Thank you, and good morning, everyone. We hope you've had an opportunity to review the press release we issued before the markets opened this morning.

This presentation deck is also now available to download on our website. Presenting our results today are Mark Hill, Barrick's President and CEO, and Helen Cai, Senior EVP and CFO.

Other members of Barrick's management team will be available after our prepared remarks for Q&A. Before we begin, please note that we will be making forward-looking statements.

This slide includes a summary of the significant risks and factors that could affect Barrick's future performance and our ability to deliver on these forward-looking statements. This material is also available on our website.

I will now hand it over to Mark.

Thanks, Cleve, and thank you all for joining us. We had a strong Q1 with excellent operating and financial results.

Before I go into detail, I want to review the priorities for 2026 that we set at the start of the year. These are our priorities for achieving safe, consistent, reliable delivery across our portfolio.

The first is obviously safety. Our safety performance has not been where it needs to be, and we're taking action to improve it.

The second is operational delivery. We are on track to meet our production and cost guidance.

The third is growth. We are advancing our key organic opportunities, including PV, Lumwana, and Fourmile.

The fourth is the IPO of North American gold assets, which we believe will unlock significant value for our shareholders. In Q1, we made steady progress in all four of these areas.

It was the second quarter in a row of improved delivery across the board. Most importantly, we improved safety.

We performed well operationally, and we delivered gold production above guidance. Production increased 4% year-over-year.

We also came in below guidance on our costs. Strong execution in the quarter allowed us to capture more of the high gold price and deliver strong financial results.

Attributable EBITDA doubled year-over-year at a much higher margin. Free cash flow increased 320% year-over-year to $1.6 billion, and we ended the quarter with $2.4 billion of net cash.

We advanced our growth projects. Our 100%-owned Fourmile project continues to progress, the Lumwana expansion advanced slightly ahead of schedule, and we are reviewing Reko Diq, as previously disclosed.

Finally, we moved forward on the planned North American IPO, which we're on track to complete by the end of this year. Our North American assets have their own dedicated leadership team, which has been working together successfully.

I'd like now to spend some time reviewing our work on safety. We believe our safety performance and operational performance are linked.

Businesses perform better overall when they manage risk, have leaders in the field, and follow critical controls. Historically, Barrick focused on total recordable injuries.

The company led the industry on that one metric, yet it did not adequately address the risks that can lead to serious injuries and fatalities. In Q4 of last year, we shifted our focus to identifying and eliminating the risks behind serious and fatal events.

In Q1, we saw this change begin to work. There was a meaningful reduction in significant and high-severity injuries.

63% of all injuries during the quarter were classified as minor. Our reported lost time injuries also declined.

Our leaders all the way up to executive committee are spending more time in the field. They are focusing more on leading indicators, particularly critical control verifications.

To be clear, though, we are still not where we need to be and had too many near misses during the quarter. We still have work to do, but we are making steady progress to fulfill our commitment to zero harm.

It is now embedded in leadership behavior, operating routines, and decision-making at every level. Turning now to our Q1 highlights.

Barrick produced 719,000 ounces of gold in the quarter, above guidance and an increase of 4% from a year ago. There were three drivers: a 10% year-on-year increase in production in North America, along with strong performance at both Veladero and Loulo-Gounkoto.

On the copper side, we produced 49,000 tonnes, in line with the plan. We managed costs with discipline.

At gold, cost per ounce came in better than planned, reflecting solid cost control and efficiencies across both mining and processing. Copper production increased 11% year-over-year.

C1 cash costs were lower than our plan. The combination of volume, cost discipline, and favorable realized pricing drove a substantial increase in earnings and cash flow, which has meant that today we announced a quarterly dividend of 17.5 cents per share and a $3 billion share buyback.

In Q1, we had strong performance across all our regions. North America continued to anchor our world-class portfolio.

NGM and PV both registered year-over-year growth. Together, they accounted for 57% of our attributable EBITDA at a margin of nearly 70%.

Our other regions also delivered strong gold production with meaningful attributable EBITDA at margins of 65%. Copper is performing well, and it is an important part of the growth driver for Barrick.

Our portfolio provides near-term cash flow and longer-term organic growth. As I mentioned, NGM is on track and performing well.

It was a core contributor to our operational and financial performance. The productivity improvements we highlighted last quarter continued through Q1.

Carlin, Cortez, and Turquoise Ridge underground mines delivered their highest tonnages since the joint venture was formed. We are now on track to achieve record underground tons mined for this year.

That is an important leading indicator that speaks to both mine productivity and the reliability of execution underground. Our processing plants performed equally well.

The Carlin roasters achieved their highest Q1 production since 2022. The Sage autoclave achieved its highest quarterly throughput since 2021.

We achieved these increases in both volume and productivity while continuing to improve safety. As I said, they work together.

I also want to highlight that we remain in regular and constructive dialogue with Newmont, our NGM JV partner, about NGM performance, the timeline of the bringing of Fourmile, and the IPO. Loulo-Gounkoto also had an excellent quarter.

The ramp-up progressed ahead of schedule. Both mining and processing outperformed the restart plan, which speaks to the strength of both the asset and their execution.

We are prioritizing the high-grade underground ore that will contribute more in the near term. At the same time, we are preserving future optionality in the open pits.

The team reported zero safety and class one environmental incidents during the quarter. Financially, Loulo-Gounkoto made an earlier than expected contribution to Barrick's quarterly attributable EBITDA, already a meaningful result at this stage of the ramp-up.

Turning to our organic growth pipeline. Lumwana is our copper growth project in Zambia.

Once complete, the mill expansion will increase throughput from 27 to 52 million tonnes per year, increasing copper production by 100% from 117 to 240,000 tonnes annually. The project is on track to come in towards the lower end of the 2026 capital guidance and on track for the original budget of $2 billion.

During the quarter, the initial lift of the mill building was completed, mill shells were delivered, and the first shipments of structural steel were on their way to site. We expect to produce our first copper from the expansion by Q1 2028.

Our Fourmile project in Nevada continued to demonstrate its potential to become a Tier 1 gold asset. Drilling activity continued throughout the winter.

We plan to expand drilling through 2026 and to complete the PFS studies by 2028. You can see the quality of the interception grade outside of the existing resource on the slide.

Finally, we are on track to complete the proposed IPO of our North American gold assets by the end of 2026. As I said, the region has a dedicated team and has been working together very well for several months.

They can focus completely on North America without the competing priorities that came from running a broader multinational portfolio. We believe this focus should translate to further improvements in performance.

We will continue to update the market on the IPO as we make further progress. I would now like to introduce Helen Cai, our CFO, who will review our financial performance.

Helen, over to you.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. At a high level, this was a quarter in which strong production, disciplined cost performance, and a supportive gold price environment combined to deliver outstanding financial results.

We saw substantial growth in earnings, significant margin expansion, and robust free cash flow generation while also strengthening an already solid balance sheet. What is important is that these results were not driven by price alone.

The higher gold price clearly helped, but it amplified improvements already occurring in the business: better operating performance, cost discipline, portfolio optimization, and stronger capital efficiency. This is what gives these results real quality and durability.

Coming to the numbers, gold production from continuing operations increased 4% year-over-year. Combined with the 66% increase in our realized gold price, that drove the very strong financial performance Mark already touched on.

Adjusted net earnings rose 173% year-on-year, and attributable EBITDA increased 103%. Attributable free cash flow, which is the measure we use as the basis for our dividend policy, increased 195% year-over-year to $1.2 billion in the quarter.

These very strong results reflect both operational progress in the business and the leverage our portfolio has to higher commodity prices when we execute well. We closed Q1 with $2.4 billion of net cash on the balance sheet, giving us flexibility to continue investing in our highest return opportunities.

Taken together, I would describe the quarter as one of strong earnings quality with strong cash conversion. Capital allocation is a major priority, particularly in an environment where the business is generating significant free cash flow.

We have a clear framework for deploying capital to sustain and grow our business and provide returns to shareholders, all while ensuring our balance sheet remains strong and flexible. This framework is designed to be sustainable through the cycle.

Our first priority is balance sheet strength. With $2.4 billion of net cash and an undrawn $3 billion revolving credit facility and no meaningful debt due until 2033, we are already in a favorable position.

Our second priority is earnings-accretive growth, which includes sustaining and growth capital. Lumwana and Fourmile are two clear examples where we are deploying capital into organic opportunities that we believe will generate superior returns.

More broadly, we intend to identify similarly earnings-accretive opportunities in the future to strengthen our growth profile while remaining disciplined in how and when we deploy capital. This is not only about growth for its own sake; it is about creating value over time.

Our third priority is returning cash to shareholders. Our new dividend policy implemented last quarter provides for a quarterly base dividend of 17.5 cents per share, topped up at year-end to target a total payout of 50% of attributable free cash flow.

This quarter, following solid execution, strong free cash flow, and the value in Barrick's stock, the board also approved a $3 billion share buyback authorization that further amplifies our total return to shareholders. Since 2021, Barrick has returned $7.9 billion to shareholders, including $697 million in Q1 2026 and $2.4 billion in 2025.

Our capital allocation framework is disciplined, flexible, and designed to work throughout the cycle. It supports reinvestment in the business, advances growth, protects the balance sheet, and creates a clear pathway for returning excess cash to shareholders.

With that, I will turn the call back over to Mark.

Thank you, Helen. Our 2026 production and cost guidance remain unchanged.

For the second quarter, we expect gold production to be in the range of 730 to 770,000 ounces, which is above Q1 and consistent with our plan. We also expect higher production in the third and fourth quarters, which is typical for our business.

For copper, we expect higher production in the second half of the year than the first half. We'll continue to focus on controlling costs, capital intensity, and productivity.

Based on what we see today, we remain confident in our ability to deliver our full year commitments. To conclude, I want to reinforce our four priorities, all of which we have made steady progress on in Q1.

We improved safety, although we do realize we still have a lot of work to do. We improved operational consistency and cost discipline and delivered on guidance for Q1.

We advanced PV, Lumwana, and Fourmile on schedule and on budget. We advanced our North American IPO on schedule.

We are on track to execute successfully against all these four priorities by year-end. Barrick historically has been criticized for not delivering on its commitments, I just want to highlight that this is the second quarter that we have delivered on all of our commitments to our shareholders.

Our portfolio is performing with increased resilience, our strategic projects are advancing, our balance sheet is strong, and we're on track to achieve our 2026 guidance. I'll now hand back to the moderator for Q&A.

Hi, can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello, can you hear me? Great.

Hi Mark. Hi Helen.

A few questions. The first one, just on Reko Diq, you've pulled the guidance for the full year down to the lower end of the range in terms of CapEx.

How should we be thinking about the kind of run rate of quarterly CapEx going through the balance of the year is the first part of the question. The second is what is the estimated holding cost of the project on an annualized or quarterly basis at care and maintenance?

I guess the third part is what would you need to see to conclude that this is a project that you feel comfortable committing the remaining CapEx to build the project?

All right. Thanks, Daniel.

On Reko Diq, look, the budget at this stage stays intact. We will be finishing some of those works that we've already started, those contracts will continue on whilst we do this 12-month review.

The year's budget will still come in on that range. Look, the run rate when we are doing this review on top is about $20 million a month, and that's probably a bit of a rough number at this stage, but we're still refining that, but you can assume it's around that number.

A good question, what do we need to see? What we did is when we went into this review, there were some things that we had to address, right?

Now, we're having issues with the contractors on-site and we've had several force majeure notices. The first thing is we have to understand the contracting strategy and how we're going to make this successful, because obviously we can't continue on that, and that was due to some security concerns and what's going on in the region as well.

We're working on how we'll rectify that with the Pakistan government, and our chairman was just there actually yesterday and making progress on those discussions. Then obviously, the other thing is I just want to rerun the capital and see where we are with that and if there's been any large shifts in the capital.

Once we get the answer to all that, I can make an informed decision. I know we've been criticized for being overly cautious, but I think on a project like this, it's important for all the shareholders, including the ones in Pakistan, that we actually understand where we are so that we can be successful going forward.

Does that answer everything you wanted, Daniel?

Okay. I think so.

Just, yeah, to clarify that, if there's a situation beyond this year that you cannot commit to continuing, it would be about $20 million a month just to hold it on care and maintenance, is that correct?

Yes, that's approximately what the number would be, yes.

Yeah.

After we get through these contracts, we'll be winding up.

Yeah. Okay.

Then my second question, maybe one for Helen, just on the balance sheet and the distribution policy. Nice to see you've added the buyback in, but a couple of elements to it.

I'm assuming your 50% commitment to the dividend is independent of if you do buybacks or not, or is that 50% a cash return commitment, that's the first part. Then the second part, you've got $2.4 billion of cash on the balance sheet.

What is the level at which you would be willing to commit 100% of free cash flow in capital returns, and what is the disadvantage of setting a net cash target?

Thank you, Dan. On your first question, the 50% attributable free cash flow policy was just introduced in 4Q last year, and we maintain that policy.

That means at year-end, we will use attributable operating cash flow minus attributable CapEx to derive the attributable free cash flow, and then 50% of that will be used for top-up dividend in the fourth quarter. That will not affect or be impacted by any of the buyback program that we just announced today.

Is that clear on that before I move to your second question?

That's clear. Thank you.

Okay. Your second question is about setting up a target on the balance sheet.

We had a balance sheet-based target before, and we moved to the free cash flow-based policy last quarter. Right now, we are taking just a flexible stance given the strong cash flow and strong balance sheet.

We announced this $3 billion, and we will see the market window whenever appropriate, we will execute on our buyback program. Got you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

In terms of the $3 billion, is it an option or is it kind of something we would expect you to be buying back stock through the year if we're in the same kind of range as we are today?

I think that decision is based on our strong balance sheet and cash flow generation, as well as the value we see in Barrick's shares. We are launching this program to carry it on throughout the year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next question... Operator, can I just say Tanya, if you want to flick your questions, I don't know why we can't hear you, but if you want to flick us your questions on email, then I will answer them at the end.

Thank you very much, operator. Just going into some of the operating details.

First off, at NGM, Mark, you sort of talked about a bunch of the factors that caused outperformance in the first quarter. Wondering what's the ability for the company to extend some of these positive results into second quarter and maybe the second half of the year, and maybe embedded within the second quarter guidance, is there any additional information on how NGM fits in there?

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Josh.

Look, on the NGM performance, there is a thing I want to highlight because we're discussing this about guidance. You remember in Q4 when the team said, look, we're going to try and not pull down all the inventory out of all the circuits at the end of the year, we didn't do that, which actually did give us a boost in Q1 that we didn't expect or we didn't plan for, I suppose, is the right way to put it.

The increases in performance, some of them were already built in, Tim and the team have done a good job of realizing those, but it doesn't change the outlook for the year. I don't know, Tim, if you want to make any other comments on that, but...

No,

I think you covered it, Mark. It's really that focus on operating discipline and conformance to plan, and I do think if you can deliver on that, you do lead to delivering on efficiency improvements as it goes, but as you said, the plan where it stands the rest of the year.

Thanks, Mark.

Josh, are you happy with that?

Reasonably happy. I may have some follow-up questions for the team.

Josh, hang on. Let me just say something else.

Look, this process where we've given all the autonomy back to that region and we've had a focus on it, they have separate management teams. I will admit the results have come quicker than I expected.

Let us get through Q2 and just see where we're tracking after that. All right,

looking forward to that. Now on Loulo, you talked about the underground ramp-up being faster than expected, in light of some of the uncertainties in Mali and sort of the news on contractor changes.

I guess first, should we expect to see improvements in the asset into the second quarter? Then more broadly, what should our expectations be under this new operating plan for this asset on a steady-state basis?

I'll just give you the high-level update. Yes, you're right, it ramped up quicker than expected, and it will reach its full potential by the end of the year as we planned, so that remains unchanged.

Then once it gets to steady state, then you can expect 100%, I think 600-plus thousand ounces, whatever it was before we went into the care and maintenance stage. Look, it's progressing well, and I'm just going to hand over to Seb.

I don't know if you've got some other comments for Josh, Seb.

Maybe Josh, on the contractor change, we were aware that BTP was planning to exit, but it also tied into our strategy to replace it with a local contractor. We expect to replace that contract by the end of the year and resume that part of the open-pit mining plan.

As you say, our underground has ramped up nicely, and our other open pits are performing, there's no impact to the plan, and you will see a step-up. I think just on the options at Loulo still remains a strong contributor to the bottom line, it's a strong contributor to our production profile.

As we ramp this up, we'll, of course, continue to assess all the full range of strategic alternatives on this asset.

Thanks, Seb.

Hi, good morning. Can you hear me all right?

We can hear you, Bennett. Thanks.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Helen, congrats on the new role. I wanted to start with the broader shifting strategy outlined in the recent shareholder letter as it relates to reducing high-risk exposure in those jurisdictions and targeted acquisitions.

Could you speak a bit to your framework on both? How do you go about determining which assets might be best suited for divestment and vice versa for acquisitions, and for the latter, is there any preference between gold and copper?

Okay. Bennett, I think on the de-risking, obviously, we're trying to focus our growth in more stable areas, right, where we have more certainty around the mining regime and the ability to operate without a lot of interference.

Without going through an actual list of the countries, obviously there you can see with what's happening in Africa recently, which countries would obviously not be ideal for investment. Then I suppose non-core assets is what you meant by the second part of that question, Bennett?

Yep.

Non-core assets, things like Porgera, we have a minority stake in that at 24% and they obviously spend a considerable amount of management time on it. Something like that would be considered non-core at this stage, and that's that.

From where we are now, that would be where I end it.

All right. Thanks for that.

Then appreciate the sensitivity on diesel. Wondering if you could remind us which operations are most exposed, what inventory buffers look like, we can, I guess, get a better gauge for the cadence of potential impacts moving forward?

I can't remember what we had in the deck, but the sensitivity obviously is $12 per ounce for every $10 move in the oil price. As far as supply, and we went through this yesterday as well, so as far as supply goes, we are well covered everywhere.

The supply is not going to be an issue, it's just going to be the knock-on effect on the cost per ounce. We have no risk of running out of diesel if that's what's the question.

Much appreciated. Best of luck.

Thanks, Bennett.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you, Anita. Thanks.

Good, it's good. I'm glad I can figure out the unmute button.

A couple of questions. First, have you experienced any issues with concentrate shipment coming out of Zambia at this point in terms of port restrictions or anything with that?

Not that I'm aware of. Seb, could you answer that?

No, look, all of our concentrate we smelt locally, it hasn't been an issue. I'm not aware of any issues with the product export from there, no, we haven't had problems.

Okay. Moving to PV, the tonnage there, I think I had only a 15-day shutdown, so that tonnage was fairly low for the quarter.

Could you just talk about the tonnage and the throughput rate at PV?

Let me hand it over to Tim. Tim, can you answer it?

Yeah.

Thanks, Mark. Anita, I think the important thing at PV is, we updated the metallurgical model and we shared that in the updated technical report.

Part of that work, and I mentioned last quarter, is we're working with Hatch on how we can further improve this. In addition to the outages which occurred during the month, as well as some power interruptions which the team experienced, there is also a body of work going on with Hatch and with our team around how we can further optimize this recovery going forward.

You're really seeing a combination of the power, the outage for the shutdown work, and this improvement program work together in that number. As you can see, the recovery has come up from where it sat a year ago, and I think we have some optimistic programs to try and lift ourselves further from where we're at on that recovery front.

I was encouraged by the recovery rate at 74%. Albeit the numbers had been reduced from what our prior expectations were, but with the throughput, combination of the throughput and the slightly higher grade, I was assuming that part of the improved recovery could be attributed to both those factors, right?

Longer retention time given the lower tonnage. Are you expecting throughput next quarter to be up from where you are?

You're halfway through the quarter at this point, can you let us know how it's going at PV?

Throughput continues to increase over the year, and I think your observation is exactly correct, and it's about understanding that so that we can work out where we need to invest to either debottleneck the throughput or if the recovery at throughput rate we run through. I think it's a correct observation, and we continue to push throughput this quarter and into Q3 as well.

Okay. Then just a quick question, could you just give us the key drivers of where you're seeing the production improve quarter-over-quarter from Q1 to Q2, we have an idea of which assets and what's driving that?

Not every asset, but just maybe the movers, yeah.

No, no, we see obviously improvements across the board as we go into the third and fourth quarter. Anita, a lot of that is just due to the fact, which I'm going to try and change this, where we hunt all the maintenance and shutdowns into the first half of the year to try and bolster the fourth quarter, which I'm sure we're not the only ones who do that.

As far as other changes maybe down in the weeds a bit, let me just ask each of the COOs to give you an answer. Can we start with you, Seb?

If there's obviously Loulo-Gounkoto ramp-up, is there anything else Anita should know?

No, I think you'll see most of the sites, especially Kibali, you'll start seeing a production improve. There's been some maintenance work in this first quarter, I think, but Loulo-Gounkoto for us really is, as you say, is the Q1.

Tim?

The key for us is that we keep continuing the Goldrush underground expansion. You'll see Cortez was up for the quarter, and that's really the key driver there as we deliver that body of work.

Greg, Porgera is obviously included?

Exactly. Porgera experienced a challenging first quarter due to some sort of one-off events and also planned maintenance, we should see an uptick for Q2.

Veladero should broadly be in line. No real big change.

Veladero, Anita, just so we're clear, because we did pull some ounces forward, as you would have seen, into Q1, again, it's just we're just drawing down inventory on the pad, we'll have to pay for that in Q2 at Veladero. Okay.

Then

my final question. There was a press release, I guess, came out April 28th on a update on the IPO process.

I was intrigued by your commentary about discussions on bringing Fourmile into the fold, I guess, and I'm not sure if that's earlier than planned or not, or maybe I was just reading into that and hoping for that. Could you get some color on how does Fourmile fit in?

What are the nature of discussions with Newmont at this stage?

Sure. Look, the relationship with Newmont has, well, completely changed.

One of the things we did offer Newmont is look, come in and have a look at Fourmile early, because eventually it has to come in the joint venture, and Newmont will be part of that. Now, the trigger, as you point out, is not now, it's not till I think the feasibility in 2029 where we have to actually reach agreement.

There seemed no reason not to give them full access to the data, and then we can have a discussion going forward about how we want to manage it. They're still going through that data, I really haven't got an update past that.

I guess I was wondering is there any possibility of it coming into the fold earlier than the feasibility study? You mentioned the PFS will be done in 2028, I'm curious as to whether or not you can come to an agreement to bring it forward.

Anita, if we can reach an agreement, we would bring it in, for sure. That's not an easy question to answer because obviously at the PA level, who's comfortable on which parts of it, and we'll have that discussion, like I said, though.

It will be an open discussion, and we'll just see. If we can bring it in early, we will, and if we can't, we'll leave it as per the current agreement.

I will stop there, and hope Tanya can get on and probably ask her question around the audits that Newmont is doing. Thanks.

Actually, operator, I've got your actual email. I'm not sure, do you want to try once more to see if you can actually ask the question?

Otherwise, I will read them out.

Can you hear me now?

I can hear you now. Thank goodness.

I thought we were going to get a complex and...

Oh, thank goodness. Oh, my goodness.

Okay. Man, I feel like that, what's his name, Tom Hanks, Cast Away.

We made contact here. Okay.

All right. Thank you for trying three times.

I do want to say, Mark, congrats on improving the safety at Nevada Gold Mines and underground. It's a majority there, and one of my first questions on Nevada Gold Mines is you've seen the improved productivity, have you also seen an improvement in the turnover?

That's a good question. The turnover hasn't changed as far as I know.

I'm looking at Seb and Tim, they're nodding, I think the morale and the excitement about NGM and where it's going is definitely evident on the ground. I was there actually with Natascha last week, and we went and did a line-out, and everyone seems focused, I would hope that that turnover number starts to improve, but no, it hasn't as yet.

Remind me, was it 12% we saw? 12%?

Sorry, Tanya, I had trouble hearing you. I thought it was 12 or is it 12 or 14%, Tim?

14%.

14%. 14%.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you for that. Just again at Nevada Gold Mines, and I know Anita asked on bringing Newmont in earlier for Fourmile once it's concluded and stuff.

Is there anything in your discussions with them, I know that you only have a PEA and they like to have a feasibility study with meaningful reserves, I guess, for US GAAP for them to kind of run calculations. Is there a way that this could be also brought in over a period of time?

Is that an option as well?

Actually, Tanya, I'm not sure. Look, I don't want to speak on behalf of Newmont here, I need to be a bit careful, but look, as I said, they have all the information now, including all the financial model, and if we can bring it in early, I can't see how that is not advantageous to both of us, but I really can't say much more than that.

I certainly can't speak to what they're thinking at this stage.

Okay. Thank you for that.

If I could ask on just Mali. Obviously, a lot of country issues that are occurring there, and I keep getting asked on the impact to you and your operations, supplies, and others.

Can you just give us an update on anything, any impacts that are happening to you because of country issues versus your own, how you do your mining plan?

Sorry, Tanya, this you're talking just specifically Mali, yes?

Yes, specifically Mali.

Okay. Look, I'll start off, and then I'm going to hand over to Seb.

Obviously, we've had a good run, as you've seen, we've been unimpeded in getting this thing up and running, which was a pleasant surprise. The road blocks, all the difficulties that Seb's facing, actually, I'll hand over to Seb, and let him speak for himself if there's anything he wants to highlight.

Look, Tanya, we haven't had any impact on our operations. Our supply chain is coming through Senegal, it doesn't really impact us, the road blocks that's into Bamako.

We've got at least five months of supplies on our key inventory holdings. Most of our contractors are local, really, and diesel's also not been an issue.

We've secured about three months of stock with a strong pipeline. We're operating as normal at the moment, and there's been no impact.

Okay. Then, Mark, if I could just have my final question just on the IPO of the North American assets.

Can you just review with us the timeline of all of the documentation that, first of all, all the documentation that are required, sort of the timeline that you need them all filed and available to the public before so that you can make the year-end deadline, because if we don't have it by X date, then do we slip into 2027? I just want to understand documents that we need, I think, audited financials, etc., and when should we get that in the market?

Tanya. Look, obviously, I know that a high-level timeline, but let me hand it over to George, and he can probably give you a bit more granular detail.

Thanks, Tanya. How are you?

Sorry,

just in terms of answering your question, we need to file with the SEC, we need to file with TSX. Those, I know it's frustrating that advisors tell me that I can't say much, but effectively, what we're looking at is we'll be public sometime late in the summer, which then allows us to access the market in the fall, which is why we're confident that we can do this by year-end this year.

Just to be clear, we've been working since the board gave us the approval at the last board meeting, we've been working on these documents, like you said, the financials, etc. Those have all been done, and we're in the process of filing all of that.

Like I said, it will be done by late summer, you'll have all the information, we'll be able to answer all the questions.

Am I correct that you need 3-year financials, you need to file technical reports on Nevada Gold Mines, Fourmile, and Pueblo Viejo again? Is that correct assumption?

That's correct. The perimeter is obviously NGM, PV plus Fourmile.

That's what the financials will reflect.

Look forward to getting those documents. Thank you for taking my questions, and thank you for your patience.

Thanks, Tanya. Nice to hear from you.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, Martin.

Perfect. Can you explain how the equity pickup in Kibali was $204 million in Q1, and this is similar to the equity pickup in the whole year 2025?

I'm not sure I understand that question. Seb, can you answer that?

Sorry, just repeat it. I didn't get that.

I'm sorry, can you...

The equity pickup in first Q 2026 for Kibali was $204 million, which is similar to the equity pickup that you had in the full 2025. What happened?

It's much higher than the same quarter last year. What happened there?

Is there any extraordinary thing?

Look, there's nothing extraordinary, I think what I would suggest is to send us an email so that we can understand exactly what you're pointing to.

Sorry, Bruce, do you want to comment? He's not online.

Okay. Sorry, Martin, can we come back to you on that?

Sure.

Oh hang on, sorry. Helen's just waved her hand.

This is mainly the reversal of the super-profit tax. That is our current answer to you.

If there's anything more, we'll follow up with you offline.

The reversal of what?

Super-profit tax.

I can't say...

Okay. How big that was?

I don't know, Martin. Look, can we follow up offline?

I think and we'll get you a proper...

Okay. Fair enough.

Maybe it's too detailed. That's fine.

Thank you.

It's not too detailed, I just don't know the answer.

Good morning, everyone. Just a quick follow-up, I guess this one's for Helen, regarding the NCIB.

Are there any restrictions in buying back shares once the IPO process is underway?

Hi. Thank you for your question.

Yes, there will be blackout periods according to all the regulations. Our buyback will be executed only when it is regulatory possible.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

it seems we have the same problem again. Brian, you're welcome to email the question and we'll answer.

Sorry. Hi, Mark.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you now, Brian, yes.

Sorry about that. I just having a hard time here, too.

I'm just following up on one of your earlier questions about non-core assets. You mentioned Porgera, but is there anything on the copper side, historically with some discussion that over time Zaldívar might be potentially divested?

Any comment on that at all, please?

Brian, yes, there's no process or anything going on at the moment to divest or sell Zaldívar, no.

Thanks so much.

Thanks, Brian.

Great, thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to speaking with you again on our second quarter results call in August.

As always, please get in touch with us if you have any further follow-up questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Cheers.