Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Barrick 2018 Fourth Quarter Results Conference Call. During the presentation, all participants are in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded and a replay will be available on Barrick's website tonight, February 13, 2019. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mark Bristow, Chief Executive Officer of Barrick. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much. I think it's working. Good morning, everyone. Welcome. As you see, we're starting something new here, face-to-face quarterlies. So, I'm sure we're going to get better at this as we go along. A warm welcome to the people on the call, wherever you are. We have structured so that our investors across the globe are able to participate at a reasonable hour and so those who have phoned in, particularly from London and Africa, you're all very welcome. You'll see that the presentation today is a little different than what it will be in the future. As you know, we closed the transaction on the 1st of January, so the reports for Quarter 4 and 2018 are separate and that's why you've got these two different documents. And then we put a wrapper together to pick up on the forward-looking business. And so I'm going to present the results in that format but, at the same time, I'm going to, as we flow through the assets, also give you some color of how far we've got in the short time we've been officially together and give you a feel of the road ahead for each of the assets. As you know, it's been barely seven weeks since this merger of Barrick and Randgold became effective and what I'm able to tell you is that, in that short time, we've made a really strong start toward our goal of becoming the world's most valued gold company. And I'm sure sometimes that's lost on you but valued means we want everyone to understand that we're a business driving value creation and also valued as a partner and an operator in our host countries. For both John and I, when we were motivating this transaction, we were very clear…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. The first question comes from John Bridges of J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead, sir.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. Congratulations, Mark. Maybe you're going to be lucky with the Reunion purchase and find an asset in Suriname, which is a Dutch name which might be easier to pronounce. But I was wondering, you've given us a five-year production plan -- or, sorry, you've given us an outline for 2019. But you're in the process of figuring out which assets to keep and which assets are non-core. When do you think you're going to have a firmer outline of what the company's going to look like over the next four or five years? Thank you.

Hi there, John. Next week. I'm only saying that because everyone's terrified that I'm going to give you a date. And so I'm not. John, we are working on that. And our guidance for this year is 5.1 to 5.6 and that's before disposals. So, we will adjust that as we go. And I think, again, I would just leave you with the fact that if you look at the Nevada guidance and you look at the PV guidance and you look at the core assets in Africa and add them up, that's the basis going forward. The assets' production plans are going to be there and thereabouts. What we want to do is, of course -- certainly in Nevada, there's a lot of work to do on cutoff grades and rolling out the automation, both at Turquoise Ridge and at Goldstrike. We're just starting to see the benefits of the underground, some very significant efficiency improvements in the Cortez underground, as we move from the old-style Nevada small-scale mining underground to open stope, long hole drilling. And, again, we've got a group of mining engineers and both short-term and long-term planners, along with reviewing the geotechnics, because the geotechnical work is being done, but really looking at the rock integrity and the best way to mine some of these ore bodies. And that's going to take some time. And if you look at Nevada, in each aspect of our business, we're very excited about the work that's being done with the road header in Turquoise Ridge and the ability to mine at a better rate in that rock, which is quite challenging as far as rock goes and support. Already, just as an example, we're changing the support strategy for Goldrush and we expect to do similar changes across…

The next question comes from Mark Magarian of UBS Group. Please go ahead, sir.

Hey, Mark. I have just kind of an extension, I guess, of the previous question. So, it's been said that the portfolio is going to be looked at and you're going to look at disposals, maybe even look at acquisition opportunities as you start to develop what your long-term vision looks like. Given where the gold price is currently, there are a lot of companies trading sort of below book value, more to do with technical reasons and just a bit of sector hate, even though the gold price has been going up. And when you think about new Gold Corp. likely to be looking at sending some of their lower quality assets out for sale also, timing really comes to my mind, given the history of some good timing and bad timing at Barrick, actually, in the past. Now is probably a good time to try and buy certain assets which are on sale, while selling some of the non-core stuff might be better to be prudent to maximize shareholder value until the gold price is higher or, I guess, the sector starts to value those assets a little higher. I just wanted some idea on your perspective on that as that's mine, anyway.

So, as you can imagine, I've got a very full inbox, says Kevin, of people wanting to be considered in asset sales. And I guess it's probably equaled by the number of bankers wanting to derive a fee from being able to sell those assets. So, there's no shortage of energy and support and potential buyers. The one thing that I've learned, we've learned, is it's something we're not going to do in a public forum. So, Barrick's got no bleeders. We've got to filter process all the assets that we might consider to bring to account are contributing to the bottom line. And so, again, it's important that -- and as I said when we announced the deal, it's important -- one of my responsibilities, and Kevin's even more, is when we sell something, we don't diminish its component in the NAV of the business. So, we will do it in the fullness of time. Some of the assets we've got a bit of work to do to make sure that we maximize the sale value and we're busy with that. And others are more saleable in the short term. And, again, we're not sitting on our hands. So, that's what I can say on the asset side. On the acquisition side, you say that, Mark, but it's not my experience. And if you look at the recent goings on in the gold industry, there's been a lot of promises that haven't been met and disappointments and forecast production that just haven't been realized. So, the biggest risk is believing market consensus in trying to buy things. And so it's like -- I think it was Harry Oppenheimer that said many great gold mining, and other mining, opportunities have been killed by a bullet hole. And I can say, from my own experience, many new business opportunities have been destroyed by our due diligence. And so we have and we continue to do regular due diligence, as I think, even in the short period of the last seven weeks, we've done a couple. And so we will continue to look at every opportunity that might merit our due diligence but that filter that you see up there is what's going to drive this business going forward. And so we're not going to be seduced into making those irrational acquisitions that our industry is so very good at. But at the same time, if you stumble and you've got quality, you'll find us at your front door.

All right. So, the focus being on great jurisdiction, high grade, large reserves, and, ultimately, when you talk about stumbling, the opportunity for you to bring in your expertise and provide quite significant synergies, I guess, on the underground front or something. Something that you're good at.

And I think the exciting thing -- and you guys mustn't underestimate this. Everybody said I couldn't leverage the Randgold way. One of the things we've got is that we've got -- Catherine's team is really very capable of taking on more challenges. And she's got the knowledge, the time, and the capacity to do that. Mark Hill would like to have a few more quality assets, wouldn't you, Mark? And then in Africa, you've seen how we've assimilated the Barrick assets. We didn't employ one extra person. In fact, we lost a few. And this is the exciting part of that. We've got some really exciting projects. They're early stage in the El Indio belt, which we identified as a very prospective place. We would like to expand our exploration initiative in Peru. But the most exciting is another Goldrush. And Barrick, out of all the companies in Nevada, has the ounces, quality, and it has the ground. And so, for me, finding another 15 million ounce plus 10 gram near-surface gold deposit myself is much more exciting than buying one. So, I've got no doubt we've got a lot of work to do with the asset base. It's a quality asset base. We are not interested in boosting production. What we want is profitability. Another exciting thing is we've got a very large EBITDA and we now understand how it's been whittled away to a net cash flow, which even then still supports our dividend strategy. But, again, we're going to be focused on converting that EBITDA into more net positive cash flow. And that's the really exciting part of this business. And we're going to be very focused on doing that.

The next question comes from Kip Keen of S&P Global. Please go ahead.

Yes, thanks for taking my question. I just wondered if you might just give me some general comments on where you think you might be at Barrick in five years or so, looking out at the business in the context of the debt paybacks that have been made in the past five or so years. A bit of a different market. So, how are you looking out at the next five years?

So, the one thing I can assure you is that, over the next five years, we're going to deliver on our guidance, which will make us unique. As you know, Randgold delivered on its guidance for 23 years.

Will you be with the company in five years?

Sorry?

Will you be with the company in five years?

Absolutely. I said five years. I say what it takes but five years is at least. I don't do a deal and then walk off. Remember, I'm invested in this organization, personally, a lot.

For sure.

The other thing is that our focus is about reducing debt and increasing dividends. So, that's the other focus. If you want to know what's going to happen in the next five years, that's what's going to happen. And so for the rest, I'm going to call in the fifth. And as I said, we'll tell you a better detailed plan going forward. But, again, when you see us and the guidance today and you look at the cost profile and, as Catherine was saying to me when she presented this at the Investor Day last year, that range of costs actually -- the range improves. It doesn't go up. Because as we build out the new open pit resources in Nevada, we claw back on the total all-in sustaining -- all costs are reduced. And, of course, you're already seeing, in the granularity in Goldstrike and Cortez underground and in Turquoise Ridge, increased production at lower costs. And so we'll see that continue because we will realize some of the assets that are impeding our ability to deliver more profitability and fulfill our objective of dropping the debt and increasing the dividend.

There was some speculation about interest in Pretivm Resources. Any thoughts on that particular mine? I mean, you haven't mentioned a lot of Canadian assets in this call. Just curious.

So, one thing we are is underinvested in Canada, which is a real -- if you were an allocator of capital and you looked at Barrick, it's underinvested. The problem is Canada hasn't got very many -- you buy assets because of two things: poorly run or well run. There are not a lot of well-run assets in Canada either. So, what we have got is a fully dedicated team looking at both opportunities and also looking to build an exploration, sort of early stage project identifier. And it's early days still but we are doing that. Rob's team is working on building and expanding. We've got quite a lot of skills that we can allocate to that team. On Pretivm, everyone knows what the problem in Pretivm is. It's been fast-tracked and it's sitting in a position where it's like a roast duck, no dinner. One month it's good and one month it's bad. And how do you try and get your head around what the real value of an asset like that is? And that's the problem that the whole industry is facing when it looks at that asset. So, again, it would be unwise for us to do anything in a rushed or poorly considered way, whether it's Pretivm or any other asset. And so it's going to take me a little while to become Canadian. I'm working hard at it, to be able to understand the Canadian opportunities. Again, we've approached a lot of the advisors in Canada who are much more up with the portfolios that are available and we will continue to work with them.

There are no further questions from the phones at this time.

You've got the microphone.

We would ask that you announce yourself so that the people on the webcast know who is asking the question before you question. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Tanya Jakusconek from Scotiabank. Mark, appreciate that you mentioned that we're going to get the Life of Mine plans later out and we are going to have the reserves, but can you talk a little bit, as you look at Barrick's side of the Life of Mine plans, how they did it versus how you plan? And the reserves, can you talk about what the differences are and where you see bringing those together?

So, it's very simple. What we do is we look at the entire ore body. We look at the traditional grade tonnage curves. We look at the mine plan. We balance it against infrastructure capital. And we have an integrated team that will -- and we've already got those in place. All the skills to do that. And that's taken us eight weeks. And then we run the iterations until we get something that really works. And, for me, good reasons, as I pointed out, the last three years in Barrick, it's been, "we need this cash flow so we'll adjust the cutoff grade to deliver it." And what happens with that is that you do deliver strong cash flow, which you've seen. And I would just point out to everyone here, that decision is the first time in the gold mining industry where somebody has driven the assets to pay back the debt and not just issued a whole pile of paper. So, the privilege or the opportunity here is we've inherently got upside in the value per share because we don't have a dilution of that asset base. But what it does do when you high grade or you drive your cash flow based on a cutoff grade, is that you erode your cost discipline. So, again, when things get a little wobbly, you just go to the next highest grade pot. So, Turquoise Ridge has got -- if you drop the cutoff grade by two grams, I think you add just over 1 million ounces, just on what we know now. And so those are the opportunities that we will look at. And that's the basis on which we will be doing the plan. And that's why it's impossible for us to do that -- we have…

Just to finish up my question, I did notice that Bulyanhulu had a new Life of Mine plan and that was optimized. And I think KC moved their reserves to $1,200.00 from $1,100.00 full-price. So, is that an indication that $1,200.00 is sort of where we're going with the Randgold assets next year?

So, if you take Randgold assets and run them at $1,200.00, you destroy the NAV. It's hard to go -- it makes no sense. And so, just to give everyone who don't know me, the long-term gold price is actually a cost-driven model. So, we look at input costs that drive -- we use a standard gold model. We like to see about -- in this particular model, we've had it for 25 years. And we put in the input costs and it generates between 28 and 30 IRR. And when gold price was $450.00, it used to do that, and now at $1,000.00, it still does that. But at $1,300.00, it would give you a higher return. But just recently, we've seen a significant increase in input costs in the industry. We'd been on a decline in input costs since 2011. And so my gut is that the new norm in our mine planning and allocation of capital will be between the $1,000.00 and the $1,200.00. But we will do it properly. And so if that's the case and the cost model is being driven by input costs, then you don't destroy value if you lift the Randgold metric a bit. And there's definitely opportunity in the Barrick assets, both because of efficiencies and costs and change in mine methods, but also replanning at a lower gold price doesn't necessarily mean less ounces at all.

Hi. Anita Soni from CIBC. My question is just with regards to the medium-term outlook at Cortez, given this year's guidance and also saying that it will reverse in the next two to three years. But will those changes take place next year or will it take --

Sure. And I think if you pull the investor documentation that Catherine gave last year at the Investor Day, the logic behind that model is largely intact. And that was very clear how it showed the change and the impact on coming to the end at Cortez Hill and the impact of both the move to more efficient long hole mining in the Cortez underground and the deep extension. And so we'll -- anyway, I don't want to get caught up and try to give any other answer. But it's not -- again, the logic behind those plans are intact. We had planned to make them more efficient and more focused on long-term, optimal delivery rather than a shorter term cash flow promise.

Second question would be are there any assets, in particular, that you see have been particularly neglected, in terms of capital, with the focus to cash flow management on the Barrick side?

So, Barrick's got a big capital demand, $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion this year. It's my real focus. Again, I've got no doubt that we already see that our approach to things, including the approach by the Barrick executive team -- which is not the old executive team, it's all very new so it's difficult for me to talk about the old Barrick because there's no more old Barricks here. But the young Barrick team and the new team in Barrick have the same view about capital allocation. They're mindful of the importance of discipline on capital. And what we do have is a much more focused approach to fit-for-purpose capital rather than over-engineering. We run our projects ourselves. We know the business really well. We know the controls that are required. We don't rely on -- and so another -- I haven't started explaining how we both -- the Barrick team and the new team -- cut external costs, external consultants and engineering, advisory, and all that other stuff. It's all come to an end. We're very much more capable of building mines cost-effectively than any external engineering company, that's for sure.

Andrew Kaip with BMO Capital Markets. Mark, how does the process flow sheet changes that took place with your view on Pueblo Viejo impact how you think about that project from a capital perspective? And then also, from unlocking a very large inventory of resources at the project, you'll be milling, you'll be improving the quality of the tailings that you're disposing, does that benefit from a long-term tailings management perspective and the ability to unlock those resources?

Yes. Yes to all of that. So, the flow sheet at the moment, and the scoping study, was a combination of a reduction in volume and an increase in gold feed through a flotation process route. And then a leach oxidation, partial oxidation, just on a leach pad. And then you combine that so you have more gold with less feed and you increase the current processing capacity by 50% -- 8-12 million tonnes a year. And what our team has -- and that's worked. It's a proof of concept at work. So, the challenge is the leach on the heap because, as you know, it's so hard to get a leach uniform and it takes up space. And PV has got limited space. It's one of the biggest open pit mines around and it's short of actual space to put things. In both Tongon and in Kibali, we have a float circuit and an ultrafine grind. We are the leaders in ultrafine grinding at Randgold. We've taken that technology to another level. And we actually can control the oxidation in that ultrafine grind because of the inherent heat generation in the process. And at the same time, the team at PV have been doing vat leaching or tank leaching, which is also a more controlled environment. And so if we do away with the leach pad and we put it into a more controlled flow sheet, it's the same cost, more or less, it's much more efficient, and our size of processing plants, both in DRC and in Mali, are what we require as far as processing capacity. So, we've got a perfect example -- proof of concept. So, the engineers from PV have just been up there to West Africa to have a look at our processing and we're now busy refining that test work. And then that will go toward a feasibility study. And so we're pretty sure that -- and, again, in the new team, we're agile. So, we don't go through these long phases of scoping, pre-feasibility. When you get the thing to work, we will leapfrog a step. And so we're pretty sure that we will bring that whole feasibility forward. We've got time because it's 2022 we need it by. Right, Mark? So, 2022. We've got time to get it done properly. And, with that, we've got a number of options on the tailings storage. Because, at PV, the storage is not just about tailings, it's about the potential asset drainage waste that you've got to impound. And we've got a number of options on that. And it's with that that we free up the foot print and can push back and coalesce the two pits and unlock a whole lot of resource ounces into reserve. So, it's a very -- and the capital costs are -- we haven't got to reviewing them but they're not going to be more than the current estimates for that project.

And then one further question. Just on Veladero, you're rebasing or you're discussing about a lower production for the next couple of years. I'm just wondering how that project or that mine can deal with the fixed cost of infrastructure that it has under a lower production setting. And can you give us some insight on how you're going to be able to rebase that operation?

Yes. The overhead and inefficiencies in that organization are enormous. Because, remember, it's a legacy -- it's a carryover from the Pascua-Lama project and no one rightsized it. Mark's already doing that. There's a whole lot of opportunity to reduce. And already it's an efficient -- if you look at it on a dollars per tonne process, it's a low-cost producer and can be substantially lower.

Greg Barnes from TD. Mark, in your initial views of Nevada, and I know there was some talk earlier, before you took over, about adding processing capacity in Nevada, optimizing the throughput you can do through various roasters. What is your view or your initial view there?

So, my original view is that's appropriate and people have been talking about it for years and never done anything. So, we have made progress in that the TNA, the toll treating agreement, with Twin Creeks for Turquoise Ridge is a first step in cooperation. And, as you know, Newmont's got a 25% share in Turquoise Ridge. And there's a good demonstration of how you can do it and there's more opportunity to improve on that because of the ability to unlock more ounces because you now have joint ownership in an asset like that. When you look at Barrick's forecast going forward, we own the most efficient roaster on this planet in gold mining down in Goldstrike. And so that is important. It's size, it just got better, it's so well done, it's so well run. So, when you look at our forecast, we have capacity in that roaster going forward and we also have capacity in our autoclaves, the fire sulfate conversion, and we're looking at reversing that to a standard autoclave to be able to treat material. And then we are progressing with the permitting process for a roaster in the Cortez region. And, again, we're going to be fully supporting Rob's team in expanding -- and we've got some very exciting exploration opportunities in that area. But at this stage, our current processing facilities are adequate for the reserves and resources that we've got. The one that we can work harder on is the Turquoise Ridge/Twin Creeks partnership.

So, if you're reversing the fire sulfate autoclave, does that mean you're not --

We believe the acid leach ore works really well in that autoclave. The alkaline-rich feed doesn't. And so we've got a lot of work that we're doing right now with our metallurgist and the process team at Goldstrike to see how do we get -- because we're not achieving the pilot test work recoveries when we put in alkaline-rich ore. So, again, the whole process is can we do that? And so we're doing a lot of test work on that. Because, very soon, we start running out of the more acidic material and then one of the options is to go back to a traditional autoclave with a CIL circuit on it, which is there and we can retrofit it.

So, you wouldn't be processing the lower grade stockpiles that are there now?

No. There's some stockpiles we'll process and some that it doesn't make sense to process them through a flow sheet that delivers less than 50% recovery. If we can get it above 50%, it works. You want to talk?

So, it's a whole piece of work to say what are your options so you can still process those stockpiles. Because the alternative is they go through the roaster but you just prioritize it.

But you don't want to do that because you displace very high-grade ore.

Exactly. You have to look at the alternatives and one of them is to try and get the carbon out before you're putting it through the autoclave. There are lots of different alternatives.

Gold Corp. has been doing that, floating the carbon off in front and reducing it. So, that's one of the options. So, there's a whole study group going on, looking at our reserves. And then that's going back to the reserve driven or the geology driven -- all our ore bodies, all our resource inventory, and our various facilities and whether they are appropriate in the longer term to be able to process those reserves. So, we're looking at that right now. And that will be part of our revised longer term plan.

Mark. Steve Butler, GMP. Goldrush and Fourmile, you talked about it being only half a kilometer to close the gap in the resource there. So, Rob's team has been working hard on drilling this thing off like crazy, in a Goldrush sense. So, is there a project update we should expect this year or in the next year for this feasibility study or similar update?

So, we will continue to update but I really want to get away from trying to promise you answers. I mean, how many answers would you like? I can promise you they're there today. This is about getting a full feasibility level job done. And the first thing is we're busy with permitting. We're busy with infrastructure. We're relooking at the whole infrastructure. We need to get some more test work done. And the Fourmile -- so, this is a classic disseminated alteration on the Goldrush side and then you go into this very silicified, classic carbon break with these eye-watering grades. But, as you know, that style, it's not continuous. So, you'll get lodes of very high-grade mineralization. But the exciting thing is the competency of that rock will allow for bulk mining, underground bulk mining, which is really exciting. Now, that's just following the recent success in the Fourmile side. And so, right now, the team is relooking at that, relooking at our permitting process. What are the gaps and, if there are any, because it's been fairly comprehensively done, and we're really looking at the ore handling strategy. There was going to be rails into the declines. We're a little more modern than that so we'll do the trade-offs on other ore-handling opportunities. And then how do we manage it at the decline head and how we tie it into the Goldstrike infrastructure? And then also access. Because now you've got a bigger target, how do you get into Fourmile without having to bottleneck it through the declines? So, there's a lot of work to be done but it's not complicated work. We've got all the skills and, as I say, we've got a dedicated manager of that project. And, again, that's something that, through this year, I'm pretty sure you'll see a much more optimized plan for both Goldrush and Fourmile and I'm convinced we'll prove that there's a geological connection between the two.

It's Kerry Smith. Graham, were all the redundancy costs expensed in Q4 or should we expect some more costs are going to run through 2019 numbers?

Substantially, all of those came through in Quarter 4. There may be some smaller amounts coming through in the first quarter but the bulk was done in 2018.

Okay. And there's been some sensitivity around tailings dams recently with what's happening in Brazil. PV is going to have quite a large dam at the end of the day. What have you done there to prep? Puerto Viejo will have quite a large dam. What have you done there to sort of satisfy yourself that there's not any issues that could crop up over the course of time? It's quite a wet environment?

So, I'm paranoid about tailings. As you know, I come from Harmony Gold Mine. You're old enough to remember that. We have done a full audit of our tailings dams and we're currently -- and, again, Barrick's and Randgold's conventions for management of tailings dams are aligned. And unlike a lot of the industry, we completely believe in external oversight in both companies. And Barrick has an extra independent check in their management of their tailings dam in that they have an oversight committee of two experts and those experts are experts in that field and one of the criteria is that they have to have never had any ties to Barrick in any way. And so we will reinforce that but we have responsible engineers for each tailings dam that are internal. We have a corporate review on the tailings dam and we have corporate experts that are responsible for that. We have an external review with an external-appointed engineer. And we have our standards, particularly on upstream dams, making sure that we manage and understand the phreatic pressure and bore hill controls. We look at the plume and the actual integrity of the barriers and impoundment walls. And what we have done just recently is that we've rolled that our or we are in the process of rolling that out through our joint venture partners to encourage them to ensure that they comply with our policies. Greg, do you want to comment?

The Dominican government also has a very active administration and regulatory body that administers dams and tailings dams, in particular. So, they do regular checks there on a monthly basis and make sure that we're up to the standards at PV, particularly.

Okay. Thank you.

And, I think, for us, in West Africa, you've got a negative water balance so that's much easier to manage. But we have a lot of experience in positive water balances, which a lot of legacy Barrick assets are in positive water balance areas again. And so that requires a completely different level of oversight than when you've got a negative water balance.

I just have a quick follow-up question for Graham, just on the accounting. You still have to put the purchase price accounting for the transaction, about $3.2 billion. That's coming, I think, in Q1. So, the guidance, the depreciation is without it. So, can we assume that a lot of it will get allocated to property and plant and equipment? Thank you.

Yes. So, as you point out, we are doing that work at the moment and we expect to be able to conclude it in this first quarter, albeit that we have the whole year to complete that from an IRS point of view. Until it works down, I can't really give you that clarity. But, in all likelihood, there will be a split between assets and goodwill. But we're busy with that work and we'll let you know when it's done.

All right. So, thank you, everyone, for coming. Again, hopefully, you found it helpful. We are going to make this a regular affair. We also have planned to take these results presentations back to the operations, at least as I did in Randgold, once a year or so. But I would also encourage you, please, if you've got any comments, advice, suggestions, let our team know and we'll work -- the idea is to give you what you need to be able to ensure that our owners of this company are properly informed. So, thanks for coming. And I assume there's -- normally, we offer a glass of wine or something. What are we doing this time? Coffee and tea. Sorry about that. We'll work on that. All right. Thanks for coming, everyone. Thanks.

This concludes today's conference call. Should you have additional questions, please contact Barrick Investor Relations department. You may now disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.