal Sayid KSA Feasibility Projects Goldrush USA Massawa Senegal

83 Goldrush Camp Continued Growth Continued success with infill and step-out drilling Emerging parallel trend along Blasdel Fault N Fourmile 1 A Fourmile Goldrush Detail follows Goldrush 2 Red Hill FM18-40D * 12.5 g/t 60.9 g/t A GRC18-01 * 9.3 g/t Future Exploration Declines 1. See Appendix A for additional details including assay results for the significant intercepts 2. Probable Reserves: 1.5 Moz ( g/t); Measured Resources: 47 Koz ( g/t); Indicated Resources: 9.4 Moz ( /t) 3. Fourmile Project drilling shown on the Goldrush-Fourmile Trend; drilling testing the favorable host lithology shown in the Blasdel Trend; select Goldrush hole shown * approximate location Probable Reserves 2 M&I Resources 2 High grade intercepts (Au >5 g/t) 3 No significant intercept Open mineralization

84 Blasdel New Trend, Same Architecture A A 300 Meters FM18-40D g/t 60.9 g/t Fourmile Goldrush Plan View Blasdel LEGEND Gold > 5 g/t 3 Breccia Fault Roberts Mtns Thrust Fault FM18-50D g/t Fourmile 1 Massive limestone Siltstone/mudstone/ greenstone package Sandstone/mudstone package Host limestone 1. See Appendix A for additional details including assay results for the significant intercepts 2. Approximate location 3. Fourmile Project drilling shown on the Goldrush-Fourmile Trend; drilling testing the favorable host lithology shown in the Blasdel Trend; select Goldrush hole shown

85 Fourmile Q3 Select Significant Intercepts1 N 500 Meters Fourmile project Goldrush project FM18-30D 25.6 g/t 18.8 g/t Grade Thickness (gram*meter) Plan at 5200 Level 3 < Goldrush Footprint Goldrush 2 Open mineralization FM18-49D 54.1 g/t FM18-47D 60.9 g/t FM18-50D 75.6 g/t FM18-24D 16.5 g/t 1. See Appendix A for additional details including assay results for the significant intercepts 2. Goldrush Probable Reserves: 1.5 Moz ( g/t); Measured Resources: 47 Koz ( g/t); Indicated Resources: 9.4 Moz ( /t) 3. Only Fourmile Project drilling shown FM18-23D g/t 19.9 g/t 9.3 g/t FM18-52D 34.6 g/t 30.2 g/t

86 Kibali Underground Opportunities LOM Design 3000, 5000 and 9000 lode opportunities Sessenge open pit 300koz $1000/oz design KCD Pushback 3 330koz $1000/oz design KCD open pit PB#1 North 3000 Lode up plunge extension PB#2 2g/t (100koz) UG 4.97g/t (335koz) Ave drill intersection 11.2g/t 9000 Lode up plunge extension Sessenge Link 2.61g/t (345koz) Drill holes planned Total Current Potential 2.14Moz 5000 Lode down plunge 5.82g/t (1.36Moz) New assays intersection 5.3g/t

87 Yalea Koz at +11 g/t added to mine plan YaDH g/t TW Yalea Transfer Zone extra ounces YDH g/t TW YaDH g/t TW Long-section with Q3 drilling N YaDH g/t TW YaDH g/t TW Purple Patch Yalea Central Deep extra ounces YDH g/t TW 100m YaDH g/t TW YDH g/t TW High Priority Targets 1000m Conceptual Targets (New) 280m Conversion Shoot target Proposed ADGC Drilling 500m Proposed Exploration Drilling Conversion and Exploration Target Summary: Yalea Transfer Zone (15 drill holes) Yalea FW Panel (15 drill holes) Size: 500m strike x 100m VD Size: 1000m strike x 280m VD Wt. Av. Grade: 13.3g/t (range 5.7 to 19.9g/t) Wt. Av. Grade: 4.1g/t (range 0.14 to 8.41g/t) Av. Thickness: 11.4m (range 2.4 to 21.7m) Av. Thickness: 5.3m (range 2.5 to 11.4m) Yalea North targets Gold g/t >8g/t 4-8g/t 4 3g/t 3 2g/t 2-0.7g/t

88 KZ Structure pipeline of projects reinforces prospectivity Ikamva Azambi Dembu Hotel Oere Zakitoko Watsa Dome Matiko Kalimva Kombokolo Gorumbwa Zambula Ndala Village KCD Plunging shoots on the shear Thrust plane mineralisation Ndala North Ndala-Gawa Shear sub-parallel to foliation, planar/plunging shoots of mineralisation 5km N Kalimva-Ikamva upside: At Ikamva Northwest, evidence of western extension of mineralised system associated with fold hinges - supported by lithosamples of up to 11.5g/t Kombokolo, Gorumbwa, Pakaka down plunge: Potential for adding resources for UG mining under review Ndala-Gawa trend: 6km gap interpreted to be related a NW thrust front similar to Pakaka-Mengu trend, with lithosamples up to 8g/t and auger results confirming anomalism KZ South: Zakitoko-Birindi-Zambula: Steep shear over 15km strike length. Boudinaged system and high grade zones (+3g/t), lithosamples up to 8.51g/tAindi SW Auger defined 2.4km anomaly in saprolite up to 0.97g/t Kobu (east of Zakitoko), lithosamples returned up to 5.9g/t confirming mineralisation associated with quartz vein stockwork

89 Guiana Shield West Africa Underexplored western continuation of West African Birimian Growing endowment through successful exploration Barrick has been active since 2014 with 2 investments thus far Exploration at similar stage to West Africa 15 years ago 147Moz (2015) >30Moz added through exploration, <5 years 117Moz (2010)

90 Reunion Gold Partnership Guiana Shield Experts Strong management with proven track record of discovery Barrick placement (15%), with ROFR on any current or new projects generated Dorlin Drilling to validate and grow historic resources Geophysics to expedite targeting Waiamu Vein swarms reminiscent of Rosebel Multiple, km scale gold in soil anomalies Drilling commenced Producer Pre-producer Past-producer

91 Exploration strategy Explore world s most prolific districts Focused brownfields in Tier 1 districts and around operating mines Great Basin Nevada, Andes, West African Craton, DRC-Tanzania Craton Mineral Resource Management Group to continue to convert discoveries into optimized value Balanced with early stage exploration in emerging prospective districts Guiana Shield Canada High grade copper gold porphyries Copper opportunities in our operating districts that meet our criteria Targeting Gold deposits and high grade copper-gold porphyry systems

92 Appendix A Fourmile Significant Intercepts1 Drill Results from Q Core Drill Hole 2 Azimuth Dip Interval (m) Width (m) 3 Au (g/t) FM18-02D FM18-08D FM18-13D FM18-19D FM18-23D FM18-24D FM18-25D FM18-26D All intercepts calculated using a 5 g/t Au cutoff and are uncapped; minimum intercept width is 0.8 m; internal dilution is less than 20% total width 2. Fourmile drill hole nomenclature: FM (Fourmile) followed by the year (18 for 2018) or GRC (Gold Rush Core) with no designation of the year 3. True width of intercepts are uncertain at this stage 4. FM18-02 updated from no significant intercepts due to pending results The drilling results for the Fourmile property contained in this presentation have been prepared in accordance with National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. All drill hole assay information has been manually reviewed and approved by staff geologists and re-checked by the project manager. Sample preparation and analyses are conducted by an independent laboratory. 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 on the Fourmile property conform to industry accepted quality control methods. 21

93 Appendix A Fourmile Significant Intercepts 1 Drill Results from Q Core Drill Hole 2 Azimuth Dip Interval (m) Width (m) 3 Au (g/t) FM18-26D FM18-28D FM18-30D FM18-40D FM18-41D no significant intercepts > 5 gpt Au FM18-45D FM18-46D no significant intercepts > 5 gpt Au FM18-47D All intercepts calculated using a 5 g/t Au cutoff and are uncapped; minimum intercept width is 0.8 m; internal dilution is less than 20% total width 2. Fourmile drill hole nomenclature: FM (Fourmile) followed by the year (18 for 2018) or GRC (Gold Rush Core) with no designation of the year 3. True width of intercepts are uncertain at this stage The drilling results for the Fourmile property contained in this presentation have been prepared in accordance with National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. All drill hole assay information has been manually reviewed and approved by staff geologists and re-checked by the project manager. Sample preparation and analyses are conducted by an independent laboratory. 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 on the Fourmile property conform to industry accepted quality control methods. 22

94 Appendix A Fourmile Significant Intercepts 1 Drill Results from Q Core Drill Hole 2 Azimuth Dip Interval (m) Width (m) 3 Au (g/t) FM18-49D FM18-50D FM18-52D GRC All intercepts calculated using a 5 g/t Au cutoff and are uncapped; minimum intercept width is 0.8 m; internal dilution is less than 20% total width 2. Fourmile drill hole nomenclature: FM (Fourmile) followed by the year (18 for 2018) or GRC (Gold Rush Core) with no designation of the year 3. True width of intercepts are uncertain at this stage The drilling results for the Fourmile property contained in this presentation have been prepared in accordance with National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. All drill hole assay information has been manually reviewed and approved by staff geologists and re-checked by the project manager. Sample preparation and analyses are conducted by an independent laboratory. 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 on the Fourmile property conform to industry accepted quality control methods. 23

95 Technical Information The following qualified persons, as that term is defined in National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, have reviewed and approved the relevant scientific and technical information contained in this presentation: Rob Krcmarov, Executive Vice President Exploration and Growth of Barrick and Rick Sims, Registered Member SME, Senior Director, Resources and Reserves of Barrick. The technical and scientific information contained in this presentation in respect of Randgold has been reviewed and approved for release by Simon Bottoms and Rodney Quick, Randgold s Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects Endnotes 1.The potential combined gold reserves figure of 78 million ounces (rounded to the nearest million) is an aggregate of the gold Mineral Reserves reported at US$1200/oz by Barrick in its annual information form for the year ended 31 December 2017 (comprising attributable proven gold Mineral Reserves of 398 million tonnes, at a grade of 1.91 grams/tonne, containing 24 million ounces and attributable probable gold Mineral Reserves of 896 million tonnes, at a grade of 1.39 grams/tonne, containing 40 million ounces, for aggregate attributable proven and probable gold Mineral Reserves of 1,295 million tonnes, at a grade of 1.55 grams/tonne, containing 64 million ounces) and the gold Ore Reserves reported by Randgold at US$1000/oz in its annual report for the year ended 31 December 2017 (comprising total proved gold Ore Reserves of 44 million tonnes, at a grade of 3.78 grams/tonne, containing 3.5 million attributable ounces and total probable gold Ore Reserves of 128 million tonnes, at a grade of 3.78 grams/tonne, containing 10 million attributable ounces, for aggregate total proven and probable gold mineral reserves of 172 million tonnes, at a grade of 3.78 grams/tonne, containing 14 million attributable ounces). The assumptions on which the Mineral Reserves for Barrick are reported are set out in Barrick s annual information form published on 23 March 2018 and available from The assumptions on which the Ore Reserves for Randgold are reported are set out in Randgold s annual report published on 29 March 2018 and available from The Barrick Mineral Reserves have been prepared according to Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum ( CIM ) 2014 Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as incorporated by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The Randgold Ore Reserves have been prepared according to the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves standards and guidelines, published and maintained by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and the Minerals Council of Australia (the JORC (2012) Code ). Randgold has reconciled the reported Ore Reserves to the CIM 2014 Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as incorporated by National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects and there are no material differences. The Barrick tonnage and grade figures are reported on an attributable basis and the Randgold tonnage and grade figures are reported on a total basis. The Barrick Mineral Reserves are reported using US$1200/oz except for Kalgoorlie, which uses A$1600/oz and Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi which use US$1100/oz and the Randgold Ore Reserves are reported using US$1000/oz, except for Kibali KCD open pit, which uses an US$1100/oz pit design. As a result, the respective Mineral Reserves and Ore Reserves of Barrick and Randgold may not be directly comparable. The potential combined reserves should be treated as forward looking statements and are subject to change under differing gold price assumptions. 24

96 Mineral Resource Management Rod Quick Project Evaluation

97 Mineral resource management at New Barrick Manage the orebody from gold in the ground to value for all stakeholders only possible through ownership of the orebody MRM are empowered on the mines to own the orebody but are held accountable for the orebody understanding and estimation Responsible for resource sustainability and thus responsible for feasibility and replenishment gatekeepers to ensure reserves pass our filters We are in the consumptive business and if we do not replenish we will die Superior orebody knowledge minimizes technical risk and ensures optimised mine plans Long term planning is critical allows us to be pre-emptive and not reactive

98 Kibali a case study of getting the geology right First visit in 2006 identified significant mineralisation and alteration system with folding and plunging shoots in interesting rocks Used BIF, chert, and carbonaceous argillite markers and stratigraphic younging direction and changing orientation of bedding to model folding Pale coloured ankerite, and/or siderite, quartz, and sericite alteration is the widespread alteration assemblage. ACSA _A An overprint assemblage of texturally destructive siderite and pyrite with minor quartz. ACSA_B Disseminated magnetite within ACSA-A and B altered rocks can be used to map the extent of BIF horizons in the protolith. Principal lodes are hosted in vein and disseminated pyrite associated with the ACSA-B assemblage. Gold generally occurs as inclusions in both disseminated and vein pyrite, and small grains along the margins of pyrite. Curviplanar mineralized BIF extends: around the hinges of the folds, locally along the limbs of the folds Only rarely extends along the axial surfaces of the folds, The resulting lodes have complex shapes, but an overall northeast plunge parallel to the fold axes Understanding the controls to mineralisation led to efficient conversion of resource to reserve within 1 year we doubled the reserve from 4g/t to 4.2g/t As of Dec 2017 we have added 3.7g/t to the acquisition reserve.

99 Kibali a case study of getting the geology right Distribution of ounces per vertical meter drove the decision of shaft access Geological, resource and geotechnical model defined the mining method Understanding of rock hardness and gold deportment drove metallurgical response and process plant design Hydration and oxidation of siderite alteration explained backfill properties Defining the geometry and character of the orebody allows for infrastructure decisions that enhance value 5,800 5,700 5,600 5,500 5,400 5,300 5,200 5,100-50,000

100 Strategic filters for investment Striving to be the world s most valued gold mining business By finding, developing and owning the best assets, with the best people, to deliver sustainable returns for our owners and partners FILTERS It applies principally to gold (copper) It is located in a world class geological gold district We have the right to mine and repatriate profits It fits our values in respect to social license, political risk, environmental compliance, manage closure liability We have active management participation It enhances our strategic partnering network Tier 1 A reserve potential greater than 5 million ounces of gold and at least a 15% IRR at the long term gold price Tier 2 A reserve potential of greater than 3 million ounces of gold and least a 20% IRR at a long term gold price

101 A large pipeline of potential projects Alturas Scoping Prefeasibility Feasibility Execution/Extensions Pueblo Viejo expansion Goldrush Deep South Loulo 3 OP-UG Massawa Turquoise Ridge Ikamva Kalimva Zaldivar Expansion Norte Abierto Yalea Gara Kibali

102 Goldrush Project potential Tier 1 asset Drill program from decline will allow optimisation Orebody optimisation in indications are that infill drilling results in increase of grade and ounces Geotechnical modelling Mining method optimisation Backfill optimisation Material handling Mining Method(s) Orebody Access Feasibility (completed 4Q17) Underground only Refractory Ore Transport (to processing) Processing Initial Capital Est. Production COS per ounce ~$749 AISC 1 per ounce ~$643 Declines from Cortez Hills Operations Trucks Goldstrike Roaster ~$1.0B ~ 500K oz/yr 1. This is a non-gaap reporting measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS.

103 Massawa feasibility project Interim resource model update highlights significant shift in grade distribution within CZ orebody higher grades in the southern portion and lower grades in northern half Revised financial models support a robust project at $1,000 and current gold prices Potential exists to add resources to the mine life from extensions to existing pits, as well as advanced satellite targets which are showing economic potential Metallurgical recovery models updated and recovery model curves assigned to block model to report recoverable gold within pit optimisations Sofia North recovery optimised through addition of Aachen oxygen injection technology follow up campaign returned 2.6% higher recovery for fresh material now modelled at 85.5% Construction capital cost remains largely in line with previous estimate at $415 million Initial steps of public participation process undertaken Bambaraya (18 km) Resource Sofia (10.7km) 2.9g/t Ore reserve NPV and IRR Sensitivities to gold price Option $1 000/oz $1 200/oz $1 400/oz Base case Tina Resource Delya Main (18km) 4.8g/t Ore reserve KB & Kaviar Under evaluation Delya Strike Extents Under evaluation North Zone 4.5g/t Ore reserve Central Zone 3.4g/t Ore reserve Central Zone Extensions Under evaluation NPV $154m $414m $670m IRR 15% 29% 41%

104 Loulo 3 scoping study Preliminary economic assessment completed with potential for expanded pit and underground project Open pit pushback forms part of existing Loulo ore reserves Drilling beneath pit focused on high grade shoot below southern section of pit within MZ2 structure Underground mineralisation 32% drilled to a level that would support inferred mineral resources 68% defined by drilling and confirms continuity of mineralisation Unclassified material included in evaluation for scoping purposes Composite metallurgical samples from 32 drill intersections returned average leach recovery of 85% L3DH g/t L3DH g/t Target Summary: L3DH g/t MZ1 L3DH g/t MZ1 Target (48 drill holes) MZ2 Target (18 drill holes) Current depletion 200m L3DH g/t MZ2 Q4 Proposed Drilling Previous Drilling Notes: Target summary from diamond drilling at the spacing shown. There are insufficient exploration results to report a resource, and it is uncertain that further exploration will result in a resource estimate. Long-section with Q3 drilling N US$ 1000/oz pit shell US$ 1500/oz pit shell L3DH g/t L3DH g/t -280m RL Q4 drill limit Gram.Metre Value <15

105 Yalea +11g/t added to the mine plan YaDH g/t TW Yalea Transfer Zone extra ounces YDH g/t TW YaDH g/t TW Long-section with Q3 drilling N YaDH g/t TW YaDH g/t TW Purple Patch Yalea Central Deep extra ounces YDH g/t TW 100m YaDH g/t TW YDH g/t TW High Priority Targets 1000m Conceptual Targets (New) 280m Conversion Shoot target Proposed ADGC Drilling 500m Proposed Exploration Drilling Conversion and Exploration Target Summary: Yalea Transfer Zone (15 drill holes) Yalea FW Panel (15 drill holes) Size: 500m strike x 100m VD Size: 1000m strike x 280m VD Wt. Av. Grade: 13.3g/t (range 5.7 to 19.9g/t) Wt. Av. Grade: 4.1g/t (range 0.14 to 8.41g/t) Av. Thickness: 11.4m (range 2.4 to 21.7m) Av. Thickness: 5.3m (range 2.5 to 11.4m) Yalea North targets Gold g/t >8g/t 4-8g/t 4 3g/t 3 2g/t 2-0.7g/t

106 Turquoise Ridge1, Minex Drilling1,2 North Zone Getchell extended to NW by 125m TS m at 16.9 g/t TS m at 11.1 g/t Footwall Pond Extension extended to W by 55m and N by 35m TS m at 18.2 g/t, 4.7m at 9.6 g/t Bass Pond East project extended to NE by 120m TS1804 A - 6.7m at 15.3 g/t TS1804B 3.8m at 13.9 g/t Deposit remains open in multiple directions further drilling planned SHAFT 2 South Zone View to the southwest SHAFT 1 SHAFT 3 FWP Extension & BPE Projects Getchell Fault Resource Conversion TS1803 TS1804 TS1802 2P Reserves 4 M&I Resource 4 North Zone TS1804A TS1804 B 1. For additional detail regarding Turquoise Ridge, see the Technical Report on the Turquoise Ridge Mine, State of Nevada, U.S.A., dated March 19, 2018, and filed on SEDAR at and EDGAR at on March 23, % Barrick owned 3. See Appendix B for additional details including assay results for the significant intercepts 4. Proven and Probable Reserves: 5.9Moz ( g/t); Measured and Indicated Resources: 1.5 Moz ( g/t). See Endnote #3

107 Kibali underground opportunities LOM design with 3000, 5000 and 9000 Lode opportunities Sessenge open pit 300koz $1000/oz design KCD Pushback 3 330koz $1000/oz design KCD open pit PB#1 North 3000 Lode up plunge extension PB#2 2g/t (100koz) UG 4.97g/t (335koz) Ave drill intersection 11.2g/t 9000 Lode up plunge extension Sessenge Link 2.61g/t (345koz) Drill holes planned Total Current Potential 2.14Moz 5000 Lode down plunge 5.82g/t (1.36Moz) New assays intersection 5.3g/t

108 Kalimva-Ikamva justifies progression to prefeasibility study Kalimva-Ikamva drill plan Average recovery of 90% from BRT in fresh Ikamva $1200/oz pit N Phase 4 (109 RC and 8 DDH) drilling in $1200/oz pit shell completed at Kalimva and Ikamva. Pit optimisations and preliminary economic assessment complete Infill drilling confirms continuity with improved average intersection widths and grades than predicted by the previous model Results return 34% increase in grade and 19% increase in tonnes to deliver a 59% increase in ounces compared to previous model in a $1000/oz optimisation pit shell $1000/oz optimisation pit shell contains 5.6Mt at 3.1g/t for 559koz defined to a sufficient level to support an inferred resource KVRC g/t from 44m incl 4.18 g/t KVRC g/t from 46m incl 20g/t KALIMVA LONG SECTION LOOKING WNW KVRC g/t from 48m incl 22.59g/t Kalimva HG potential: down plunge target KVDD g/t and 1.79g/t KVRC g/t KVRC g/t incl 28.19g/t Lithology $1200/oz pit Quartz feldspar porphyry Banded iron formation Metasediment 400m Southern high grade domain KVRC g/t from 104m 100m Northern high grade domain Kalimva long section looking WNW