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

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

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

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

With that, I'll turn it over to Mark.

All right. Thanks, Emily, and good morning, everyone.

For those who don't know Emily, she is our new Vice President, Investor Relations, and joins us from U.S. Steel.

Before we share our full quarterly results, I want to begin with the agreement with Newmont we announced today. Actually, I want to go off-script straight away to make the lawyers nervous here.

I want to clarify a few misconceptions here. Firstly, the total value of that package is approximately $4 billion.

Obviously it includes the proportion of Fourmile, but it also includes contribution of Newmont's properties, Mike and Fiberline, which add, I think it's around 6.4 million ounces as well. It is also the cost of resolving historical disputes and litigation between the joint venture partners.

It also reduces the friction costs of the planned IPO, which will unlock even greater value for the shareholders beyond the cash proceeds from the transaction. As we've said, they will be largely returned to the shareholders.

Moving on, we've reached this agreement after four months of negotiations, it now enables us to focus on delivering value through safely and consistently producing ounces, and our interests now are completely aligned as joint venture partners, which is critical. I did want to actually thank our counterparts at Newmont, Natascha and their team, and, of course, everyone on the Barrick team for the enormous amount of effort and work that's gone into this over the last four months to reach this agreement.

Now so before I get into the results, there's also a couple of other things I would like to highlight, which I think are the key strengths that have come out of Barrick over the last nine months. First, our leadership team.

Over the last 10 months, we've improved the operational performance across the entire business. That's thanks to the strength of our operating and site teams, right, to our GMs and everyone right down through to the mining front.

We've also strengthened our relationship with Newmont, as we've just said, positioning us well to grow and develop NGM further, which is also critical. Second, with the IPO, we're building the only major American pure-gold company with high-quality, long-life assets.

This is exactly what investors, including some of the world's fastest-growing sources of capital, are looking for. Third, outside of North America, the rest of the world portfolio, which has a significant growth profile, also has a distinctive advantage in our ability to work with our Chinese partners, including, as a joint mine ownership and co-investment.

This enables us greater efficiency and supply chain strength, which has helped us control capex and partnership to improve outcomes and reduce our risk. With this context, let me turn to our results for the quarter.

As I said, we've had our third quarter in a row with excellent operating and financial results. We delivered on all four of our priorities for the year, the same priorities outlined at the start of the year.

We continue to improve our safety performance. I'll get to that a bit later, but there's obviously still more work to be done there.

We delivered our gold production above guidance and met our cost guidance. We advanced our growth projects, Fourmile, Lumwana, and the PV expansion, which remain on time and on budget.

Not often you hear that in the mining industry. We continue to review Reko Diq and commenced the slowdown of development on the 1st of July, as previously disclosed.

Delivering on production and meeting our cost guidance also allowed us to deliver strong financial results, which Helen will discuss a bit later. Finally, we achieved major milestones in the preparation of the IPO of our North American gold assets, which is on track to be completed by the end of the year.

Let me move to safety, which is still our number one priority, and our goal is that everyone at Roxxy goes home safe and healthy every day. We saw a reduction quarter-on-quarter in our frequency rate.

We've seen that from 0.92 to 0.77. Disappointingly, we still had six LTIs.

There's still a lot of work to do. It's completely unacceptable, and we need to focus on our safety until we get to our target of zero harm.

All of our leaders, all the way up to the executive committee including myself, are spending more time in the field and at the mine site. They're doing more critical control verifications and fixing more risks on the spot.

On top of that, we've also invested over $90 million this year in technology to improve safety. This includes obvious automation of mining equipment right down to vehicle dash cams, safety reporting software, and AI analytics.

We're also working hard to engineer out as many safety hazards as possible. Turning to our Q2 highlights, actually before I start on the Q2 highlights, one other thing I'd like to clarify about earnings, which 82 cents, adjusted earnings 82 cents per share, is in line with the Bloomberg consensus.

I know there's some media out there this morning that says it's not, that we missed, but I'm not sure what the source of that is. Barrick produced 900 796,000 ounces of gold in the quarter, which was 3% above guidance and 11% over Q1.

The main drivers of that were we progressed the ramp-up of Loulo-Gounkoto ahead of schedule. PV ramped up faster than expected after the maintenance shutdown in Q1.

We mined record tons underground at Cortez and continued the ramp-up of Goldrush. On the copper side, we produced 56,000 tons.

We managed costs well, and our gold costs, as I said, were within guidance. Our earnings nearly doubled year-over-year, and we more than doubled quarterly shareholder returns to $1.5 billion.

The strong performance for Q2 is obvious across all of our regions, North America continued to anchor our world-class portfolio. NGM and PV both registered year-over-year revenue growth.

Together, they accounted for 53% of our total attributable adjusted EBITDA at a margin of 61%. Our other regions also delivered strong gold production with meaningful attributable EBITDA at margins of 59%.

Copper continued to perform well and delivered comparable margins to our gold business. Moving on to growth, as I said, our growth projects advanced on schedule during the quarter.

Fourmile, we ramped up the drilling to 20 active rigs, and we plan to complete the PFS by the end of 2028. At Lumwana, we made good progress on the mill expansion, which will double the copper production.

We expect the project's 2026 capex to come in at the lower end of guidance, and the project remains on budget. We're on track to produce our first copper from the expansion by the end of Q1 in 2028.

The PV expansion also advanced on schedule. We've made progress on permitting and construction across the tailings facility, haul roads, and water treatment plant.

We're also very pleased to report that we now have 90% of resettlement packages been accepted. We continue to review Reko Diq, as previously disclosed, and we've decided we won't start building the plant this year, we've reduced our expected 2026 attributable capex.

It was $600 to $700 million and is now $450 to $500 million. The lower spend on Reko Diq has reduced our group guidance for 2026 total attributable capex to $3.8 to $4.2 billion.

Back to the IPO of our North American assets. As I said, this entity will be a high-quality, pure-gold play company, which assets are located exclusively in low-risk jurisdictions.

What I'm pleased to share is that the board has selected me to lead the new company as the CEO upon launch. We've completed all operating and separation agreements between Barrick and the new company, and we remain on track to complete the IPO by the end of the year.

We expect the vast majority of net proceeds raised to be returned to shareholders. I know several people have asked me in the past.

I'll now turn it over to Helen Cai, our CFO, who will review our financial performance.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. Q2 marked the third consecutive quarter of strong production, cost performance, and financial results.

Net earnings were $1.2 billion, a 50% increase year-over-year. Adjusted net earnings was $1.36 billion, which equates to adjusted EPS of 82 cents, in line with Bloomberg consensus.

Attributable adjusted EBITDA of 2.4 $2.5 billion was up 51% year-over-year with a 59% margin. On a cash flow basis, the second quarter is typically our lowest each year for free cash flow due to the timing of our annual tax and interest payments.

This quarter, we also incurred a one-time $200 million payment related to Loulo-Gounkoto. Combined, these led to a 33% decline in year-over-year attributable free cash flow.

Excluding this, attributable free cash flow for the quarter would have been over 60% higher year-over-year. Year-to-date, attributable free cash flow has been $1.4 billion, more than double the same period last year.

Turning to the operations, gold production increased 11% quarter-over-quarter and exceeded guidance. We continued to operate within our cost guidance, reflecting an acute focus on operational efficiencies to offset fuel price pressures.

We closed Q2 with a healthy $1.2 billion of net cash on the balance sheet, giving us flexibility to continue investing in our highest return opportunities and returning capital to shareholders. Turning to our capital allocation framework, we have three priorities: first, managing the balance sheet with discipline; second, investing in our assets to drive earnings-accretive growth; and third, returning capital to shareholders.

Our framework is designed to be sustainable through the cycle. On the balance sheet, we ended the quarter with meaningful access to liquidity, an undrawn $3 billion revolving credit facility, and no meaningful debt due until 2033.

Turning to our portfolio, Lumwana and Fourmile are two clear examples where we are strategically deploying capital into organic opportunities that we believe will generate superior returns. More broadly, we intend to identify similar earnings-accretive opportunities to strengthen our gross profile while remaining disciplined in how and when we deploy capital.

This is not about growth for the sake of it. It is about creating value over time with a suite of assets that has extraordinary gross potential.

Finally, we are executing against our capital return policy. Our dividend policy provides for a quarterly base dividend of 17.5 cents per share with an additional performance top-up at year-end to target a total payout of 50% of attributable free cash flow.

We also completed $1.2 billion of share repurchases this quarter of the $3 billion authorization that was announced last quarter. In the three quarters since new leadership began in October 2025, Barrick has returned $3 billion in dividends and buybacks to shareholders, more than double the prior corresponding period.

We expect a careful execution of our capital allocation strategy to drive further shareholder returns. In summary, our capital allocation framework is disciplined, flexible, and designed to work throughout the cycle.

It supports reinvestment in the business, advances growth, protects the balance sheet, and creates a clear pathway for returning excess cash to shareholders. With that, I will turn the call back over to Mark.

Okay. Thank you, Helen.

Just on guidance, our 2026 production and cost guidance remain unchanged. For the third quarter, we expect gold production to be higher than Q2, consistent with our plan, and we expect even higher production in the fourth quarter.

Copper production should also increase in the second half of the year relative to the first half. To say it again, since October 2025, we have consistently delivered against our strategic priorities and set a new standard of operational performance.

Again, I would like to congratulate our GMs and our people on the site. We continue to focus on controlling costs, capital intensity, and productivity.

Based on what we see today, we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our full-year commitments for 2026. Just a couple of things to conclude.

Obviously again, I'm going to finish with the most important thing, which is safety. As I said, even though we've seen significant improvements, everyone is still focused on making sure every employee goes home safe every day.

We've improved our operational consistency, which is what I said, and we've delivered on our guidance again. As I said before, we've delivered on all our projects that are on time and on budget, and I will say again, I'm not sure how many times you hear that in the mining industry.

We have advanced our North American IPO on schedule as well. We're basically on track to execute against all the four priorities that we set at the start of the year.

Again, I want to say, and of course, we've transformed this relationship with Newmont, which allows us to get full value and expand NGM. With that, I'll hand it back to the moderator for Q&A.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, operator. Thank you, Mark, for those introductory comments and some of the numbers that were provided.

I'm wondering if you can maybe break down more of information behind the different values that would have been attributed to the agreement components. I guess what would have been Mike and Fiberline within that $1.95 billion and then perhaps what the adjustments would have been to the prior disputes.

Thank you.

Okay. Josh, just to be clear, I'm not going to break it down.

On the prior disputes, I can't give a number on that. We would have had to go through a process to actually get to that number.

I got to where we are. Then on the structural changes, now that we have this agreement done, we're actually going to go away and optimize this structure for the IPO.

As you can imagine, that's a bit of a work in process thing. The overall value that we had on the table at the end of these discussions was about $4 billion, as I highlighted.

Just one other thing, Josh, the thing I want to highlight is since I started this job, NGM has a lot of opportunity. The assets well, and I'm sure you agree with that.

There's been no increase in processing capacity there for years. We're dealing with 25-year-old infrastructure.

Then we have something like Fourmile that comes in, which is a world-class asset, and the answer is that we're just going to feed that through the current infrastructure and delay the other ounces, which anywhere else in the world if you found that number of ounces, you would be wanting to bring that in early. My discussions with Natascha and Newmont right from word go was how do we get this together so we can optimize NGM?

By optimize, I want to look at increasing processing capacity, I want to stop trucking ore all over the state, and the only way I can do that is if we combine all these assets now and work together to see if we can justify a roaster or an autoclave and what we need to build them, what infrastructure we need at Cortez, to process Fourmile and Goldrush, get our cost structure in place, and increase our overall ounces. Where we've landed now, at least we're in a position in my view to add a lot of value very quickly without getting into these disputes about allocation of resources.

Obviously, Josh, there'll be a lot of synergies as well because we're just going to use the same team, we're going to combine them all together, all the same equipment, and we can advance this a lot quicker. That was obviously my ultimate goal.

Great. Thank you for that detail.

Just a follow-up question. With this resolution now completed, is the company considering a different structure in the IPO versus the 10-15% minority that was historically reviewed and could you go larger?

If the company went larger or under what circumstances would there be a shareholder vote?

Josh, it'll still stay at 10%. I don't see any advantage.

It's just the way the company is structured. Anyone correct me if

George, sorry, it's George speaking. That's exactly it.

I think that's just a matter of looking at the structures that we started looking at right at the beginning, comparing it to the current structure, because, as Mark said, friction costs within that. We'll also look at where it's domiciled, etc.

There's all these things that we need to go back and look at now that we have the agreement with Newmont. Again, as Mark said, that's where the value comes as well.

We have this flexibility and option added.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Josh.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

I can hear you, Tanya. How are you?

How are you? Houston, we've made contact.

This is awesome. Congratulations on your new role.

Just three

questions if I could. The first one is just coming back to Josh's question.

Should we be thinking, Mark, that it was $4 billion of the Newmont assets plus disputes plus the $2 billion that is the top-up for a total of $6 billion, is that how we should be thinking about the price paid?

Tanya, it's $4 billion total package.

Oh, okay. All right.

Thank you for that. Should I be thinking about that the cash that Newmont is paying for this, is this going to be part of the cash coming into the IPO or would this $2 billion be cash that is going to be potentially used for share buybacks and or the top-up dividend at the end of 20 20 4 2026?

Okay. Sorry, you're very hard to hear, but Tanya, I think if I got the question right, the cash we get back would be the majority of it will be returned to shareholders, correct.

Okay. Then my final question, Mark, just for some of the processes for this IPO still, you've mentioned that you've done your separation agreements, I think everything has been filed with the SEC, the technical report.

What are we still waiting for? Is it just approval from the SEC, filing the three and a half-year financials, completing the new board?

Maybe just the process of what we need to go for this to go live. Thank you.

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

Thanks, Mark. Tanya, I would say we're actually very close, but like I said, now that we have this agreement with Newmont and their consent, one of the things we want to do is go back and look at how previous structures and compare that to what we have today.

We just want to go do that and make sure we do our diligence and understand the impact of that, because we think they are big savings there. That's where we are at the moment.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Tanya.

Thank you very much, operator. Hi, Mark.

Good morning to you and the team. Congratulations on that.

Just a couple of questions. To follow up on Fourmile, I noted that the PFS is still on track for completion in 2028.

However, with it now vended into NGM, is there any scope to speed up development and potentially have the asset in production earlier than what the initial PEA had indicated or around sort of early 20 30s? Then, yeah, so that's the first question.

Okay. Thanks, Lawson.

Look, obviously, my intention is to accelerate this as fast as possible. Now that we sort of got through this process, I think that that allows us to accelerate it for sure.

Now, we're still going to be limited by permitting timelines and things like that. Where I think we can really advance it is on the processing side as well, right, because I'm going to advance that, and I've already talked to Natascha about we're going to advance that all in parallel while we're driving those declines and doing this drilling.

It may not come on earlier, but hopefully when it comes on, we'll be able to ramp it up a lot quicker and to actually a higher production target. That would be my target.

Okay. Very helpful.

Thank you, Mark. Then maybe if I could jump to the IPO.

After the initial minority interest is spun out and at this point, have you changed your thinking on what could come after? I think you had indicated previously that just being an initial minority interest IPO and that that would be it.

Is there any thought to eventually IPO-ing 100% of BNA at this point?

No. Lawson, not at this point.

I think we're still on track to do the 10% and just show the value and highlight the value of a dedicated management team. Just by the way, we have already pretty much split the management team, and hopefully you've noticed the change in production and safety and things like that with just having that dedicated focus.

Anyway, to answer your question, no, there's no update of we're going to go past 10%.

Okay. Very helpful.

Then in terms of the process, will there be a marketing process that will kick off in the relatively near future?

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

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

Okay. Great.

Thank you very much for taking the questions.

Thanks, Lawson.

Hi. Good morning, and Mark, congratulations on your new role and on improving operations at NGM.

My first question was with respect to the capital that you were talking about. I think you just talked about sort of declining infrastructure, and I'm just wondering what the capital would look like for a new roaster or a facility of that sort, and then what can we also expect in terms of NGM capital going forward?

Okay. That's a good question, Anita.

On the roaster, I want to re-optimize the whole process flow. You've been there several times, you've seen what it's like.

The roaster, we've actually got Hatch looking at that provenly now. I would have said it's $2.5 billion.

I don't really know, but it'd be around that number. That will offset a lot of things, as you know.

It'll be tracking stuff all over the country side as well, and it would reduce some other infrastructure requirements. Then as far as other capital, and Seb will help me out, there's nothing else.

What else is material that's coming up in NGM?

It's really Fourmile, which is obviously our development of Fourmile as we've guided the market.

Yeah. In

the conceptual PEA, it indicated $1.5 to $1.7 billion that will be spending over the next few years on Fourmile. Apart from that, naturally, they've guided capital for that.

We are planning this year for some capital for the expenditure that we have on replacing our truck fleets at Turquoise Ridge. Actually, the project cross is also for the autonomous hauling that we have at Carlin and has followed the success we've had with those projects.

We still also expect the capital in line with what we've guided previously for North America.

Thanks, Seb. Does that answer, Anita?

That's a good answer. I think I also wanted to ask about the Fourmile PEA.

I understand you are moving forward with a PFS with a different type of structure, I guess, in terms of what you're looking for infrastructure, but should that not have been filed 45 days after you announced the PEA? I would venture to say that that's probably part of the reason why you're seeing your share price move because we don't really have a barometer right now outside of a slide deck that'll give you bare essentials in terms of how to model this.

You're seeing wide degrees of variance in terms of what people are modeling for Fourmile. Would you be able to file the PEA that was put out last year so at least we have something to go with while this PFS comes out?

Actually, Anita, it's a fair question. Do you reckon that's why our share price is down 7%?

If everyone's debating whether or not what the $2 billion is and people are backing out something lower, which is something that you said on the call, then it's because they're not certain of what the Fourmile value is.

Okay. I haven't got a good answer to that, Unidentified Speaker 1:

When we issued the PEA, it was conceptual in nature, and it still hasn't converted to a technical report.

Okay. Anita, you're saying you haven't got enough information, basically, what you're saying?

Yeah. There were a lot of things that are unknown in terms of mining methodology, unit costs, right?

We didn't know about this NPI, right? That was one major thing that was embedded in there, but nobody knew about.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. I also just wanted to ask in terms of Fiberline

Sorry, Anita,

sure.

We will take that away, right, and see how we can do a better job with that. I understand what you're asking, I'll work something out and come back to you.

Okay. I wanted to try one last time on the Fiberline and Mike.

Can you give us some round numbers in terms of what that would add to the equation? By the math, I would assume that Newmont is paying in for Fourmile, but you guys are reciprocally paying for their 38.5% of Fourmile and Mike and so it's the net.

I guess it's 6. 61.5% that they're vending in of those specific assets to get to a collective $4 billion, is that the right way to look at it?

Yeah. The right way is yes, we're paying for 61 .5% of Mike and Fiberline and that other settlement amount, which we're certainly not going to get into.

Look, Anita, we agreed we were just going to go out with a number, and that was what it is. Look, I apologize, but no, I can't give you that breakdown.

Okay. All right.

I guess with the IPO coming up, people are trying to understand what that significant component of Fourmile is, any additional information would be helpful. Thank you.

I'll leave it there.

Thanks, Anita. Appreciate it.

Hi team, and thanks for the questions. Sorry, just a clarification on the $4 billion, just to be clear.

Is that the combined transaction value of 61.5% of Fiberline and Mike and 38.5% of Fourmile or is it just the Fourmile component? Sorry if that's already been stated.

Sorry. When you net everything together, and anyone jump in here if I get this wrong, right, to get to the $4 billion number, it is the value of Fourmile, the 38%.

Then you have to net off the value of 61.5% of Fiberline and Mike. There is some money in there to settle some legacy disputes, for want of another word, right, as well.

Then if you want to understand the full value, there's obviously some benefit to Barrick by getting that consent and reducing the friction costs on the IPO.

Okay.

I've probably made it very complicated, Daniel, but

No, no. That's okay, just being clear.

That's fine. Then you've alluded to some of this already, but if I look at the high-level parameters of the 2025 PEA, 600-750,000 ounces, $1.5 to $1.7 billion of capex, and $650 to $700 all-in sustaining cost, you suggested this $2.5 billion more capex maybe on downstream processing and maybe some upside to the production.

Would it still be fair to assume that the all-in sustaining cost would be comparable to the $650

to $700? I would say it's comparable.

Hopefully,

depending where we locate that roaster, Did you want to say something, Seb?

There is one point that we would raise, and sorry, Seb speaking. The AISC ranges that we put out part of the conceptual PEA were naturally based at the consensus gold prices at the time, which from memory was round about $2,500 or just in excess.

If you do apply today's long-term analyst consensus prices of $3,600 an ounce, there's about $100 dollar sensitivity for every $1,000 that the gold price moves. The right way would be to look at it is to say the range that we've put out previously plus $100 to take into account the fact that the gold price has moved by $1,000 an ounce.

Okay. Daniel, just to go back though, just to the engineering side of it, obviously, the idea is that we increase the overall production capacity in Nevada, or reduce trucking.

Yes, there'll be more capital, but it will increase the production profile and lower the cost. That would be the target.

Okay. Sorry, the line wasn't totally clear.

At $3,600, you'd add a $100 bucks to the $650 to $700. Was that what you alluded to, just to be clear?

That is correct. Yes.

That incorporates the tech NPI sensitivity in there?

Correct. It includes all royalties including the tech.

Okay. That's clear.

Then sorry, just final question on this. In terms of if we're looking at the valuation of the standalone project or relative to what's implied in the $4 billion and the various elements, can you provide some more detail on whether Newmont benefited from any assumptions around their 38.5% share of the infrastructure in that calculation that was imputed in the value of today's transaction?

I'm not sure I understand that question, Daniel.

What do you There's a net off against displacing other material from the process plants. How is that adjustment made?

Yes, and that is taken into account. That was taken into account by the two technical teams.

By the way, the two technical teams, one from Newmont and one from Barrick, sat down with the models and all of the data and went right back and took all of that into account when we came up with these figures.

Okay. Thank you.

Maybe just one more if I could. Mark, you're going to be leading the IPO vehicle.

Can you give us any indication of how advanced you are in recruiting for senior management positions in the parent company? Look.

We're advancing that discussion, right, and for the next leader of Barrick, and I would say shortly is the right term. We'll update the market shortly.

It's an advanced process, Daniel.

Okay. Thanks so much for the questions.

Thanks, Daniel.

Hey, good morning, Mark and Helen. Congrats on the strong quarter.

Thank you for taking my question. I want to pivot to a slightly different topic here.

I'm wondering if you can discuss in more detail ramp plans for Loulo-Gounkoto, specifically in regard to the push into open-pit ore, what sort of capex may be required to support this, and risk appetite to do so?

Okay. Thanks, Bennett.

I'm going to hand that over to Seb, thanks, Seb.

I think the best way to explain Loulo-Gounkoto at the moment is, as we've said, we've ramped it up quite successfully. What it has become is it's become self-sustaining.

Therefore, any capital and growth at the moment that we are funding is self-sustained funding. Our expected growth for next year would start coming from the Baboto pushbacks and the open pits on probably early or middle of the second quarter.

That's I think most I can say at the moment. We are still looking at optimizing those plans, but certainly, we would be starting to move into the open pits in the first half of next year.

Thanks, Seb.

All right. Thanks for that context.

Then maybe on the production cadence overall. I know you gave some commentary, Mark, on the back half for both gold and copper, but NGM and PV tracking towards the high end, LG tracking ahead.

What level of conservatism do you feel is kind of baked in at this stage?

I don't think it's conservatism necessarily, but Bennett, look, we're going to hit our guidance, as I said. Just I suppose to put something else on the table, we've had Veladero down for I think it's two weeks now.

We had a weather event where we had to evacuate everyone. I'm sure you probably saw it on social media and things out of Chile and in Argentina.

That has hit us. Porgera has been down for the opposite reason because Waile Creek dam dried up and we had to shut the whole plant down.

While I'm still confident we're hitting guidance, and you're right, NGM is in a good place and so is PV, we have had some other issues throughout the portfolio, Both of them are actually Mother Nature events and not actually operational problems. I still think the guidance is fine, but it's certainly not conservative.

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

Who's got that number? It was 14%.

Someone else brought this up. Does anyone know what the answer is?

I'll have to get back to you on that, Bennett. It's a good question and it's something we are actually focused on is making Barrick, and especially NGM, the employer of choice, right?

It's not that long ago that everyone wanted a job at Barrick. We are working on that.

As I said, the culture at NGM, despite what might have been in some articles, has, in my opinion, turned around completely, right? You can tell that just by the performance that I said, their production performance, their safety performance, just when you go there, the attitude of the workforce is certainly better than what it was.

I'll get you the actual number if you can write that down and we'll come back to you.

Understood. Thank you.

Best of luck.

Thanks, Bennett.

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

Okay.

Good morning. A broader question then maybe I'll follow up with the NGM.

The broader question would be if I think about the ex-North America business, is there anything you're contemplating in terms of portfolio management on that asset base, and is that going to be slowed down by the IPO process?

Sorry, Bob. Explain that to me a bit more.

What do you mean by that?

Think of all the assets you have. There's a lot of natural partners or natural owners of some of your assets that sit outside of North America.

Does the North America IPO process sort of take all of your attention, and therefore we shouldn't expect a lot of portfolio management for the non-North American businesses as we proceed, say, into the year-end or early 2027?

Look, actually, Bob, the rest of the world portfolio is actually one of our biggest growth things. We talk about NGM a lot, but actually we had just at our recent board meeting actually we had a whole session on growth for the rest of the world because of the potential.

You've seen what's going on at Lumwana and even around Kibali and what we can do there. The current plan is definitely to grow the rest of the world.

That's what the focus will be. Seb, if you want to jump in and

add I think you've covered it, Mark. I think the most important thing on the rest of the world is that, firstly, we are looking how we can best optimize that portfolio, and in terms of what Mark suggested around the partnerships that we're able to leverage.

Also we have a real embedded growth profile, especially brownfields growth around most of our operations. You have already embedded infrastructure, and of course that's probably the lowest-cost ounces you're going to add into your production profile.

Then, as you said, we've got the Lumwana expansion on the copper

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

Very clear. A quick follow-up on the agreement with Newmont.

Are there any contingent payments involved at all, say, for hitting exploration upside, or can we consider it pretty much done independent of future exploration success?

No, it's done, Bob.

Okay. Very clear.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks, Mark, for taking my question. I just wanted to follow up a little bit on how you intend to optimize NGM and potentially accelerate Fourmile.

I think Lawson and Anita asked most of my questions, but maybe you could just talk a little bit about permitting requirements and what would be required there?

Okay. Thanks, Steven.

Look, on the permitting, obviously we want to get the permit for Bullhook, Fiberline, Goldrush, it's our first And after that, when I look at this, which again is why it's critical that we got this joint venture sorted out, I have to understand what we can do as far as processing before I can even start the permitting. I'm trying to accelerate that for that very reason.

It's probably not a bad time to get permits in Nevada as well. I can't give you a clear answer on the timing on the permits and that sort of thing, but now that we've got this agreement in place, we're going to sit down and completely optimize Nevada and that ore flow.

I know Newmont is supportive also of sort of increasing processing capacity. Steven, we always get into the same discussion.

We're just going to have to thrash out which is autoclave versus roaster and where it should be positioned. I just haven't got a clear answer on that, but that's what we'll be accelerating starting tomorrow.

Thanks. Just to follow up again on Fiberline and Mike, I believe you said there were roughly 6.4 million ounces in those properties.

Is that correct? Were those inferred ounces?

Actually, anyone know what the breakdown of the 6.4 is? I was just going through the presentation before this.

I'll get back to you on that, Steven.

Thanks. Where roughly are those properties and kind of how far advanced are they?

Fiberline is close to the infrastructure of Turquoise Ridge, and I think that is in a reasonable status. It's an open pit, it would be in that of a satellite deposit.

Mike, at this stage, I haven't put a lot of value towards that. Mainly Fiberline.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Steve.

Hi. Thank you for taking my question.

I wonder if you have given any thought about floating 10% of the ex-North America as well?

Floating 10% of it?

Floating 10% of you basically now you're going to have almost two companies, like the North America and everything else, right, the rest of the world. Could you down the line float 10% of the non-North America the same way you're doing now the IPO for the North American asset?

Okay. Look, Martin, I got to be honest, we have not had that discussion.

It's never come up, it's certainly not on the table at the moment.

Okay. The second question I have is, in other expenses, there was this $200 million for Loulo-Gounkoto because you are applying, if I understand correctly, the 2023 law retroactively.

Was that part of the original agreement, and if it was, why it was not included in the previous quarters? Okay.

Look, this is a bit of a fluid situation, as you could probably imagine, but let me hand it over to Helen to explain that.

Hi, thank you for the question. The nature of the spending is additional royalties, penalties, and associated interest based on the retrospective application of the 2023 mining code, specifically for the year of 2024 and 2025.

Previously, we had already settled anything related to 2023 and earlier years, but this is specifically for the 2024 and 2025. In terms of the amount paid, we paid cash $200 million in April, and also we had a further payment demand of $48 million that was received in July.

I hope that answers your question.

No, I'm just curious why it was not included in the previous quarters. If it was part of the original agreement, it wouldn't have been provisioned or something?

Maybe you can add to that.

I think maybe to simplify it, the original agreement only covered up to 2023. We continued applying our conventions.

Through that period where we were negotiating and in dispute, we still applied our original conventions. This was effectively as per the agreement, it only applied the retrospective application to 2023, and therefore we had to do a reconciliation with the government for 2024 and 2025.

This was that payment, effectively.

That's very clear. Thank you.

Thanks, Martin.

Yep, thank you very much, operator, and thank you for taking the follow-up. I'll try to make this really quick.

One, you noted the revisions to the NGM joint venture agreement. Can you give us a little bit more color on the extent to which this would give Newmont additional say in various aspects of the operations, including the release of technical reports and whatnot?

Whatever detail you're able to disclose, I think, would be very helpful.

I think there's a couple of things. Firstly, just as a general thing, it's not actually in the joint venture agreement, but the way we've approached this is completely different, Newmont will have access to whatever information and the site, and we've already done that with Francois and now with David, their technical lead.

Then they come and give any feedback they can and any suggestions, which is always helpful. As far as actual rights go, the main one is around that they do have a right to, and Joe, correct me if I get the language wrong, but when we appoint the general manager of NGM, we have to get their consent to who that is, which I don't have an issue with that at all, right, I think that's fair enough.

Then the other part was, which we agree, which I also think would be quite helpful now that we've reset this relationship and actually want to advance this as quickly as possible, is that we'll likely embed in our executive team at NGM a Newmont employee. It'll go a long way just with the transfer of information and things like that, and they will feel more comfortable with what's going on.

At a high level, that's what we agreed. There was some other things around excluded property committees and other things like that, but really that's been taken care of by the fact we've brought Fourmile and Mike and Fiberline and those things into the joint venture.

It's probably less relevant.

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

My preference is always internal, but at this stage, we haven't got to that conclusion yet who it is. There's internal and external candidates, that's all I really can say.

My preference is obviously internal.

Great. Thanks very much, Mark.

Thanks a lot, Lawson.

Thank you. I just have an emailed question that I'd like to read out.

Given some feedback from shareholders, are you considering a spinout of North America to existing shareholders rather than an IPO structure? The shares of Nevada and PV are distributed to current shareholders rather than diluting existing holders.

Okay. Who asked the question?

Daniel.

No, and like Daniel, a lot of people ask that question, the short answer is no. Anything else, Emily?

That's it. Thank you.

I'll turn it back to the moderator.

Thank you.