Exhibit 99.1

2017 YEAR END REPORT AND FOURTH QUARTER RESULTS

All amounts expressed in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated

Barrick Reports 2017 Full Year and Fourth Quarter Results

• In 2017, Barrick reported net earnings attributable to equity holders of Barrick (“net earnings”) of $1.44 billion ($1.23 per share), and adjusted net earnings¹ of $876 million ($0.75 per share).

• The Company reported annual revenues of $8.37 billion, net cash provided by operating activities (“operating cash flow”) of $2.07 billion, and free cash flow² of $669 million.

• Full year gold production was 5.32 million ounces. Cost of sales applicable to gold³ was $794 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ were $750 per ounce. Copper production was 413 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.77 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.34 per pound.

• Total debt was reduced by $1.51 billion, or 19 percent, to $6.4 billion. We intend to reduce total debt to around $5 billion by the end of 2018.

• Proven and probable gold reserves were 64.5 million ounces⁵ as of December 31, 2017, primarily reflecting the reclassification of Pascua-Lama reserves to resources. Through increased investment in mine exploration drilling, the Company more than replaced the reserves it depleted through production at existing operations in 2017.

• Proven and probable copper reserves, including copper contained within gold reserves, were 11.2 billion pounds⁵ as of December 31, 2017, and include the addition of approximately 2.6 billion pounds at Lumwana as a result of successful cost reduction efforts.

• Barrick reported a net loss of $314 million ($0.27 per share) in the fourth quarter, and adjusted net earnings¹ of $253 million ($0.22 per share).

• Fourth quarter revenue was $2.23 billion, operating cash flow was $590 million, and free cash flow² was $240 million.

• Gold production in the fourth quarter was 1.34 million ounces, at a cost of sales applicable to gold³ of $801 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $756 per ounce. Copper production in the fourth quarter was 99 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.79 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.51 per pound.

• Gold production guidance for 2018 is 4.5-5.0 million ounces, at a cost of sales applicable to gold³ of $810-$850 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $765-$815 per ounce. Copper production guidance for 2018 is 385-450 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.80-$2.10 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.30-$2.60 per pound.

• Based on our current asset mix, from 2019 to 2022 we expect average annual gold production to be between 4.2-4.6 million ounces, at an average cost of sales³ of $850-$980 per ounce, and average all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $750-$875 per ounce.

• Investor Day will be webcast on February 22 at www.barrick.com. Please join us for additional insights on our operations, projects, and other priorities.

TORONTO, February 14, 2018 — Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE:ABX)(TSX:ABX) (“Barrick” or the “Company”) today reported fourth quarter and full year results for the period ending December 31, 2017.

In 2017, Barrick generated operating cash flow of $2.07 billion, and free cash flow² of $669 million. Cost of sales applicable to gold³ of $794 per ounce declined slightly compared to 2016, while all-in sustaining costs⁴ rose by approximately three percent to $750 per ounce, reflecting a planned increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures. Gold cash costs⁴ fell by 3.7 percent, driven by a favorable sales mix, and the ongoing impact of initiatives to improve the productivity and efficiency of our operations. Lower free cash flow compared to 2016 was primarily the result of lower production and higher working capital, in part due to the temporary suspension of operations at our Veladero mine in Argentina, and the concentrate export ban impacting Acacia Mining plc’s operations in Tanzania. Higher capital expenditures in 2017 also reflected planned investments in our organic project pipeline, as we invest more in the future of our business.

In 2017, we reduced our total debt by $1.51 billion, or 19 percent, exceeding our target of $1.45 billion. We maintained our focus on capital discipline, with total capital expenditures of $1.36 billion, near the low end of our guidance range for the year. We are advancing a pipeline of high-confidence, organic projects with the potential to contribute more than one million ounces of annual production to Barrick, at costs well below our current portfolio average. At the same time, we returned more capital to shareholders, with a 50 percent increase in our quarterly dividend, to $0.03 per share. Finally, we forged a new strategic partnership with Shandong Gold at the Veladero mine, a landmark agreement with the potential to create significant long-term value for our owners, as well as our community and government partners in Argentina and beyond.

STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Over the past three years, we have optimized our portfolio by divesting high-cost, non-core operations. We used the proceeds of these divestments to reduce our total debt by more than 50 percent, from $13.1 billion at the end of 2014, to $6.4 billion today. Our portfolio is now focused on high-margin, long-life gold operations and projects clustered in core districts throughout the Americas, with a materially stronger balance sheet.

Our overriding objective remains unchanged. We are focused on growing free cash flow per share over the long term, which we will do primarily in three ways. First, we will drive industry-leading margins through operational excellence and consistent execution. Second, we will manage our portfolio and allocate capital with discipline and rigor. Third, we will leverage top talent and our distinctive partnership culture as competitive advantages.

Our priorities for 2018 are consistent. We will maintain our focus on maximizing free cash flow, and seek to build a business that can generate positive free cash flow at a gold price of $1,000 per ounce, on a sustainable basis. We will drive operational excellence through a continuous cycle of optimization, pushing our mines to achieve greater levels of efficiency and productivity, while working to mitigate increasing costs associated with more complex ore types and a shift to more underground mining. This will be aided by investments in digital technology and innovation, which will allow us to identify and accelerate further operational improvements across our portfolio. We will maintain a sharp focus on capital discipline while further strengthening the balance sheet. We will continue to optimize and advance our organic project pipeline. And finally, we will focus on attracting top talent to Barrick and developing our people to achieve their full potential in the Company’s decentralized operating model.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 2 PRESS RELEASE      

OUTLOOK

All investment decisions are driven by our primary objective of growing free cash flow over the long term, not ounces. Our production profile will adjust up or down according to what best advances this objective. All projects undergo rigorous scrutiny by our Investment Committee at every stage of evaluation and development. Each project is benchmarked against a 15 percent hurdle rate using a long-term gold price of $1,200 per ounce, and ranked accordingly.

In 2018, we expect to produce 4.5-5.0 million ounces of gold, at a cost of sales applicable to gold³ of $810-$850 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $765-$815 per ounce. Higher cost guidance for 2018 primarily reflects lower anticipated gold production from Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo and Veladero, increased processing of higher-cost inventory, and higher costs at Acacia. We expect first quarter production of around one million ounces at costs that will be proportionately higher than those anticipated for the remainder of the year, largely due to lower grades at Barrick Nevada, and the timing of planned maintenance at Pueblo Viejo.

Total attributable capital expenditures for 2018 are expected to be in the range of $1.40-$1.60 billion. This includes project capital expenditures of $450-$550 million, an increase of roughly $270 million compared to 2017, as we increase investments in the future of our business. Attributable mine site sustaining capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $950 million-$1.1 billion, compared to $1.1 billion in 2017, reflecting our ongoing focus on capital efficiency and discipline.

In 2018, we expect corporate administration costs to be approximately $275 million, an increase of roughly $75 million compared to 2017. This reflects additional investments to optimize our enterprise-wide processes and systems, to accelerate the implementation of digital technologies across our business, and to drive step-change innovations, all of which are designed to reduce operating costs and increase productivity across the business over the long term.

Based on our current asset mix, from 2019 to 2022 we expect average annual gold production to be between 4.2-4.6 million ounces, at an average cost of sales³ of $850-$980 per ounce, and average all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $750-$875 per ounce, representing a stable base case for our business. This includes contributions from feasibility level projects at Goldrush, Cortez Deep South, Turquoise Ridge, and Lagunas Norte—but assumes no contribution from Pascua-Lama, Donlin Gold, Cerro Casale, or Alturas. Please join us for our Investor Day webcast on February 22 for additional insights on our production profile.

Our aspiration is to have the most efficient and productive gold mines in the industry, and as such, we have challenged ourselves to continually improve our cost profile. It is equally important that we reinvest in the future of our business now, to ensure that we generate sustainable value for our owners over the long term, at the lowest possible costs. In support of this, we are increasing our investments in organic projects and mine exploration drilling, which will strengthen the overall quality of our portfolio. We also are investing in digital systems and innovation, which we expect will drive down costs and improve productivity over the long term.

Please see Appendix 1 for detailed operating and capital expenditure guidance. The table found in Appendix 2 outlines the material assumptions used to develop the forward-looking statements in our outlook and guidance, and provides an economic sensitivity analysis of those assumptions. For certain related risk factors, please see the cautionary statement on forward-looking information at the end of this press release.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 3 PRESS RELEASE      

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

Full year net earnings were $1.44 billion ($1.23 per share), compared to net earnings of $655 million ($0.56 per share) in 2016. This significant improvement in net earnings was primarily due to $2.03 billion ($1.43 billion net of tax and non-controlling interest) in impairment reversals and gains on sale related to the divestment of 50 percent of the Veladero mine and 25 percent of the Cerro Casale project in 2017. This was partially offset by net impairment charges of $908 million ($511 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) mainly relating to Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine, which has been placed on reduced operations, and the Pascua-Lama project, where proven and probable gold reserves have been reclassified as measured and indicated resources, coupled with an impairment reversal at the Lumwana mine.

In 2017, adjusted net earnings¹ increased by seven percent to $876 million ($0.75 per share), compared to $818 million ($0.70 per share) in 2016. Adjusted net earnings benefited from higher gold and copper prices, combined with lower direct mining costs, reflecting higher capitalized waste stripping at Barrick Nevada and Veladero, a lower relative sales contribution from higher cost operations at Acacia, and lower inventory write-downs compared to 2016. These gains were partially offset by lower sales volumes, primarily due to the sale of 50 percent of Veladero, and the concentrate export ban impacting Acacia’s operations, combined with an increase in exploration and evaluation costs, investments in innovation, higher income tax expense, and higher depreciation expense.

Please refer to page 70 of our fourth quarter MD&A for a full list of reconciling items between net earnings and adjusted net earnings for the current and prior year.

Operating cash flow in 2017 was $2.07 billion, compared to $2.64 billion in 2016. This decrease reflects working capital outflows related to the buildup of inventory at Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, and Acacia, lower gold sales driven by the sale of 50 percent of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017, and lower sales volumes at Pueblo Viejo, Hemlo, Turquoise Ridge, Lagunas Norte, and Acacia. Operating cash flow was also impacted by an increase in exploration, evaluation and project expenses, lower operating cash flows attributed to non-controlling interest, and higher cash taxes paid. These declines were partially offset by higher sales from Barrick Nevada, which benefited from operational efficiencies and improved throughput, higher gold and copper prices, and lower direct mining costs (as described above).

Free cash flow² for 2017 was $669 million, compared to $1.51 billion in the prior year. The decrease primarily reflects lower operating cash flows combined with higher capital expenditures. In 2017, capital expenditures on a cash basis were $1.40 billion compared to $1.13 billion in 2016. Higher capital spending reflects a $161 million increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures, primarily at Barrick Nevada and Veladero, partially offset by a decrease in sustaining capital at Acacia. Project capital expenditures also increased by $109 million, reflecting the development of Crossroads and the Cortez Hills Lower Zone at Barrick Nevada, and Goldrush project drilling, partially offset by a decrease in pre-production stripping at the South Arturo pit, which entered commercial production in August 2016.

RESTORING A STRONG BALANCE SHEET

Achieving and maintaining a strong balance sheet remains a top priority. In 2017, we reduced our total debt by $1.51 billion, or 19 percent, exceeding our original target of $1.45 billion.

Our goal remains to reduce our total debt from $6.4 billion at present, to around $5 billion by the end of 2018. We plan to achieve this primarily by using cash flow from operations and cash on hand, and potentially through

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 4 PRESS RELEASE      

further portfolio optimization. Barrick will continue to pursue debt reduction with discipline, taking only those actions that make sense for the business, on terms we consider favorable to our shareholders.

At the end of the fourth quarter, Barrick had a consolidated cash balance of approximately $2.2 billion.⁷ The Company has less than $100 million in debt due before 2020.⁸ More than three-quarters of our outstanding total debt of $6.4 billion does not mature until after 2032.

OPERATING HIGHLIGHTS

In 2017, our operations produced 5.32 million ounces of gold, at a cost of sales³ of $794 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $750 per ounce, with a particularly strong performance from Barrick Nevada. This compares to production of 5.52 million ounces of gold in 2016, at a cost of sales³ of $798 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $730 per ounce. Lower production in 2017 primarily reflects the sale of 50 percent of the Veladero mine on June 30, and lower production from Acacia as a result of Tanzania’s concentrate export ban.

Our most important operational priorities are to ensure the safety of people and the environment. We improved our safety performance in 2017, achieving a total reportable injury frequency rate (TRIFR)⁹ of 0.35—the best result in the Company’s history, and among the lowest in the industry. Regrettably, this was overshadowed by the tragic deaths of two team members in workplace accidents in 2017: Williams Garrido, a contractor at the Pascua-Lama project; and Eulogio Gutierrez, an employee at our Hemlo mine. We will not be satisfied with our performance until we can say that every person at Barrick has gone home safe and healthy every day, and this will remain our focus in 2018.

Consistent with our overall improvement trend in safety, we also achieved a 38 percent reduction in reportable environmental incidents at our operations last year, from 13 incidents in 2016, to eight incidents in 2017. Despite this success, a pipe rupture at the leach pad of our Veladero operation in March 2017 resulted in a three-and-a-half month suspension of processing operations at the mine. In response, Veladero implemented a series of measures to strengthen the mine’s operating systems, including major modifications to the heap leach facility, as well as initiatives to improve community engagement, training, and local hiring.

On a per ounce basis, cost of sales applicable to gold³ declined slightly compared to 2016. All-in sustaining costs⁴ increased by three percent, primarily reflecting an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures. At the same time, we reduced our cash costs⁴ by 3.7 percent, from $546 per ounce in 2016, to $526 per ounce in 2017, reflecting a favorable sales mix, as well as our ongoing focus on driving Best-in-Class productivity and efficiency improvements across our portfolio.

Gold production in the fourth quarter was 1.34 million ounces, at a cost of sales applicable to gold³ of $801 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $756 per ounce, compared to 1.52 million ounces, at a cost of sales³ of $784 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $732 per ounce in the prior-year period.

In 2017, our copper portfolio produced 413 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.77 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.34 per pound. Production was slightly below the Company’s adjusted guidance of 420-440 million pounds for 2017, but in line with our original full year guidance of 400-450 million pounds. This compares to production of 415 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.41 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.05 per pound in 2016.

Copper production in the fourth quarter was 99 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.79 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.51 per pound, compared to 101 million pounds, at a cost of sales³ of $1.43 per pound, and all-in sustaining costs⁶ of $2.04 per pound in the prior-year period.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 5 PRESS RELEASE      

Cost of sales applicable to copper³ increased by 25 percent in 2017 as a result of higher power, fuel, consumables and contractor costs, combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana. Copper all-in sustaining costs⁶, which have been adjusted to include our proportionate share of equity method investments, were 14 percent higher than the prior year, primarily as a result of higher cost of sales and higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures at Lumwana and Jabal Sayid.

Turquoise Ridge Toll Milling Agreement

In January 2018, Barrick and Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) reached a new, seven-year toll milling agreement for the processing of Turquoise Ridge ore at Newmont’s Twin Creeks facility. The agreement supports plans to expand production and unlock the full potential of Turquoise Ridge by increasing processing capacity. It provides for throughput of 850,000 tons per year in 2018 and 2019, rising to 1.2 million tons per year between 2020 and 2024. Processing costs are in line with market rates, and are reflected in our guidance for Turquoise Ridge.

Please join our upcoming Investor Day webcast for a detailed update on all major operations. Visit www.barrick.com for webcast information, press release, and presentations on February 22.

Digital Barrick

During 2017, we laid the foundation for our digital transformation through a series of pilot projects primarily focused at our Cortez mine in Nevada. This allowed us to validate the viability of our digital solutions and their potential economic returns in a controlled environment with rigorous oversight.

In 2018, our digital strategy will focus on completing version one of the Barrick Data Fabric, an enterprise-grade, big data analytics platform. This will provide a unified data environment for the Company that will allow our leaders and operators to identify variability and trends, generate trusted, real-time data, predict failures, and take action to address problems quickly, or before they arise. We also will accelerate the implementation of digital projects across our other operations, with an initial focus in Nevada, including:

• Expanded use of automated processing systems, combined with introduction of artificial intelligence;

• Implementation of short interval control in open pit, underground, and processing areas;

• Expanded implementation of digital work management and predictive maintenance systems; and

• Expanded use of automation, including an autonomous open pit trial, and the implementation of automated underground drills.

We are taking a disciplined approach to our digital strategy and will continue to apply a high degree of rigor to these projects, just as we would for any other investment, to ensure that our investments in digital deliver the benefits we anticipate.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 6 PRESS RELEASE      

Gold	Fourth Quarter 2017		Full Year 2017		2018 Guidance
Production10 (000s of ounces)		1,339		5,323		4,500 - 5,000
Cost of sales applicable to gold3 ($ per ounce)		801		794		810 - 850
All-in sustaining costs4 ($ per ounce)		756		750		765 - 815
Copper
Production10 (millions of pounds)		99		413		385 - 450
Cost of sales applicable to copper3 ($ per pound)		1.79		1.77		1.80 - 2.10
All-in sustaining costs6 ($ per pound)		2.51		2.34		2.30 - 2.60
Total Attributable Capital Expenditures11 ($ millions)		365		1,364		1,400 - 1,600

MINERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Barrick manages a high-quality inventory of gold reserves and resources, the majority of which are situated in regions where we have proven operating experience, a critical mass of infrastructure, technical and exploration expertise, and established partnerships with suppliers, host governments, and communities.

Our 2017 reserves were calculated using a gold price assumption of $1,200 per ounce, consistent with the long-price assumption we used in 2016. As of December 31, 2017, Barrick’s proven and probable gold reserves were 64.5 million ounces⁵, compared to 86.0 million ounces at the end of 2016. This decline primarily reflects the divestment of approximately 9.2 million ounces associated with Veladero and Cerro Casale, and the reclassification of approximately 14.0 million ounces of Pascua-Lama proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources.

Barrick added 8.0 million ounces of proven and probable gold reserves at existing operations (as well as the Goldrush project) through drilling, more than replacing the 6.2 million ounces depleted through processing last year. This success reflects increased investment in mine exploration drilling in 2017. Significant additions included 2.1 million ounces at Turquoise Ridge, 1.4 million ounces at Cortez, 1.3 million ounces at Goldstrike, 397,000 ounces at Hemlo, and 392,000 ounces at Lagunas Norte. We also declared an initial reserve of 1.5 million ounces at the Goldrush project. In addition, Barrick’s 63.9 percent share of reserves at Acacia’s North Mara mine increased by 504,000 ounces. The average grade of Barrick’s reserves also increased by 17 percent, from 1.33 grams per tonne, to 1.55 grams per tonne.

In 2017, measured, indicated, and inferred gold resources were calculated using a gold price assumption of $1,500 per ounce, consistent with 2016. Measured and indicated gold resources increased to 88.6 million ounces⁵ at the end of 2017, compared to 75.2 million ounces at the end of 2016. Roughly 9.1 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources were added as a result of the formation of the Norte Abierto joint venture (which includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits), net of resources divested at Cerro Casale and Veladero. Roughly 14.0 million ounces of measured and indicated resources were added as a result of the reclassification of Pascua-Lama reserves to resources, and 5.8 million ounces were added through drilling, including 1.5 million ounces at Goldstrike, 1.2 million ounces at Cortez, and 535,000 ounces at Hemlo.

Inferred gold resources increased slightly to 30.8 million ounces⁵ at the end of 2017, compared to 30.7 million ounces at the end of 2016.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 7 PRESS RELEASE      

Proven and probable copper reserves were calculated using a copper price of $2.75 per pound, consistent with the long-price assumption we used in 2016. Copper reserves, including copper within gold reserves, increased to 11.2 billion pounds⁵ at the end of 2017, compared to 11.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016. The Lumwana mine added approximately 2.6 billion pounds to its reserves as a result of successful cost reduction efforts. Approximately 1.4 billion pounds of copper reserves were divested with the sale of 25 percent of Cerro Casale, 554 million pounds were processed, and 505 million pounds of copper contained within gold reserves were reclassified as copper contained within gold resources.

In 2017, measured, indicated, and inferred copper resources were calculated using a copper price assumption of $3.50 per pound, consistent with 2016. Measured and indicated copper resources, including copper within measured and indicated gold resources, increased to 11.7 billion pounds⁵, compared to 9.7 billion pounds at the end of 2016. Approximately 2.6 billion pounds of measured and indicated copper resources were upgraded to copper reserves, 2.6 billion pounds were added through the inclusion of the Caspiche deposit, and 1.6 billion pounds were added through drilling. Inferred copper resources were 3.0 billion pounds⁵, compared to 3.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016.

EXPLORATION UPDATE

Barrick has a demonstrated track record of creating value through exploration. Since 1990, we have found 129 million ounces of gold at an overall discovery cost of $29 per ounce, or roughly half the average finding cost across the industry.

Approximately 80 percent of our total exploration budget of $185-$225 million is allocated to the Americas. Our exploration programs balance high-quality brownfield projects, greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that have the potential to become profitable mines.

We successfully added 8.0 million ounces of gold reserves in 2017 through mine exploration drilling, demonstrating that even well-established operations continue to yield exploration success. In many cases, these ounces can be quickly incorporated into mine plans, driving improvements in production, cash flow, and earnings.

For example, we drilled more than 18,000 meters at Goldstrike in 2017, adding 1.3 million ounces of proven and probable gold reserves, and 1.5 million ounces of measured and indicated resources. This drilling identified a host of high grade extensions to known lodes that will be a focus for further drilling in 2018. We also increased proven and probable gold reserves at Turquoise Ridge by 2.1 million ounces. Drilling down plunge of the mine’s Foot Wall Pond Trend showed strong indications that the mineralized system continues along this corridor.

Our 2018 greenfield exploration program will focus on the prolific Cortez district in Nevada, and the Frontera District on the El Indio Belt in Argentina and Chile. We have also cultivated active partnerships with a number of junior exploration and development companies as we seek to identify potential new core mineral districts for the Company. These partnerships are with ATAC at the Orion project in the Yukon, with Osisko at the Kan property in northern Québec, and with Premier Gold at Cove McCoy in Nevada.

PROJECTS UPDATE

Please join our upcoming Investor Day webcast for the latest updates on all major projects. Visit www.barrick.com for webcast information, press release, and presentations on February 22.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 8 PRESS RELEASE      

We continue to advance a pipeline of high-confidence projects at or near our existing operations, with the potential to contribute more than one million ounces of annual production to Barrick, at costs well below our current portfolio average.

Goldrush has the potential to become Barrick’s newest underground mine in Nevada, with first production expected as early as 2021, and sustained production by 2023. The prefeasibility study estimated average production of approximately 450,000 ounces of gold per year, at an average cost of sales³ of $800 per ounce, and average all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $665 per ounce.

Through the development of a third shaft, the Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture in Nevada has the potential to increase production to an average of 500,000 ounces per year (100 percent basis) at a cost of sales³ of $750-$800 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs⁴ of about $625-$675 per ounce.

The Deep South project at Cortez will expand mining below currently permitted levels, and is expected to contribute average production of more than 300,000 ounces of gold per year from the underground mine, with initial production as early as 2023. The prefeasibility study estimated average cost of sales³ of $840 per ounce, and average all-in sustaining costs⁴ of $580 per ounce.¹²

At the Lagunas Norte operation in Peru, we are evaluating a phased project to extend the life of the mine by approximately 10 years. The first component involves installing grinding and carbon-in-leach processing. The second involves installation of a flotation and pressure oxidation circuit, allowing us to optimize the timing of capital expenditures.¹³

We also maintain a portfolio of greenfield projects that represent significant long-term value and optionality for our shareholders.

Donlin Gold, located in Alaska, contains 19.5 million ounces⁵ of measured and indicated gold resources (Barrick’s 50 percent share). We continue to work in collaboration with our partners at NOVAGOLD to optimize the project, including the potential for a staged development and selective mining.

Pascua-Lama, located on the border between Argentina and Chile, contains 21.3 million ounces⁵ of measured and indicated gold resources. We are now evaluating an underground, block-caving operation at Pascua-Lama that would utilize processing infrastructure in Argentina, while reducing the project’s environmental impacts.

Norte Abierto, our new joint venture with Goldcorp in Chile, incorporates the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits. Cerro Casale contains 11.6 million ounces of proven and probable gold reserves⁵ (Barrick’s 50 percent share), while Caspiche contains 11.6 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources⁵ (Barrick’s 50 percent share). Work is focused on advancing an optimized project design, including an updated geological model.

The Alturas project, located in Chile on the El Indio Belt, is a Barrick greenfield discovery with 6.8 million ounces⁵ of inferred gold resources as of December 31, 2017. Following completion of a scoping study for a conventional open pit heap leach operation at Alturas, we are now carrying out further studies to evaluate potential enhancements to the project design, while undertaking additional drilling to improve orebody knowledge and grades.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 9 PRESS RELEASE      

ACACIA MINING PLC

In October 2017, the Government of Tanzania and Barrick announced a proposed framework agreement that would split economic benefits generated by Acacia’s operations with the Government of Tanzania on a 50/50 basis. The Government’s portion would be delivered primarily in the form of royalties, taxes, and a 16 percent free carried interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations, in line with the country’s new mining law. Discussions concerning the implementation of the proposed framework, resolution of outstanding tax matters relating to Acacia, and the lifting of the country’s export ban on concentrates, remain ongoing. Barrick has continued to engage with independent directors of Acacia throughout this process, and members of Acacia management are supporting ongoing discussions. We continue to target the first half of 2018 for the completion of a detailed proposal for review by Acacia.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The scientific and technical information contained in this press release has been reviewed and approved by Steven Haggarty, P. Eng., Senior Director, Metallurgy of Barrick, Patrick Garretson, Registered Member SME, Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning of Barrick, Rick Sims, Registered Member SME, Vice President, Reserves and Resources of Barrick, and Robert Krcmarov, FAusIMM, Executive Vice President, Exploration and Growth of Barrick, each a “Qualified Person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

CONFERENCE CALL AND WEBCAST

Please join us for a conference call and webcast to discuss the results tomorrow, February 15, at 8:00 am ET.

Webcast: www.barrick.com

Toll Free (U.S. and Canada): 1-800-319-4610

International: +1 416 915-3239

The conference call will be available for replay by phone at 1-855-669-9658 (U.S. and Canada toll free), and +1 604 674-8052 (international), access code 1928.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 10 PRESS RELEASE      

 Appendix 1

 2018 Detailed Operating and Capital Expenditure Guidance

 2018 GOLD PRODUCTION AND COSTS

	Production (000s ounces)	Cost of sales3  ($ per ounce)	All-in sustaining costs4 ($ per ounce)	Cash costs4 ($ per ounce)
Barrick Nevada	2,000 - 2,255	760 - 810	610 - 660		470 - 530
Pueblo Viejo (60%)	585 - 615	720 - 750	590 - 620		425 - 450
Lagunas Norte	230 - 270	780 - 910	670 - 780		420 - 490
Veladero (50%)	275 - 330	970 - 1,110	960 - 1,100		560 - 620
Turquoise Ridge (75%)	240 - 270	670 - 720	650 - 730		580 - 620
Porgera (47.5%)	230 - 255	950 - 1,000	950 - 1,000		780 - 830
Kalgoorlie (50%)	390 - 440	720 - 820	695 - 745		580 - 630
Acacia (63.9%)	275 - 305	970 - 1,020	935 - 985		690 - 720
Hemlo	200 - 220	860 - 920	975 - 1,075		740 - 790
Golden Sunlight	35 - 50	1,100 - 1,200	1,290 - 1,460		1,130 - 1,230
Total Gold14,15	4,500 - 5,000	810 - 850	765 - 815		540 - 575
2018 COPPER PRODUCTION AND COSTS
	Production (millions of pounds)	Cost of sales3 ($ per pound)	All-in sustaining costs6 ($ per pound)	C1 cash costs6 ($ per pound)
Zaldívar (50%)	115 - 130	2.30 - 2.50	2.05 - 2.25		~1.70
Lumwana	230 - 265	1.65 - 1.90	2.50 - 2.80		1.65 - 1.90
Jabal Sayid (50%)	40 - 55	1.85 - 2.50	1.70 - 2.30		1.40 - 1.80
Total Copper	385 - 450	1.80 - 2.10	2.30 - 2.60		1.55 - 1.75

 2018 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

	($ millions)
Mine site sustaining		950 - 1,100
Project		450 - 550
Total attributable capital expenditures11		1,400 - 1,600

 2019 - 2022 GOLD PRODUCTION, COSTS, AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

	Production14,15 (000s ounces)	Cost of sales3 ($ per ounce)	All-in sustaining costs4 ($ per ounce)	Total attributable capital expenditures11 ($ millions)
Annual average 2019 - 2022	4,200 - 4,600	850 - 980	750 - 875	1,100 - 1,500

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 11 PRESS RELEASE

Appendix 2

Outlook Assumptions and Economic Sensitivity Analysis

2018
	2018 guidance assumption	Hypothetical change	Impact on revenue (millions)	Impact on cost of sales3 (millions)	Impact on all-in sustaining costs4,6
Gold revenue, net of royalties16	$1,200/oz	+/-$ 100/oz	+/- $ 468	+/- $ 14	+/- $ 3/oz
Copper revenue, net of royalties17	$2.75/lb	+ $ 0.50/lb	+ $ 205	+ $ 13	+ $0.03/lb
Copper revenue, net of royalties17	$2.75/lb	- $ 0.50/lb	- $ 180	- $ 12	- $0.03/lb
Gold all-in sustaining costs4
WTI crude oil price16	$55/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/-$ 26	+/-$5/oz
Australian dollar exchange rate	0.75 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/-$ 31	+/-$7/oz
Argentine peso exchange rate	18.35 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $ 7	+/- $2/oz
Canadian dollar exchange rate	1.25 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/-$ 35	+/- $7/oz
Copper all-in sustaining costs6
WTI crude oil price16	$55/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/- $ 5	+/- $0.06/lb
Chilean peso exchange rate	650 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/-$ 10	+/- $0.02/lb
2019 - 2022
	Average annual 2019-2022 guidance assumption	Hypothetical change	Average annual impact on revenue (millions)	Average annual impact on cost of sales3 (millions)	Average annual impact on all-in sustaining costs4,6
Gold revenue, net of royalties16	$1,200/oz	+/- $ 100/oz	+/- $ 440	+/- $ 16	+/- $ 4/oz
Gold all-in sustaining costs4
WTI crude oil price16	$70/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/-$ 21	+/- $5/oz
Australian dollar exchange rate	0.75 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $ 25	+/- $6/oz
Argentine peso exchange rate	20.24 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $ 8	+/- $2/oz
Canadian dollar exchange rate	1.25 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $ 34	+/- $8/oz

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 12 PRESS RELEASE      

Endnotes

ENDNOTE 1

“Adjusted net earnings” and “adjusted net earnings per share” are non-GAAP financial performance measures. Adjusted net earnings excludes the following from net earnings: certain impairment charges (reversals) related to intangibles, goodwill, property, plant and equipment, and investments; gains (losses) and other one-time costs relating to acquisitions or dispositions; foreign currency translation gains (losses); significant tax adjustments not related to current period earnings; unrealized gains (losses) on non-hedge derivative instruments; and the tax effect and non-controlling interest of these items. The Company uses this measure internally to evaluate our underlying operating performance for the reporting periods presented and to assist with the planning and forecasting of future operating results. Barrick believes that adjusted net earnings is a useful measure of our performance because these adjusting items do not reflect the underlying operating performance of our core mining business and are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. Adjusted net earnings and adjusted net earnings per share are intended to provide additional information only and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other companies. They should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. Further details on these non-GAAP measures are provided in the MD&A accompanying Barrick’s financial statements filed from time to time on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

Reconciliation of Net Earnings to Net Earnings per Share, Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

($ millions, except per share amounts in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss) attributable to equity holders of the Company		$1,438			$655			($2,838	)		($314	)		$425
Impairment charges (reversals) related to long-lived assets1		(212	)		(250	)		3,897			916			(304	)
Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses2		(911	)		42			(187	)		(29	)		7
Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses		72			199			120			12			18
Significant tax adjustments3		244			43			134			61			(16	)
Other expense adjustments4		178			114			135			17			39
Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments		(1	)		(32	)		11			5			(9	)
Tax effect and non-controlling interest5		68			47			(928	)		(415	)		95
Adjusted net earnings		$876			$818			$344			$253			$255
Net earnings (loss) per share6		1.23			0.56			(2.44	)		(0.27	)		0.36
Adjusted net earnings per share6		0.75			0.70			0.30			0.22			0.22

1 Net impairment reversals for the current year primarily relate to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017 and impairment reversals at Lumwana during the fourth quarter of 2017, partially offset by net impairments at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project during the fourth quarter of 2017.

2 Disposition gains for the current year primarily relate to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project.

3 Significant tax adjustments for the current year primarily relate to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform.

4 Other expense adjustments for the current year primarily relate to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine.

5 Tax effect and non-controlling interest for the current year primarily relates to the impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project, tax provision at Acacia and Pueblo Viejo depreciation adjustment discussed above.

6 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share.

ENDNOTE 2

“Free cash flow” is a non-GAAP financial performance measure which excludes capital expenditures from net cash provided by operating activities. Barrick believes this to be a useful indicator of our ability to operate without reliance on additional borrowing or usage of existing cash. Free cash flow is intended to provide additional information only and does not have any standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other companies. Free cash flow should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. Further details on this non-GAAP measure are provided in the MD&A accompanying Barrick’s financial statements filed from time to time on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 13 PRESS RELEASE      

Reconciliation of Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net cash provided by operating activities		$2,065			$2,640			$2,794			$590			$711
Capital expenditures		(1,396	)		(1,126	)		(1,713	)		(350	)		(326	)
Free cash flow		$669			$1,514			$1,081			$240			$385

ENDNOTE 3

Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales related to gold on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces. Cost of sales related to copper per pound is calculated using cost of sales related to copper including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

ENDNOTE 4

“Cash costs” per ounce and “All-in sustaining costs” per ounce are non-GAAP financial performance measures. “Cash costs” per ounce starts with cost of sales applicable to gold production, but excludes the impact of depreciation, the non-controlling interest of cost of sales, and includes by-product credits. “All-in sustaining costs” per ounce begin with “Cash costs” per ounce and add further costs which reflect the additional costs of operating a mine, primarily sustaining capital expenditures, general & administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs, and reclamation cost accretion and amortization. Barrick believes that the use of “cash costs” per ounce and “all-in sustaining costs” per ounce will assist investors, analysts and other stakeholders in understanding the costs associated with producing gold, understanding the economics of gold mining, assessing our operating performance and also our ability to generate free cash flow from current operations and to generate free cash flow on an overall Company basis. “Cash costs” per ounce and “All-in sustaining costs” per ounce are intended to provide additional information only and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS. Although a standardized definition of all-in sustaining costs was published in 2013 by the World Gold Council (a market development organization for the gold industry comprised of and funded by 23 gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick), it is not a regulatory organization, and other companies may calculate this measure differently. These measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with IFRS. Further details on these non-GAAP measures are provided in the MD&A accompanying Barrick’s financial statements filed from time to time on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 14 PRESS RELEASE      

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)			For the years ended December 31									For the three months         ended December 31
	Footnote		2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Cost of sales related to gold production				$4,836			$4,980			$5,906			$1,292			$1,347
Depreciation				(1,529	)		(1,504	)		(1,615	)		(404	)		(396	)
By-product credits		1		(135	)		(184	)		(214	)		(30	)		(41	)
Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives		2		23			89			128			4			18
Non-recurring items		3		—			24			(210	)		—			—
Other		4		(106	)		(44	)		25			(35	)		(20	)
Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)		5		(299	)		(358	)		(394	)		(81	)		(91	)
Cash costs				$2,790			$3,003			$3,626			$746			$817
General & administrative costs				248			256			233			62			39
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6		47			44			47			8			18
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		7		1,109			944			1,359			279			298
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)		8		64			59			145			13			18
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other		9		(273	)		(287	)		(362	)		(74	)		(78	)
All-in sustaining costs				$3,985			$4,019			$5,048			$1,034			$1,112
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		6		307			193			308			90			64
Community relations costs not related to current operations				4			8			12			1			2
Project capital expenditures		7		273			175			133			81			51
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (non-operating sites)		8		20			11			12			4			4
Non-controlling interest and copper operations		9		(21	)		(42	)		(43	)		(9	)		(4	)
All-in costs				$4,568			$4,364			$5,470			$1,201			$1,229
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)		10		5,302			5,503			6,083			1,372			1,519
Cost of sales per ounce		11,12		$794			$798			$859			$801			$784
Cash costs per ounce		12		$526			$546			$596			$545			$540
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$544			$569			$619			$561			$557
All-in sustaining costs per ounce		12		$750			$730			$831			$756			$732
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$768			$753			$854			$772			$749
All-in costs per ounce		12		$860			$792			$900			$882			$809
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$878			$815			$923			$898			$826

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for our gold and copper mines for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $30 million (2016: $41 million) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $135 million (2016: $151 million; 2015: $140 million) and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives

Includes realized hedge losses of $5 million and $27 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $14 million and $73 million, respectively; 2015: $106 million), and realized non-hedge gains of $1 million and $4 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $4 million and $16 million losses, respectively; 2015: $22 million losses). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

3 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of our cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

4 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $nil and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $4 million and $16 million, respectively; 2015: $14 million). 2016 and 2017 includes the removal of cash costs associated with our Pierina mine, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure, of $35 million and $108 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $24 million and $66 million, respectively).

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 15 PRESS RELEASE      

5 Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)

Non-controlling interests include non-controlling interests related to gold production of $137 million and $454 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $127 million and $508 million, respectively; 2015: $681 million). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

6 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects. Refer to page 44 of our fourth quarter MD&A.

7 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to our gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush. Refer to page 43 of our fourth quarter MD&A.

8 Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

9 Non-controlling interest and copper operations

Removes general & administrative costs related to non-controlling interests and copper based on a percentage allocation of revenue. Also removes exploration, evaluation and project costs, rehabilitation costs and capital expenditures incurred by our copper sites and the non-controlling interest of our Acacia and Pueblo Viejo operating segment and South Arturo. In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. The impact is summarized as the following:

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months       ended December 31
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
General & administrative costs		($21	)		($36	)		($53	)		($8	)		($5	)
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		(12	)		(9	)		(8	)		1			(3	)
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)		(10	)		(9	)		(13	)		(2	)		(4	)
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		(230	)		(233	)		(288	)		(65	)		(66	)
All-in sustaining costs total		($273	)		($287	)		($362	)		($74	)		($78	)
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		(17	)		(12	)		(11	)		(8	)		(4	)
Project capital expenditures		(4	)		(30	)		(32	)		(1	)		—
All-in costs total		($21	)		($42	)		($43	)		($9	)		($4	)

10 Ounces sold - equity basis

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

11 Cost of sales per ounce

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the cost of sales impact of Pierina of $55 million and $174 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $30 million and $82 million, respectively), which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. Cost of sales per ounce excludes non-controlling interest related to gold production. Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

12 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

13 Co-product costs per ounce

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce presented on a co-product basis remove the impact of by-product credits of our gold production (net of non-controlling interest) calculated as:

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months             ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
By-product credits		$135			$184			$214			$30			$41
Non-controlling interest		(30	)		(53	)		(62	)		(6	)		(13	)
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)		$105			$131			$152			$24			$28

ENDNOTE 5

Estimated in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Estimates are as of December 31, 2017, unless otherwise noted. Proven reserves of 398.3 million tonnes grading 1.91 g/t, representing 24.5 million ounces of gold, and 170.7 million tonnes grading 0.556%, representing 2.095 billion pounds of copper. Probable reserves of 0.9 billion tonnes grading 1.39 g/t, representing 40.1 million ounces of gold, and 456.7 million tonnes grading 0.592%, representing 5.956 billion pounds of copper. Measured resources of 400.0 million tonnes grading 0.92 g/t, representing 11.8 million ounces of gold, and 90.9 million

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 16 PRESS RELEASE      

tonnes grading 0.401%, representing 803.1 million pounds of copper. Indicated resources of 1.6 billion tonnes grading 1.54 g/t, representing 76.8 million ounces of gold, and 581.2 million tonnes grading 0.506%, representing 6.484 billion pounds of copper. Inferred resources of 795.4 million tonnes grading 1.21 g/t, representing 30.8 million ounces of gold, and 125.4 million tonnes grading 0.482%, representing 1.331 billion pounds of copper. Pascua-Lama measured resources of 42.8 million tonnes grading 1.86 g/t representing 2.6 million ounces of gold, and indicated resources of 391.7 million tonnes grading 1.49 g/t, representing 18.8 million ounces of gold. Goldrush probable reserves of 5.7 million tonnes grading 8.12 g/t, representing 1.5 million ounces of gold. Donlin Gold measured resources of 3.9 million tonnes grading 2.52 g/t (50% basis) representing 0.3 million ounces of gold (50% basis), and indicated resources of 266.8 million tonnes grading 2.24 g/t (50% basis), representing 19.2 million ounces of gold (50% basis). Alturas inferred resources of 211 million tonnes grading 1.0 g/t, representing 6.8 million ounces of gold. Norte Abierto (formerly known as the Cerro Casale project, comprised of the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits) proven reserves of 114.9 million tonnes grading 0.65 g/ t (50% basis) representing 2.4 million ounces of gold (50% basis), and probable reserves of 484.0 million tonnes grading 0.59 g/t (50% basis), representing 9.2 million ounces of gold (50% basis). Norte Abierto measured resources of 310.1 million tonnes grading 0.57 g/ t (50% basis) representing 5.7 million ounces of gold (50% basis, indicated resources of 391.8 million tonnes grading 0.47 g/t (50% basis) representing 6.0 million ounces of gold (50% basis), and inferred resources of 99.1 million tonnes grading 0.29 g/t (50% basis) representing 0.9 million ounces of gold (50% basis). Complete mineral reserve and mineral resource data for all mines and projects referenced in this press release, including tonnes, grades, and ounces, can be found on pages 87-92 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2017 Report.

ENDNOTE 6

“C1 cash costs” per pound and “All-in sustaining costs” per pound are non-GAAP financial performance measures. “C1 cash costs” per pound is based on cost of sales but excludes the impact of depreciation and royalties and includes treatment and refinement charges. “All-in sustaining costs” per pound begins with “C1 cash costs” per pound and adds further costs which reflect the additional costs of operating a mine, primarily sustaining capital expenditures, general & administrative costs and royalties. Barrick believes that the use of “C1 cash costs” per pound and “all-in sustaining costs” per pound will assist investors, analysts, and other stakeholders in understanding the costs associated with producing copper, understanding the economics of copper mining, assessing our operating performance, and also our ability to generate free cash flow from current operations and to generate free cash flow on an overall Company basis. “C1 cash costs” per pound and “All-in sustaining costs” per pound are intended to provide additional information only, do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS, and may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other companies. These measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. Further details on these non-GAAP measures are provided in the MD&A accompanying Barrick’s financial statements filed from time to time on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 17 PRESS RELEASE      

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Cost of sales		$399			$319			$814			$107			$84
Depreciation/amortization		(83	)		(45	)		(104	)		(24	)		(15	)
Treatment and refinement charges		157			167			178			41			43
Cash cost of sales applicable to equity method investments		245			203			23			75			53
Less: royalties		(38	)		(41	)		(101	)		(11	)		(9	)
By-product credits		(5	)		—			(1	)		(1	)		—
Other		—			—			72			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales		$675			$603			$881			$187			$156
General & administrative costs		12			14			21			3			3
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		12			7			6			3			2
Royalties		38			41			101			11			9
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6			—			—			1			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		204			169			177			67			48
All-in sustaining costs		$947			$834			$1,186			$272			$218
Pounds sold - consolidated basis (millions pounds)		405			405			510			107			107
Cost of sales per pound1,2		$1.77			$1.41			$1.65			$1.79			$1.43
C1 cash cost per pound1		$1.66			$1.49			$1.73			$1.72			$1.47
All-in sustaining costs per pound1		$2.34			$2.05			$2.33			$2.51			$2.04

1 Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

2 Cost of sales per pound related to copper is calculated using cost of sales including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

ENDNOTE 7

Includes $87 million cash primarily held at Acacia, which may not be readily deployed.

ENDNOTE 8

Amount excludes capital leases and includes Acacia (100% basis).

ENDNOTE 9

Total reportable incident frequency rate (TRIFR) is a ratio calculated as follows: number of reportable injuries x 200,000 hours divided by the total number of hours worked. Reportable injuries include fatalities, lost time injuries, restricted duty injuries, and medically treated injuries.

ENDNOTE 10

Barrick’s share.

ENDNOTE 11

Attributable capital expenditures are presented on the same basis as guidance, which includes our 60% share of Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo, our 63.9% share of Acacia and our 50% share of Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

ENDNOTE 12

For additional detail regarding Cortez, see the Technical Report on the Cortez Joint Venture Operations, Lander and Eureka Counties, State of Nevada, U.S.A., dated March 21, 2016, and filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR at www.sec.gov on March 28, 2016.

ENDNOTE 13

For additional detail regarding Lagunas Norte, see the Technical Report on the Lagunas Norte Mine, La Libertad Region, Peru dated March 21, 2016 and filed on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR at www.sec.gov on March 28, 2016.

ENDNOTE 14

Total gold cash costs and all-in sustaining costs per ounce include the impact of hedges and/or costs allocated to non-operating sites.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 18 PRESS RELEASE      

ENDNOTE 15

Operating unit guidance ranges reflect expectations at each individual operating unit, and may not add up to the company-wide guidance range total. The company-wide 2017 results and guidance ranges exclude Pierina which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

ENDNOTE 16

Due to our hedging activities, which are reflected in these sensitivities, we are partially protected against changes in these factors.

ENDNOTE 17

Utilizing option collar strategies, the Company has protected the downside of a portion of its expected 2018 copper production at an average floor price of $2.83 per pound and can participate on the same amount up to an average price of $3.25 per pound. Our remaining copper production is subject to market prices.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 19 PRESS RELEASE      

 Key Statistics

Barrick Gold Corporation  (in United States dollars)	Three months ended December 31,					Twelve months ended December 31,
	2017			2016		2017		2016
Financial Results (millions)
Revenues		$2,228			$2,319		$8,374		$8,558
Cost of sales		1,411			1,454		5,300		5,405
Net earnings1		(314	)		425		1,438		655
Adjusted net earnings2		253			255		876		818
Adjusted EBITDA2		1,054			1,045		4,017		4,021
Total capital expenditures - sustaining3		279			299		1,109		944
Total project capital expenditures3		81			51		273		175
Net cash provided by operating activities		590			711		2,065		2,640
Free cash flow2		240			385		669		1,514
Per share data (dollars)
Net earnings (loss) (basic and diluted)		(0.27	)		0.36		1.23		0.56
Adjusted net earnings (basic)2		$0.22			$0.22		$0.75		$0.70
Weighted average basic common shares (millions)		1,166			1,165		1,166		1,165
Weighted average diluted common shares (millions)		1,166			1,166		1,166		1,165
Operating Results
Gold production (thousands of ounces)4		1,339			1,516		5,323		5,517
Gold sold (thousands of ounces)4		1,372			1,519		5,302		5,503
Per ounce data
Average spot gold price		$1,275			$1,222		$1,257		$1,251
Average realized gold price2,4		1,280			1,217		1,258		1,248
Cost of sales (Barrick’s share)4,5		801			784		794		798
All-in sustaining costs2,4		$756			$732		$750		$730
Copper production (millions of pounds)6		99			101		413		415
Copper sold (millions of pounds)6		107			107		405		405
Per pound data
Average spot copper price		$3.09			$2.39		$2.80		$2.21
Average realized copper price2,6		3.34			2.62		2.95		2.29
Cost of sales (Barrick’s share)6,7		1.79			1.43		1.77		1.41
C1 cash costs2,6		1.72			1.47		1.66		1.49
All-in sustaining costs2,6		$2.51			$2.04		$2.34		$2.05
						As at December 31,		As at December 31,
						2017		2016
Financial Position (millions)
Cash and equivalents							$2,234		$2,389
Working capital (excluding cash)							$1,184		$1,155

¹  Net earnings represents net earnings attributable to the equity holders of the Company.

²  Adjusted net earnings, adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow, adjusted net earnings per share, realized gold price, all-in sustaining costs and realized copper price are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of our fourth quarter MD&A.

³  Amounts presented on a consolidated accrued basis. Project capital expenditures are included in our calculation of all-in costs, but not included in our calculation of all-in sustaining costs.

⁴  Includes Acacia on a 63.9% basis, Pueblo Viejo on a 60% basis, South Arturo on a 60% basis, and Veladero on a 100% basis up to June 30, 2017 and a 50% basis thereafter, which reflects our equity share of production and sales. 2016 includes production and sales from Bald Mountain and Round Mountain up to January 11, 2016, the effective date of sale of the assets.

⁵  Cost of sales per ounce (Barrick’s share) is calculated as cost of sales - gold on an attributable basis, excluding Pierina, divided by gold ounces sold.

⁶  Amounts reflect production and sales from Jabal Sayid and Zaldívar, both on a 50% basis, which reflects our equity share of production, and Lumwana.

⁷  Cost of sales per pound (Barrick’s share) is calculated as cost of sales - copper plus our equity share of cost of sales attributable to Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid divided by copper pounds sold.

      BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 20 KEY STATISTICS      

Production and Cost Summary

	Production
	Three months ended December 31,				Twelve months ended December 31,
	2017		2016		2017		2016
Gold (equity ounces (000s))
Barrick Nevada1		530		601		2,312		2,155
Pueblo Viejo2		182		189		650		700
Lagunas Norte		113		110		387		435
Veladero3		110		177		432		544
Turquoise Ridge		64		65		211		266
Acacia4		95		136		491		530
Other Mines - Gold5		245		238		840		887
Total		1,339		1,516		5,323		5,517
Copper (equity pounds (millions))6		99		101		413		415
	Cost of Sales per unit (Barrick’s share)
	Three months ended December 31,				Twelve months ended December 31,
		2017		2016		2017		2016
Gold Cost of Sales per ounce ($/oz)7
Barrick Nevada1		$794		$864		$792		$876
Pueblo Viejo2		795		450		699		564
Lagunas Norte		659		612		617		651
Veladero3		953		892		897		872
Turquoise Ridge		672		595		715		603
Acacia4		774		935		791		880
Total		$801		$784		$794		$798
Copper Cost of Sales per pound ($/lb)8		$1.79		$1.43		$1.77		$1.41
	All-in sustaining costs9
	Three months ended December 31,				Twelve months ended December 31,
	2017		2016		2017		2016
Gold All-in Sustaining Costs ($/oz)
Barrick Nevada1		$696		$630		$624		$618
Pueblo Viejo2		498		443		525		490
Lagunas Norte		547		436		483		529
Veladero3		950		905		987		769
Turquoise Ridge		638		610		733		625
Acacia4		779		952		875		958
Total		$756		$732		$750		$730
Copper All-in Sustaining Costs ($/lb)6		$2.51		$2.04		$2.34		$2.05

¹  Reflects production and sales from Goldstrike, Cortez, and South Arturo on a 60% basis, which reflects our equity share.

²  Reflects production and sales from Pueblo Viejo on a 60% basis, which reflects our equity share.

³  Reflects production and sales from Veladero on a 100% basis up to June 30, 2017 and a 50% basis thereafter, which reflects our equity share during such periods.

⁴  Reflects production and sales from Acacia on a 63.9% basis, which reflects our equity share.

⁵  In 2017, Other Mines - Gold includes Golden Sunlight, Hemlo, Porgera on a 47.5% basis and Kalgoorlie on a 50% basis. In 2016, Other Mines - Gold includes Golden Sunlight, Hemlo, Porgera on a 47.5% basis, Kalgoorlie on a 50% basis and production from Bald Mountain and Round Mountain up to January 11, 2016, the effective date of sale of the assets.

⁶  Reflects production and sales from Lumwana, Jabal Sayid on a 50% basis and Zaldívar on a 50% basis, which reflects our equity share.

⁷  Cost of sales per ounce (Barrick’s share) is calculated as cost of sales - gold on an attributable basis, excluding Pierina, divided by gold equity ounces sold.

⁸  Cost of sales per pound (Barrick’s share) is calculated as cost of sales - copper plus our equity share of cost of sales attributable to Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid divided by copper pounds sold.

⁹  All-in sustaining costs is a non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of this non-GAAP measure to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of our fourth quarter MD&A.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 21 PRODUCTION AND COST SUMMARY

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (“MD&A”)

Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) is intended to help the reader understand Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick”, “we”, “our” or the “Company”), our operations, financial performance and the present and future business environment. This MD&A, which has been prepared as of February 14, 2018, should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements (“Financial Statements”) for the year ended December 31, 2017. Unless otherwise indicated, all amounts are presented in U.S. dollars.

For the purposes of preparing our MD&A, we consider the materiality of information. Information is considered material if: (i) such information results in, or would reasonably be expected to result in, a significant change in the market price or value of our shares; (ii) there is a

substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision; or (iii) it would significantly alter the total mix of information available to investors. We evaluate materiality with reference to all relevant circumstances, including potential market sensitivity.

Continuous disclosure materials, including our most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form, annual MD&A, audited consolidated financial statements, and Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Proxy Circular will be available on our website at www.barrick.com, on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov. For an explanation of terminology unique to the mining industry, readers should refer to the glossary on page 86.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Certain information contained or incorporated by reference in this MD&A, including any information as to our strategy, projects, plans or future financial or operating performance, constitutes “forward-looking statements”. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “target”, “plan”, “objective”, “assume”, “intend”, “intention”, “project”, “goal”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “potential”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “could”, “would” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. In particular, this MD&A contains forward-looking statements including, without limitation, with respect to: (i) Barrick’s forward-looking production guidance; (ii) estimates of future cost of sales per ounce for gold and per pound for copper, cash costs per ounce and C1 cash costs per pound, and all-in-sustaining costs per ounce/pound; (iii) cash flow forecasts; (iv) projected capital, operating and exploration expenditures; (v) Barrick’s expectations regarding the potential benefits resulting from a new partnership between Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”) and the Government of Tanzania; (vi) targeted debt and cost reductions; (vii) mine life and production rates; (viii) potential mineralization and metal or mineral recoveries; (ix) savings from our improved capital management program; (x) Barrick’s Best-in-Class program (including potential improvements to financial and operating performance that may result from certain Best-in-Class initiatives); (xi) the timing and results of the prefeasibility study at Pascua-Lama; (xii) our pipeline of high confidence projects at or near existing operations; (xiii) the benefits of unifying the Cortez and Goldstrike operations; (xiv) the potential impact and benefits of Barrick’s ongoing digital transformation; (xv) our ability to convert resources into reserves; (xvi) asset sales, joint

ventures and partnerships; and (xvii) expectations regarding future price assumptions, financial performance and other outlook or guidance.

Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions including material estimates and assumptions related to the factors set forth below that, while considered reasonable by the Company as at the date of this MD&A in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements and information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, copper or certain other commodities (such as silver, diesel fuel, natural gas and electricity); the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; changes in mineral production performance, exploitation and exploration successes; risks associated with the fact that certain Best-in-Class initiatives are still in the early stages of evaluation and additional engineering and other analysis is required to fully assess their impact; the duration of the Tanzanian ban on mineral concentrate exports; the ultimate terms of any definitive agreement between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania to resolve a dispute relating to the imposition of the concentrate export ban and allegations by the Government of Tanzania that Acacia under-declared the metal content of concentrate exports from Tanzania; the status of certain tax reassessments by the Tanzanian government; the manner in which amendments to the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 22 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

2010 Mining Act (Tanzania) increasing the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), the new Finance Act (Tanzania) imposing a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017 and the new Mining Regulations announced by the Government of Tanzania in January 2018 will be implemented and the impact of these and other legislative changes on Acacia; whether Acacia will approve the terms of any final agreement reached between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania with respect to the dispute between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania; the benefits expected from recent transactions being realized; diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities, including geotechnical challenges and disruptions in the maintenance or provision of required infrastructure and information technology systems; failure to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and regulations; timing of receipt of, or failure to comply with, necessary permits and approvals; uncertainty whether some or all of the Best-in-Class initiatives, targeted investments and projects will meet the Company’s capital allocation objectives and internal hurdle rate; the impact of global liquidity and credit availability on the timing of cash flows and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; adverse changes in our credit ratings; the impact of inflation; fluctuations in the currency markets; changes in U.S. dollar interest rates; risks arising from holding derivative instruments; changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls or regulations and/or changes in the administration of laws, policies and practices; expropriation or nationalization of property and political or economic developments in Canada, the United States and other jurisdictions in which the Company or its affiliates do or may carry on business in the future; lack of certainty with respect to foreign legal systems, corruption and other factors that are inconsistent with the rule of law; the outcome of the appeal of the decision of Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente; damage to the Company’s reputation due to the actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, including negative publicity with respect to the Company’s handling of environmental matters or dealings with community groups, whether true or not; the possibility that future exploration results will not be consistent with the Company’s expectations; risks that exploration data may be incomplete and considerable additional work may be required to complete further evaluation, including but not limited to drilling, engineering and socioeconomic studies and investment; risk of loss due to acts of war, terrorism, sabotage and civil disturbances; litigation; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties, or over access to water, power and other required infrastructure; business opportunities that may be presented to, or pursued by, the Company; risks

associated with the fact that certain of the initiatives described in this MD&A are still in the early stages and may not materialize; our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions or complete divestitures; risks associated with working with partners in jointly controlled assets; employee relations including loss of key employees; increased costs and physical risks, including extreme weather events and resource shortages, related to climate change; availability and increased costs associated with mining inputs and labor; and the organization of our previously held African gold operations and properties under a separate listed Company. In addition, there are risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins, flooding and gold bullion, copper cathode or gold or copper concentrate losses (and the risk of inadequate insurance, or inability to obtain insurance, to cover these risks).

Many of these uncertainties and contingencies can affect our actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, us. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this MD&A are qualified by these cautionary statements. Specific reference is made to the most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities for a more detailed discussion of some of the factors underlying forward-looking statements and the risks that may affect Barrick’s ability to achieve the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements contained in this MD&A. We disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 23 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

USE OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES

We use the following non-GAAP financial performance measures in our MD&A:

● “adjusted net earnings”

● “free cash flow”

● “EBITDA”

● “adjusted EBITDA”

● “cash costs per ounce”

● “C1 cash costs per pound”

● “all-in sustaining costs per ounce/pound”

● “all-in costs per ounce” and

● “realized price”

For a detailed description of each of the non-GAAP measures used in this MD&A and a detailed reconciliation to the most directly comparable measure under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), please refer to the Non-GAAP Financial Performance Measures section of this MD&A on pages 69 to 84. Each non-GAAP financial performance measure has been annotated with a reference to an endnote on page 85. The non-GAAP financial performance measures set out in this MD&A are intended to provide additional information to investors and do not have any standardized meaning under IFRS, and therefore may not be comparable to other issuers, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.

Changes in presentation of non-GAAP financial performance measures

Adjusted EBITDA

Starting in the second quarter 2017 MD&A, we began including additional adjusting items in the Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation to provide a greater level of consistency with the adjusting items included in our Adjusted Net Earnings reconciliation. These new items include: acquisition/disposition gains/losses; foreign currency translation gains/losses; other expense adjustments; and unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments. These amounts are adjusted to remove any impact on finance costs/income, income tax expense and/or depreciation as they do not affect EBITDA. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. We believe this additional information will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in better understanding our ability to generate liquidity from operating cash flow, by excluding these amounts from the calculation as they are not indicative of the performance of our core mining business and not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the periods presented.

INDEX	page
Overview
Our Vision		25
Our Business		25
Our Strategy		25
Full Year Financial and Operating Highlights		26
Outlook for 2018		33
Risks and Risk Management		37
Market Overview		39
Review of Annual Financial Results		42
Revenue		42
Production Costs		42
Capital Expenditures		43
General and Administrative Expenses		44
Exploration, Evaluation and Project Costs		44
Finance Costs, Net		44
Additional Significant Statement of Income Items		45
Income Tax Expense		45
Financial Condition Review		47
Balance Sheet Review		47
Shareholders’ Equity		47
Financial Position and Liquidity		47
Summary of Cash Inflow (Outflow)		48
Summary of Financial Instruments		49
Operating Segments Performance		49
Barrick Nevada		50
Pueblo Viejo		52
Lagunas Norte		54
Veladero		56
Turquoise Ridge		60
Acacia Mining plc		62
Pascua-Lama		65
Commitments and Contingencies		66
Review of Quarterly Results		67
Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures		68
IFRS Critical Accounting Policies and Accounting Estimates		69
Non-GAAP Financial Performance Measures		69
Technical Information		85
Endnotes		85
Glossary of Technical Terms		86

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 24 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

Our Vision

Our Vision is the generation of wealth through responsible mining - wealth for our owners, our people, and the countries and communities with which we partner.

We aim to be the leading mining company focused on gold, growing our cash flow per share by developing and operating high-quality assets through disciplined allocation of human and financial capital and operational excellence.

Our Business

Barrick is one of the world’s leading gold mining companies with annual gold production and gold reserves that are among the largest in the industry. We are principally engaged in the production and sale of gold and copper, as well as related activities such as exploration and mine development. We hold interests in nine producing gold mines, which are located in Argentina, Australia, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Peru and the United States. We also hold a 63.9% equity interest in Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”), a company listed on the London Stock Exchange (“LSE”) that owns gold mines and exploration properties in Africa. More than 75% of our gold production comes from the Americas region. Our copper business contains a wholly-owned copper mine in Zambia and 50% interests in copper mines in Chile and Saudi Arabia. We also have projects located throughout the Americas. We sell our production in the world market through the following distribution channels: gold bullion is sold in the gold spot market; and gold and copper concentrate is sold to independent smelting companies. Barrick’s shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ABX.

2017 Revenue ($ millions)

2017 Gold Production (thousands of ounces)

Our Strategy

Our strategy remains consistent. We are focused on growing free cash flow per share over the long term by: maintaining and growing industry-leading margins, driven by operational excellence, investments in digital technology and innovation; managing our portfolio and allocating capital with discipline and rigor; and leveraging our talent and distinctive partnership culture as a competitive advantage.

Operational Excellence and Innovation

We seek to maximize revenue and expand margins by continuously optimizing existing operations, pushing technical limits to achieve best-in-class performance, improving the returns of existing assets and strengthening the feasibility and economics of undeveloped assets. We will make targeted investments in innovation and accelerate our digital transformation in an effort to drive step changes in current performance and redefine what is possible over the long term. We will continue to refine our decentralized operating model, in which our head office is focused on doing a small number of tasks exceptionally well: setting strategy, allocating capital and managing talent. Our leaders in the field will operate as business owners, focused on optimizing free cash flow, alongside managing risk and creating long-term value.

Exploration and Project Development

Growing free cash flow per share means continually replenishing and improving the quality of our reserves and resources. The quality of our asset base means we have significant opportunities to replace and grow reserves through low-risk brownfield and minex drilling, balanced with greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that have the potential to become profitable mines. In addition to organic projects, we are continuously evaluating external opportunities. We take a highly disciplined approach to all investments, including acquisitions, and will only pursue those that have the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 25 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

potential to generate clear value for our shareholders, while aligning with our strategic focus.

Partnerships

We believe a core part of our business is that of partnering with host governments and communities to transform their natural resources into sustainable benefits and mutual prosperity. These partnerships must be built on a foundation of transparency and mutual respect that

moves beyond an emphasis on maximizing short-term financial returns and transactional relationships. By doing so, our intent is to strengthen our social license to operate, reduce operational disruptions and develop stronger and more durable partnerships with our host governments and communities.

FULL YEAR FINANCIAL AND OPERATING HIGHLIGHTS

Operating Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow¹

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and

Al-in Sustaining Costs¹

($ per ounce)

Gold Production

(000s ounces)

Debt

($ millions)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 26 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per share amounts in dollars)			For the years ended December 31					For the three months ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss) attributable to equity holders of the Company		$1,438		$655		($2,838	)		($314	)		$425
Per share (dollars)1		1.23		0.56		(2.44	)		(0.27	)		0.36
Adjusted net earnings2		876		818		344			253			255
Per share (dollars)1,2		0.75		0.70		0.30			0.22			0.22
Operating cash flow		2,065		2,640		2,794			590			711
Free cash flow2		$669		$1,514		$1,081			$240			$385

1 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share of 1,166 million shares in 2017 (2016: 1,165 million shares; 2015: 1,165 million shares).

2 Adjusted net earnings and free cash flow are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

In 2017, we generated net cash flow provided by operating activities (“operating cash flow”) of $2.1 billion and free cash flow¹ of $669 million for the year. We reduced our cost of sales applicable to gold by $4 per ounce to $794 per ounce, while our all-in sustaining costs¹ (“AISC”) increased by 3% to $750 per ounce, reflecting higher capital expenditures as we increased investments in the future of our business. At the same time, we continued to strengthen our balance sheet by exceeding our debt reduction target.

In 2017, we divested 50% and 25% interests in our Veladero mine and Cerro Casale project, respectively. The successful formation of these new partnerships helped us strengthen our balance sheet, de-risk our portfolio and provide a renewed impetus to how we approach these assets. These two transactions resulted in proceeds of $990 million and combined impairment reversals and gains on disposition of $2,031 million. In addition, we recognized $259 million of impairment reversals at Lumwana due to an increase in reserves. This was offset by an impairment of $740 million (pre-tax, 100%) taken at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine related to the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania; and an impairment of $429 million at Pascua-Lama, mainly attributable to the reclassification of open-pit reserves to resources after receiving a closure order from the Chilean regulators.

Balance Sheet and Liquidity

In 2017, we reduced our total debt by $1.51 billion, or 19%, from $7.93 billion to $6.42 billion, exceeding our original target of $1.45 billion. Since the beginning of

2015, we have reduced our debt by a total of $6.66 billion, which will reduce pre-tax interest payments by approximately $300 million on an annualized basis. Approximately $5 billion of our $6.4 billion in outstanding debt matures after 2032. Since the beginning of December 2015, the average tenor on our outstanding public debt has increased from approximately 14 years to approximately 17 years. Our liquidity position is strong and continues to improve, with robust cash flow generation, modest near-term debt repayment obligations, a $4 billion undrawn credit facility and a consolidated cash balance of approximately $2.2 billion³. Our goal remains to reduce our total debt to around $5 billion by the end of 2018. We plan to achieve this primarily by using cash flow from operations and cash on hand, and potentially through further portfolio optimization. Barrick will continue to pursue debt reduction with discipline, taking only those actions that make sense for the business, on terms we consider favorable to our shareholders.

Cost Performance

In 2017, we continued our focus on driving Best-in-Class productivity and efficiency improvements across our portfolio. Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 decreased by $4 per ounce to $794 per ounce, reflecting a decrease in direct mining costs combined with a positive sales mix, partially offset by higher depreciation expense. Our all-in sustaining costs¹ for 2017 increased by 3% to $750 per ounce, compared to the prior year primarily reflecting the 17% increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures attributed to the future investment in our business.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 27 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Net Earnings (Loss), Adjusted Net Earnings¹, Operating Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow¹

Factors affecting Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings¹

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 Primarily consists of higher earnings from equity investees (~$56 million) and a reduction in finance costs (~$34 million).

Net earnings attributable to equity holders of Barrick (“net earnings”) for 2017 was $1,438 million compared with $655 million in the prior year. This significant improvement in net earnings was primarily due to $2,031 million ($1,425 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) in impairment reversals and gains on sale in 2017 related to our successful formation of joint operations at the Veladero mine and Cerro Casale project. This was partially offset by net impairment charges of $908 million ($511 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) mainly relating to impairment charges at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project, coupled with an impairment reversal at Lumwana. After adjusting for items that are not indicative of future operating earnings, adjusted net earnings¹ of $876 million in 2017 were 7% higher than the prior year primarily as a result of an increase in gold and copper prices, as well as lower direct mining costs driven by higher capitalized waste stripping costs at Barrick Nevada and Veladero, a positive change in our sales mix with lower relative sales volume from our higher cost Acacia mines and lower inventory write-downs than the prior year. This was offset by an increase in exploration and evaluation costs primarily due to an increased investment in the Pascua-Lama project, global exploration and innovation initiatives combined with lower sales volume. The increase in adjusted net earnings¹ was further offset by higher income tax expense associated with our higher net earnings and higher depreciation expense as a result of a depreciation adjustment at Pueblo Viejo, partially offset by lower depreciation at Barrick Nevada associated with the South Arturo pit.

Significant adjusting items to net earnings (pre-tax and non-controlling interest effects) in 2017 include:

• $718 million ($714 million net of tax) gain relating to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine (for further details, refer to note 4 to the Financial Statements);

• $193 million ($192 million net of tax) gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project (for further details, refer to note 4 to the Financial Statements);

• $212 million ($7 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) net impairment charges, primarily on Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine of $740 million ($350 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) and on the Pascua-Lama project of $407 million ($407 million net of tax), partially offset by impairment reversals as a result of the indicative fair value of the Cerro Casale project related to our divestment of 25% of $1,120 million ($518 million net of tax and non-controlling interest) and on Lumwana of $259 million ($259 million net of tax); partially offset by

• $244 million significant tax adjustments primarily relating to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform;

• $178 million other expense adjustments, mainly relating to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine; and

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

Refer to page 70 for a full list of reconciling items between net earnings and adjusted net earnings for the current and prior year.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 28 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Factors affecting Operating Cash Flow and Free Cash Flow¹

¹  These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

²  Other primarily includes the negative impact on free cash flow attributable to non-controlling interests (~$100 million) combined with an increase in legal costs (~$20 million) and in reclamation payments (~$10 million).

In 2017, we generated $2,065 million in operating cash flow, compared to $2,640 million of operating cash flow in the prior year. The decrease of $575 million was due to lower gold sales as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017, lower gold sales volume at Pueblo Viejo, Hemlo, Turquoise Ridge, Lagunas Norte and Acacia, partially offset by higher sales at Barrick Nevada attributed to higher grades and Best-in-Class initiatives positively impacting throughput. This was further impacted by working capital outflows reflecting the buildup of metals inventory at Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte and Acacia combined with an increase in exploration, evaluation and project expenses. Operating cash flow was also affected by lower cash flows attributed to non-controlling interest, combined with higher cash taxes paid. These outflows were partially offset by higher gold and copper prices as well as lower direct mining costs.

Free cash flow¹ for 2017 was $669 million, compared to $1,514 million in the prior year, reflecting lower operating cash flows combined with higher capital expenditures. In 2017, capital expenditures on a cash basis were $1,396 million compared to $1,126 million in 2016 as we reinvested more into our business. The increase of $270 million is due to a $109 million increase in project capital expenditures, primarily at Barrick Nevada relating to the development of Crossroads and Cortez Hills Lower Zone, and Goldrush project drilling, partially offset by a decrease in pre-production stripping at the South Arturo pit, which entered commercial production in August 2016. In addition, minesite sustaining capital expenditures increased by $161 million primarily reflecting an increase in sustaining capital at Barrick Nevada relating to higher capitalized stripping costs at Goldstrike and the timing of a greater number of minesite sustaining projects in the current year, combined with increased spending relating to phases 4B and 5B of the leach pad expansion and additional equipment purchases at Veladero. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in sustaining capital at Acacia as a result of reduced operations at Bulyanhulu combined with lower capitalized stripping at North Mara relating to Nyabirama Stage 3 and 4.

The free cash flow¹ generated in 2017 was combined with the $990 million in proceeds from the sale of a 50% interest in Veladero in the second quarter of 2017 and existing cash balances to repay $1.51 billion in debt in the current year, which allowed us to exceed our 2017 debt reduction target of $1.45 billion.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 29 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Safety

Nothing is more important to Barrick than the safety, health and well-being of our workers and their families. Our safety vision is “Every person going home safe and healthy every day.” In 2017, we continued our trend of improving our total reportable injury frequency rate⁵ (“TRIFR”) and since 2009, there has been a 71% improvement in the TRIFR from 1.20 to 0.35.

The foundation underpinning Barrick’s safety improvement continues to be our Courage to Care program, designed to help Barrick make the next step in safety performance through building a strong team-based culture. In addition, we continue to focus on compliance with Barrick’s “Safety and Health Management System”.

On a weekly basis, the global leadership team, including the Executive Committee and representatives from each of Barrick’s country offices, mine sites and corporate functions, participate in a Business Plan Review (“BPR”) meeting. This forum provides us with the opportunity to stress the importance of safety, recall the lessons learned from past fatal incidents, review our current safety performance against targets and share best practices across our business.

Although we are pleased with these trends, this performance was overshadowed by two fatalities in 2017. As previously reported, in February of 2017 a contract worker at Pascua-Lama was involved in a fatal incident while performing scheduled maintenance work. In November of 2017 a surveyor at Hemlo was fatally struck underground by a piece of heavy machinery. Barrick is fully committed to zero fatalities and is implementing Critical Control Management across all sites and exploration activities. Critical Control Management is specifically focused on fatality prevention and is based upon guidance published by the International Council on Mining and Metals (“ICMM”) in 2015. Significant progress has been made in the development of digital technologies that significantly reduce risks of fatalities at our mines, including the development of autonomous vehicles.

Total Reportable Injury Frequency

Environment

Barrick is focused on rebuilding our reputation for environmental excellence and being the preferred partner of host governments and communities. In 2017, our operations worked on adapting the ICMM Critical Control Management guidance to our environmental operations. In addition, each site developed an in-depth improvement plan with a focus on water management. The results of this are demonstrated in a 72% reduction in reportable environmental incidents between 2015 and 2017.

Despite these achievements, in March 2017 the monitoring system at the Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. Although the solution was contained within the operating site and no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses, it was the third cyanide-related incident in the past three years at this site. Barrick along with Shandong Gold, our new joint venture partner at Veladero, made modifications to the leach pad as agreed with San Juan provincial authorities to reduce the risk of this happening again.

Reportable Environmental Incidents

Climate Change

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

Barrick’s climate change strategy has three pillars: understand and mitigate the risks associated with climate change; reduce our impacts on climate change; and improve our disclosure on climate change. Action taken on each pillar in 2017 is described below.

Understand and mitigate the risks associated with climate change: In 2017, we performed a climate change risk

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 30 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

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

Reduce the Company’s impact on climate change: Over the course of 2017, we analyzed our current and forecasted GHG emissions to develop an ambitious but realistic goal to reduce Barrick’s GHG emissions. Mining is an energy-intensive business, and we understand the important link between energy use and GHG emissions. By effectively managing our energy use, we can reduce our draw from local energy grids, reduce our GHG emissions, achieve more efficient production, and save direct mining costs. Barrick has set a goal to keep its current GHG emissions flat in the short term and is targeting a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, from a 2016 baseline of 3.5 MT CO2e emitted. This target is also closely aligned with the national targets set by many of our host governments.

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

Governance over climate-related risks and opportunities is provided at both the Board and management level. The Board’s Corporate Responsibility Committee meets at least quarterly and is responsible for overseeing Barrick’s policies, programs, and performance relating to the environment, including climate change. The Risk Committee assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s management of enterprise risks as well as the implementation of policies and standards for monitoring and mitigating such risks. Climate change is built into our formal risk management process, outputs of which are reviewed by the Risk Committee. The Audit Committee reviews the Company’s approach to climate change in the context of Barrick’s disclosures.

At the management level, our Climate Change Committee, comprised of senior members of our

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

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

Climate change activities initiated in 2017 will continue into 2018 and beyond. Site-level climate-related risks and mitigation plans will be reviewed in the context of the company-wide risk assessment, and site-level plans to reduce energy and GHG emissions will be strengthened. We will continue to enhance our climate-related disclosure according to the TCFD recommendations. Overall, based on the groundwork completed in 2017, Barrick is building resilience to withstand the potential impacts of climate change and leverage potential opportunities as the global economy transitions to a low-carbon future.

Reserves and Resources

Our 2017 reserves were calculated using a gold price assumption of $1,200 per ounce. As of December 31, 2017, Barrick’s proven and probable gold reserves were 64.5 million ounces⁶, compared to 86.0 million ounces at the end of 2016. This decline primarily reflects the divestment of approximately 9.2 million ounces associated with Veladero and Cerro Casale, and the reclassification of approximately 14.0 million ounces of Pascua-Lama proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources.

Barrick added 8.0 million ounces of proven and probable gold reserves at existing operations (as well as the Goldrush project) through drilling, more than replacing the 6.2 million ounces depleted through processing last year. This success reflects increased investment in mine exploration drilling in 2017. Significant additions included 2.1 million ounces at Turquoise Ridge, 1.4 million ounces at Cortez, 1.3 million ounces at Goldstrike, 397,000 ounces at Hemlo, and 392,000 ounces at Lagunas Norte. We also declared an initial reserve of 1.5 million ounces at the Goldrush project. In addition, Barrick’s 63.9 percent share of reserves at Acacia’s North Mara mine increased by 504,000 ounces. The average grade of Barrick’s reserves also increased by 17 percent, from 1.33 grams per tonne, to 1.55 grams per tonne.

In 2017, measured, indicated, and inferred gold resources were calculated using a gold price assumption of $1,500 per ounce, consistent with 2016. Measured and indicated

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 31 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

gold resources increased to 88.6 million ounces⁶ at the end of 2017, compared to 75.2 million ounces at the end of 2016. Roughly 9.1 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources were added as a result of the formation of the Norte Abierto joint venture (which includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits), net of resources divested at Cerro Casale and Veladero. Roughly 14.0 million ounces of measured and indicated resources were added as a result of the reclassification of Pascua-Lama reserves to resources, and 5.8 million ounces were added through drilling, including 1.5 million ounces at Goldstrike, 1.2 million ounces at Cortez, and 535,000 ounces at Hemlo.

Inferred gold resources decreased to 30.8 million ounces⁶ at the end of 2017, compared to 30.7 million ounces at the end of 2016.

Gold Reserves and Resources

(millions of ounces)

Proven and probable copper reserves were calculated using a copper price of $2.75 per pound, consistent with the long-price assumption we used in 2016. Copper reserves, including copper within gold reserves, increased to 11.2 billion pounds⁶ at the end of 2017, compared to 11.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016. The Lumwana mine added approximately 2.6 billion pounds to its reserves as a result of successful cost reduction efforts. Approximately 1.4 billion pounds of copper reserves were divested with the sale of 25% of Cerro Casale, 554 million pounds were processed, and 505 million pounds of copper contained within gold reserves were reclassified as copper contained within gold resources.

In 2017, measured, indicated, and inferred copper resources were calculated using a copper price assumption of $3.50 per pound, consistent with 2016. Measured and indicated copper resources, including copper within measured and indicated gold resources, increased to 11.7 billion pounds⁶, compared to 9.7 billion pounds at the end of 2016. Approximately 2.6 billion pounds of measured and indicated copper resources were upgraded to copper reserves, 2.6 billion pounds were added through the inclusion of the Caspiche deposit, and 1.6 billion pounds were added through drilling. Inferred copper resources were 3.0 billion pounds⁵, compared to 3.1 billion pounds at the end of 2016.

Copper Reserves and Resources

(millions of pounds)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 32 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Outlook for 2018

Operating Unit Guidance

Our 2017 gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹, all-in sustaining costs¹ and 2018 forecast gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹ and all-in sustaining costs¹ ranges by operating unit are as follows:

Operating Unit	2017 production (000s ozs)	2017 cost of sales ($/oz)	2017 cash costs1 ($/oz)	2017 all-in sustaining costs1 ($/oz)	2018 forecast production (000s ozs)	2018 forecast cost of sales ($/oz)	2018 forecast cash costs1 ($/oz)	2018 forecast   all-in   sustaining   costs1 ($/oz)
Gold
Barrick Nevada	2,312	$792	$455	$624	2,000 -2,255	760 -810	470 -530	610 - 660
Pueblo Viejo (60%)	650	699	405	525	585 - 615	720 - 750	425 - 450	590 - 620
Lagunas Norte	387	617	405	483	230 - 270	780 - 910	420 - 490	670 - 780
Veladero (50%)2	432	897	598	987	275 - 330	970 - 1,110	560 - 620	960 - 1,100
Turquoise Ridge (75%)	211	715	589	733	240 - 270	670 - 720	580 - 620	650 - 730
Porgera (47.5%)	235	944	781	993	230 - 255	950 - 1,000	780 - 830	950 - 1,000
Kalgoorlie (50%)	368	806	642	729	390 - 440	720 - 820	580 - 630	695 - 745
Acacia (63.9%)	491	791	587	875	275 - 305	970 - 1,020	690 - 720	935 - 985
Hemlo	196	986	841	1,092	200 - 220	860 - 920	740 - 790	975 - 1,075
Golden Sunlight	41	1,334	1,265	1,329	35 - 50	1,100 -1,200	1,130 -1,230	1,290 -1,460
Total Continuing Operations	5,323	$793	$522	$703	4,500 -5,000	810 - 850	540 - 575	765 - 815
Total Consolidated Barrick3,4,5	5,323	$794	$526	$750	4,500 -5,000	810 - 850	540 - 575	765 - 815
	2017 production (millions lbs)	2017 cost of sales ($/lb)	2017 cash costs1 ($/lb)	2017 all-in sustaining costs1 ($/lb)	2018 forecast production (millions lbs)	2018 forecast cost of sales ($/lb)	2018 forecast C1 cash costs1 ($/lb)	2018     forecast     all-in     sustaining     costs1 ($/lb)
Copper
Zaldívar (50%)	114	$2.15	$1.66	$2.21	115 - 130	2.30 - 2.50	~ 1.70	2.05 - 2.25
Lumwana	256	1.57	1.66	2.35	230 - 265	1.65 - 1.90	1.65 - 1.90	2.50 - 2.80
Jabal Sayid (50%)	43	1.90	1.70	2.30	40 - 55	1.85 - 2.50	1.40 - 1.80	1.70 - 2.30
Total Copper	413	$1.77	$1.66	$2.34	385 - 450	1.80 - 2.10	1.55 - 1.75	2.30 - 2.60

1 Cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 We sold 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017; therefore these measures represent results on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

3 Total gold cash costs and all-in sustaining costs per ounce include the impact of hedges and/or costs allocated to non-operating sites.

4 Operating unit guidance ranges reflect expectations at each individual operating unit, and may not add up to the company-wide guidance range total. The company-wide 2017 results and guidance ranges exclude Pierina which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

5 Total Consolidated Barrick all-in sustaining costs include corporate administration costs.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 33 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Operating Unit, Consolidated Expense and Capital Guidance

Our 2017 gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹, all-in sustaining costs¹, consolidated expenses and capital expenditures and forecast gold and copper production, cost of sales, cash costs¹, all-in sustaining costs¹, consolidated expenses and capital expenditures for 2018 are as follows:

($ millions, except per ounce/pound data)	2017 Original Guidance		Q3 2017 Guidance		2017 Actual			2018 Guidance
Gold production and costs
Production (millions of ounces)		5.60 - 5.90		5.30 - 5.50		5.32			4.50 - 5.00
Gold unit production costs
Cost of sales - gold ($ per oz)		780 - 820		790 - 810		794			810 - 850
Cash costs ($ per oz)1		510 - 535		520 - 535		526			540 - 575
Depreciation ($ per oz)		245 - 265		245 - 265		254			240 - 260
All-in sustaining costs ($ per oz)1		720 -770		740 - 770		750			765 - 815
Copper production and costs
Production (millions of pounds)		400 - 450		420 - 440		413			385 - 450
Copper unit production costs
Cost of sales - copper ($ per lb)		1.50 - 1.70		1.70 - 1.85		1.77			1.80 - 2.10
C1 cash costs ($ per lb)1		1.40 - 1.60		1.60 - 1.75		1.66			1.55 - 1.75
Depreciation ($ per lb)		0.30 - 0.40		0.30 - 0.40		0.38			0.40 - 0.50
Copper all-in sustaining costs ($ per lb)1		2.10 - 2.40		2.20 - 2.40		2.34			2.30 - 2.60
Exploration and project expenses		415 - 495		415 - 495		354			325 - 405
Exploration and evaluation		185 - 225		185 - 225		173			185 - 225
Project expenses		230 - 270		230 - 270		181			140 -180
General and administrative expenses		~ 285		~ 260		248			~ 340
Corporate administration		~ 200		~ 200		201			~ 275
Stock-based compensation2		~ 40		~ 40		26			~ 30
Acacia3		~ 45		~ 20		21			~ 35
Other expense (income)4		25 - 45		25 - 45		(799	)		80 - 100
Finance costs5		600 - 650		600 - 650		705			500 - 550
Attributable capital expenditures:
Attributable minesite sustaining		1,050 - 1,200		1,100 - 1,200		1,095			950 - 1,100
Attributable project		250 - 300		250 - 300		269			450 - 550
Total attributable capital expenditures6		1,300 - 1,500		1,350 - 1,500		1,364			1,400 - 1,600

1 Cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 2017 actual based on US$14.47 and 2018 guidance based on a three month trailing average ending December 31, 2017 of US$14.50 per share and excludes Acacia.

3 2017 actual includes $8 million in stock-based compensation recovery. 2018 guidance is substantially comprised of stock-based compensation.

4 2017 actual includes gain on sale of non-current assets of $911 million.

5 2017 actual includes a net loss on debt extinguishment of $127 million.

6 Attributable capital expenditures are presented on the same basis as guidance, which includes our 60% share of Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo, our 63.9% share of Acacia and our 50% share of Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

2018 Guidance Analysis

Estimates of future production, cost of sales, and cash costs¹ presented in this MD&A are based on mine plans that reflect the expected method by which we will mine reserves at each site. Actual gold and copper production and associated costs may vary from these estimates due to a number of operational and non-operational risk factors (see the “Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information” on page 22 of this MD&A for a description of certain risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these estimates).

Production

We expect 2018 gold production to be in the range of 4.5 to 5.0 million ounces. 2018 gold production is expected to be lower than 2017, primarily as a result of decreases at Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo and Veladero. We expect first quarter production of around one million ounces at costs that will be proportionately higher than those anticipated for the remainder of the year, largely due to lower grades at Barrick Nevada, and the timing of planned maintenance at Pueblo Viejo.

Lower production is expected at Barrick Nevada as its Cortez Hills open pit and Cortez Hills underground moves from purely oxide ore to a mix of oxide, refractory, and

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 34 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

transitional ores. Grade is expected to be lower as production progresses deeper in the mine. This is partially offset by increased throughput at the oxide mill, increased grades at Goldstrike open pit from processing the third northwest layback, and higher grades at Goldstrike underground. Throughput initiatives at the autoclave are expected to more than offset lower autoclave recovery as we transition from an all acid blend to an alkaline/acid blend.

Production at Pueblo Viejo in 2018 is expected to be lower than 2017 production levels, driven by reduced gold grade, partially offset by increased autoclave throughput resulting from improved maintenance strategies.

Lower production for Veladero is expected as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017. This, combined with an increased proportion of ore tonnage mined at lower grade, will be offset by a higher inventory drawdown due to improved management of the leach pad.

Cost of Sales

On a per ounce basis, cost of sales attributable to gold⁴, after removing the portion related to non-controlling interests, is expected to be in the range of $810 to $850 per ounce, higher than the prior year. The projected increase is mainly due to higher assumed energy and consumables costs. We are planning to offset those rising costs with a continued focus on lowering our other direct mining costs through Best-in-Class initiatives, which should improve operating efficiencies and lower labor and contractor costs.

Cash Costs per ounce

Cash costs¹ are expected to be in the range of $540 to $575 per ounce, slightly higher than the prior year due to increases at Barrick Nevada, Pueblo Viejo and Lagunas Norte, partially offset by a decrease at Veladero.

We expect Barrick Nevada to have higher cash costs¹ than 2017 due to lower sold ounces. At Pueblo Viejo and Lagunas Norte we expect higher cash costs¹ than 2017 primarily due to a reduction in total ounces produced and sold and higher fuel prices.

We expect lower cash costs¹ at Veladero in 2018 compared to the prior year due to lower direct operating costs partly offset by the impact of higher charges from the production inventory movements.

All-In Sustaining Costs per ounce

All-in sustaining costs¹ are expected to be in the range of $765 to $815 per ounce for gold, higher than the $750 per ounce in 2017 driven primarily by the higher expected cash costs as well as an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures on a per ounce basis. In 2018, we expect to incur increased corporate administration

expense. We will also continue to focus on Best-in-Class initiatives to reduce mining costs.

Exploration and Project Expenses

We expect to incur approximately $185 to $225 million of exploration and evaluation (“E&E”) expenditures in 2018 with approximately 80 percent allocated to the Americas. Our exploration programs balance high-quality brownfield projects, greenfield exploration, and emerging discoveries that we believe have the potential to become profitable mines. We continue to take advantage of existing infrastructure and advance key growth projects in Barrick Nevada. At our Hemlo mine we are building on the expansion potential of our underground, and at the Lagunas Norte mine in Peru we continue to advance a project to extend the life of the mine by potentially exploiting existing oxide stockpiles and then transitioning to mining the refractory material below the oxide ore body in the current open pit.

Highlights of our greenfield exploration program for 2018 include the Fourmile target, adjacent to our Goldrush discovery in Nevada, and the Frontera District on the border of Argentina and Chile.

We expect to incur approximately $140 to $180 million of project expenses in 2018, compared to $181 million in 2017. In 2018, project expenses include the Pascua-Lama study and ongoing site costs, the re-scoping study of our Donlin Gold Project, costs associated with regional digital projects and Norte Abierto (our joint venture with Goldcorp containing Cerro Casale and Caspiche) projects. The Pascua-Lama study spend relates to the cost of ongoing work to evaluate and permit the development of an underground mine at Pascua-Lama, accessed from the Argentinean side of the project. Pascua-Lama’s ongoing site expenses include the cost of care and maintenance and does not anticipate the impact of the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (“SMA”) sanction received on January 17, 2018. The Company has appealed the SMA sanction on Pascua in Chile and the full impacts are still being evaluated.

General and Administrative Expenses

In 2018, we expect corporate administration costs to be approximately $275 million, an increase of $74 million compared to 2017. This reflects additional investments including improving our enterprise-wide processes and systems - the Barrick Data Fabric; accelerating the implementation of digital technology; and driving step-change innovations.

Finance Costs

Finance costs of $500 to $550 million primarily represent interest expense on long-term debt, non-cash interest expense relating to gold and silver streaming agreements, and accretion, net of finance income. We expect finance costs in 2018 to be lower than 2017 finance costs of $705 million primarily due to lower interest expense in 2017

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 35 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

following $1.5 billion of debt repayments in 2017. The impact of any further debt reductions accomplished in 2018 has not been reflected in our guidance on interest expense or extinguishment losses. 2017 finance costs included a $127 million net loss on the extinguishment of debt, and further debt repurchases could lead to additional losses on extinguishment that could cause an increase to forecasted finance costs.

Capital Expenditures

Total attributable capital expenditures for 2018 are expected to be in the range of $1.40 to $1.60 billion. Investing in project capital is a priority in 2018 for Barrick, and we expect attributable project capital expenditures to increase to a range of $450 to $550 million, an increase over our 2017 project capital expenditure of $269 million. In contrast, attributable minesite sustaining capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $950 to $1,100 million, compared to our 2017 minesite sustaining capital expenditure of $1,095 million.

Project capital expenditures reflect capital expenditures at new projects and existing operations that are related to discrete expansion projects intended to increase production and will not benefit production for at least 12 months. Project capital expenditures also include capital expenditures related to the initial construction of a project and include all of the expenditures required to bring the project into operation and achieve commercial production levels.

The budgeted increase in project capital expenditures in 2018 is primarily due to increased spending on the Lower Zone underground expansion and Crossroads project at Cortez, associated with the underground declines at Cortez Hills underground and Goldrush, an increase at Zaldívar associated with a planned plant expansion, and increases at Norte Abierto and Pascua-Lama.

Minesite sustaining capital expenditures reflect the capital spending required to support current planned production levels and those which do not meet our definition of project capital. This includes capitalized production phase stripping costs at our open pit mines, underground mine development, minesite E&E expenditures, and routine plant, equipment and maintenance spend that meet our criteria for capitalization.

Attributable minesite sustaining capital expenditures are expected to be in the range of $950 to $1,100 million compared to $1,095 in 2017. We expect reduced capitalized stripping at Barrick Nevada, Porgera and

Acacia, in addition to a reduction in processing and minesite sustaining capital at Barrick Nevada and Veladero. These are partially offset by an increase in capitalized stripping and equipment rebuilds at Lumwana, an increase in tailings and process facility upgrades at Pueblo Viejo and an increase in capital associated with environmental obligations at Lagunas Norte. These decreases in sustaining capital are the result of our continued focus on our asset optimization and capital discipline processes.

At Barrick Nevada in 2018, sustaining capital expenditures are expected to decrease primarily due to a reduction in capitalized stripping as the Goldstrike open pit transitions from stripping both the 3rd and 4th northwest laybacks to only stripping the 4th northwest layback until the fourth quarter of 2018. In addition, Goldstrike’s cooling and ventilation and dewatering projects to allow mining below a 3,600-foot elevation will near completion mid-2018. The autoclave thiosulfate water treatment plant conversion was completed in 2017, which significantly improved water balances and the consumption of fresh reagent.

At Porgera, sustaining capital expenditures are expected to decrease in 2018 primarily due to a planned reduction in capitalized stripping as the site focuses on an underground expansion plan.

At Veladero, a reduction in sustaining capital is expected in 2018, mainly associated with the completion of the Phase 6 VFLF leach pad expansion and process facility upgrades along with a reduction in overall attributable capital spend due to 2018 being our first full year at our 50/50 equity ownership with our joint venture partner, Shandong Gold.

At Lumwana, the 2018 increase in sustaining capital is related to increased stripping of the Chimi deposit and purchase of major maintenance components and the electric conversion of the PC8000 shovel.

At Pueblo Viejo, the increase in sustaining capital in 2018 is related to initiatives to improve the plant’s operational efficiency, process facility upgrades and continued tailings expansion capital.

Effective Income Tax Rate

At current spot gold prices, our expected effective tax rate range for 2018 is 41% to 43%.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 36 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Outlook Assumptions and Economic Sensitivity Analysis

	2018 Guidance Assumption	Hypothetical Change	Impact on Revenue (millions)	Impact on Cost of Sales (millions)	Impact on All-in Sustaining Costs1
Gold revenue, net of royalties2	$1,200/oz	+/- $100/oz	+/- $468	+/- $14	+/- $3/oz
Copper revenue, net of royalties3	$2.75/lb	+ $0.50/lb	+ $205	+ $13	+ $0.03/lb
Copper revenue, net of royalties3	$2.75/lb	- $0.50/lb	- $180	- $12	- $0.03/lb
Gold all-in sustaining costs
WTI crude oil price2	$55/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/- $26	+/- $5 /oz
Australian dollar exchange rate	0.75 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $31	+/- $7 /oz
Argentinean peso exchange rate	18.35 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $7	+/- $2 /oz
Canadian dollar exchange rate	1.25 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/- $35	+/- $7 /oz
Copper all-in sustaining costs
WTI crude oil price2	$55/bbl	+/- $10/bbl	n/a	+/- $5	+/- $0.06/lb
Chilean peso exchange rate	650 : 1	+/- 10%	n/a	+/-$10	+/- $0.02/lb

1 All-in sustaining costs is a non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardized definition under IFRS. For further information and a detailed reconciliation, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 Due to our hedging activities, which are reflected in these sensitivities, we are partially protected against changes in these factors.

3 Utilizing option collar strategies, the Company has protected the downside of a portion of its expected 2018 copper production at an average floor price of $2.83 per pound and can participate on the same amount up to an average price of $3.25 per pound. Our remaining copper production is subject to market prices.

Risks and Risk Management

Overview

The ability to deliver on our vision, strategic objectives and operating guidance depends on our ability to understand and appropriately respond to the uncertainties or “risks” we face that may prevent us from achieving our objectives. In order to achieve this we:

• Maintain a framework that ensures we manage risk effectively and in a manner that creates the greatest value;

• Integrate a process for managing risk into all our important decision-making processes so that we reduce the effect of uncertainty on achieving our objectives;

• Ensure that the key controls we rely on to achieve the Company’s objectives are actively monitored so that they remain in place and are effective at all times; and

• Provide assurance to the executives and relevant Committees of the Board of Directors on the effectiveness of key control activities.

Board and Committee Oversight

We maintain strong risk oversight practices, with responsibilities outlined in the Board’s and related committees’ mandates. The Board’s mandate makes clear its responsibility for reviewing and discussing with management the processes used to assess and manage risk, including the identification by management of the principal risks of the business, and the implementation of appropriate systems to deal with such risks.

The Risk Committee of the Board of Directors assists the Board in overseeing the Company’s management of principal risks as well as the implementation of policies and standards for monitoring and modifying such risks, and monitoring and reviewing the Company’s financial position and financial risk management programs generally. The Audit Committee and Corporate Responsibility Committee also provide oversight focusing on financial and operational (e.g., environmental, health and safety, corporate social responsibility, security and human rights) risk exposures, respectively.

Management Oversight

On a weekly basis, the global leadership team, including the Executive Committee and representatives from each of Barrick’s country offices, mine sites and corporate functions, participate in the BPR meeting. This forum allows for the timely identification of key risks that may prevent the Company from achieving its objectives. It also fosters a culture of transparent, real-time risk management as a collective and enables a learning organization. At regularly scheduled meetings, the Board and the Risk Committee are provided with updates on issues identified by management at these weekly sessions.

Principal Risks

The following subsections describe some of our key sources of uncertainty and most important risk modification activities. The risks described below are not the only ones facing Barrick. Our business is subject to inherent risks in financial, regulatory, strategic and operational areas. For a more comprehensive discussion of those inherent risks, see “Risk Factors” in our most recent Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 37 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities. Also see the “Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information” on page 22 of this MD&A.

Financial position and liquidity

Our liquidity profile, level of indebtedness and credit ratings are all factors in our ability to meet short- and long-term financial demands. Barrick’s outstanding debt balances impact liquidity through scheduled interest and principal repayments and the results of leverage ratio calculations, which could influence our investment grade credit ratings and ability to access capital markets. In addition, the Company’s ability to draw on our credit facility is subject to meeting its covenants. Our primary source of liquidity is our operating cash flow, which is dependent on the ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows. The ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows, as well as future changes in gold and copper market prices, either favorable or unfavorable, will continue to have a material impact on our cash flow and liquidity.

Key risk modification activities:

• Reduced notional and lengthened average tenor of our outstanding debt through liability management activities;

• Continued focus on generating positive free cash flow by improving the underlying cost structures of our operations in a sustainable manner;

• Disciplined capital allocation criteria for all investments, and regular Investment Committee meetings to ensure a high degree of consistency and rigor is applied to all capital allocation decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of risk and reward;

• Preparation of budgets and forecasts to understand the impact of different price scenarios on liquidity, and formulate appropriate strategies; and

• Other options available to the Company to enhance liquidity include drawing on our $4.0 billion undrawn credit facility, asset sales, joint ventures, or issuance of debt or equity securities.

Improving free cash flow¹ and costs

Our ability to improve productivity, drive down operating costs and reduce working capital remains a focus in 2018 and is subject to several sources of uncertainty. This includes our ability to achieve and maintain industry-leading margins by improving the productivity and efficiency of our operations through our Best-in-Class, Asset Integrity and digital transformation programs.

Key risk modification activities:

• Formal project management protocols are established around these business transformation programs. The status of these projects is reviewed on a weekly basis during the

BPR meetings to ensure the timely identification of key risk exposures that may affect their successful delivery;

• Ongoing implementation of a digitization program including a Cisco partnership to unlock the potential of digital mining; and

• Ongoing implementation of a Best-in-Class program to unleash the full potential of our mines and encompassing:

° A standardized, performance-oriented measurement scorecard linking top operational and economic measures;

° Monthly optimization forums as a way to communicate and review the Best-in-Class projects and performance to targets;

° Innovation and digitization program focused on driving value across the business; and

° Asset Integrity program to improve availability of critical infrastructure.

Social license to operate

At Barrick, we are committed to building, operating, and closing our mines in a safe and responsible manner. To do this, we seek to develop long-term and mutually-beneficial relationships with host governments and communities while working to minimize the social and environmental impacts of our activities. Geopolitical risks such as resource nationalism and incidents of corruption are inherent for a company operating globally. Past environmental incidents in the extractive industry highlight the hazards (e.g., water management, tailings storage facilities, etc.) and the potential consequences to both the environment and community health and safety. Barrick also recognizes climate change as an area of risk requiring specific focus. Our ability to maintain compliance with regulatory and community obligations in order to protect the environment and our host communities alike remains one of our top priorities.

Key risk modification activities:

• Our external Corporate Social Responsibility Advisory Board was formed in 2012 and provides expert advice to the Company on a range of corporate social responsibility matters, including community relations, sustainable development, water, energy, climate change, security and human rights;

• Our obligations, expectations and intentions are codified in our Vision and Values and the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and they are reinforced regularly at all levels of the Company;

• Barrick’s community relations, environment, safety and health, security and compliance management systems set expectations, define performance standards and provide the necessary tools to modify the related risks;

• We take a partnership approach with our home and host governments. This means we work to

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 38 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

balance our own interests and priorities with those of our government partners, working to ensure that everyone derives real value from our operations;

• We open our social and environmental performance to third-party scrutiny, including through the ISO 14001 re-certification process, International Cyanide Management Code audits, annual human rights impact assessments, and an annual assurance against the International Council on Mining and Metal’s Sustainable Development Framework;

• We participate in the annual CDP Climate Change and Water Disclosure process, providing investors and other interested partners with detailed information on our water and energy use and emissions data;

• Under the direction of the Climate Change committee, we performed a climate change risk assessment. Refer to page 30 for details; and

• We continually review and update our closure plans and cost estimates to plan for environmentally responsible closure and monitoring of operations.

Resources and reserves and production outlook

Like any mining company, we face the risk that we are unable to discover or acquire new resources or that we do not convert resources into production. As we move into 2018 and beyond, our overriding objective of growing free cash flow per share is underpinned by a strong pipeline of organic projects and minesite expansion opportunities in our core regions. Uncertainty related to these and other opportunities exists (potentially both favorable and unfavorable) due to the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development as well as the potential for increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects.

Key risk modification activities:

• Focus on responsible Mineral Resource Management and continuously improved orebody knowledge, adding to and upgrading reserves and resources (organically and inorganically);

• Develop and advance a balanced pipeline of high-return projects and seek to exit those that do not meet expectations;

• Pursue high-return growth options with a mindset of innovation, cost control, and risk mitigation;

• Enhance project design to stagger capital outlay and optimize timing of cash flows; and

• Exploration activities including minesite exploration and global programs.

Market Overview

The market prices of gold, and, to a lesser extent, copper are the primary drivers of our profitability and our ability to generate free cash flow for our shareholders.

Gold

The price of gold is subject to volatile price movements over short periods of time and is affected by numerous industry and macroeconomic factors. During the year, the gold price ranged from $1,146 per ounce to $1,358 per ounce. The average market price for the year of $1,257 per ounce represented an increase of 0.5% versus 2016.

The price of gold generally rose over the course of 2017, experiencing its low in early January and ending the year near $1,300/oz. Over the year, the gold price was positively influenced by a weakening of the trade-weighted US dollar to lows not seen since early 2015. In addition, geopolitical tensions, highlighted by concerns regarding North Korea, fluctuations in long-term US interest rates, and investor interest in gold as a safe haven asset and hedge against record high levels in U.S. equity indices were all supportive factors for gold.

Copper

During 2017, London Metal Exchange (“LME”) copper prices traded in a range of $2.47 to $3.32 per pound, averaged $2.80 per pound, and closed the year at $3.25 per pound. Copper prices are significantly influenced by physical demand from emerging markets, especially China.

The price of copper traded higher over the course of 2017, reaching a 3-year high near the end of the year and averaging 27% above the previous year. Copper prices benefited from a weakening of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, positive economic and copper usage data from China, an increase in the price of other non-precious metal mined commodities, and positive investor sentiment. A dearth of new projects scheduled to enter production later in the decade could positively impact prices in the coming years should physical demand continue to grow.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 39 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Utilizing option collar strategies, we have protected the downside on approximately 60 million pounds (~15%) of expected copper production for the first half of 2018 at an average floor price of $2.83 per pound and can participate up to an average price of $3.25 per pound. These positions expire evenly over the first six months of the year. Our remaining copper production is subject to market prices.

We have provisionally priced copper sales for which final price determination versus the relevant copper index is outstanding at the balance sheet date. As at December 31, 2017, we recorded 40 million pounds of copper sales subject to final settlement at an average provisional price of $3.29 per pound. The impact to net income before taxation of a 10% movement in the market price of copper would be approximately $13 million, holding all other variables constant.

Silver

Silver traded in a range of $15.19 to $18.65 per ounce in 2017, with an average market price of $17.05 per ounce and closed the year at $16.87 per ounce. The silver price is driven by factors similar to those influencing investment demand for gold.

Silver prices do not significantly impact our current operating earnings, cash flows, or gold cash costs. Silver prices, however, will have a significant impact on the overall economics for our Pascua-Lama project.

Currency Exchange Rates

The results of our mining operations outside of the United States are affected by US dollar exchange rates with non-US denominated currencies comprising approximately 30% of our operating and capital cost exposures. Although we have made dispositions, we continue to have exposure to the Australian and Canadian dollars through a combination of mine operating and corporate administration costs, as well as exposure to the Chilean peso through expected future capital and operating costs at our Pascua-Lama project and mine operating costs at Zaldívar. We also have exposure to the Argentinean peso through operating costs at our Veladero mine, peso denominated VAT receivable balances and expected future capital and operating costs at our Pascua-Lama project. In addition, we have exposure to the Papua New Guinea kina, Peruvian sol, Zambian kwacha, Tanzanian shilling and Dominican peso through mine operating and capital costs.

Fluctuations in the US dollar increase the volatility of our costs reported in US dollars, subject to positions put in place through our currency hedging program. During 2017, we did not have any currency hedge positions. In 2017, the Australian dollar traded in a range of $0.72 to $0.81 against the US dollar, while the US dollar against the Canadian dollar, Chilean peso and Argentinean peso ranged from $1.21 to $1.38, CLP613 to CLP682 and ARS 15.01 to ARS 19.20, respectively.

We are unhedged against foreign exchange exposures as at December 31, 2017.

Fuel

For 2017, the price of West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude oil traded in a wide range between $42 and $61 per barrel, with an average market price of $51 per barrel and closed the year at $60 per barrel. During 2017, the price of crude oil rose significantly over the second half of the year, reaching the highest levels since mid-2015 toward the end of the year. Reduced supply and increasing demand have helped towards balancing the physical market, and an agreement reportedly being adhered to by major producing nations to cap production has improved overall market sentiment towards crude oil.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 40 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In 2017, we recorded hedge losses in earnings of $32 million on our fuel hedge positions (2016: $47 million loss and 2015: $19 million loss). Assuming December 31, 2017 market forward curves and year-end spot prices, we expect to realize fuel hedge losses of approximately $21 million in 2018. A significant portion of these losses has already been recorded in the consolidated statements of income as an unrealized loss on non-hedge derivatives. Beginning in January 2015, upon early adoption of IFRS 9, Barrick’s fuel hedges qualified for hedge accounting and unrealized gains and losses began being recorded in Other Comprehensive Income.

    Financial Fuel Hedge Summary

	Barrels (thousands)		Average price		% of total expected exposure		Impact of $10 change on pre-tax earnings (USD millions)1
2018		1,244		78		28%		31

1 Includes the impact of hedges currently in place.

US Dollar Interest Rates

Beginning in 2008, in response to the contraction of global credit markets and in an effort to spur economic activity and avoid potential deflation, the US Federal Reserve reduced the range for its benchmark rate to between 0% and 0.25%. The benchmark was kept at this level until December 2015, when the range was increased by 25 basis points. The range was raised by an additional 25 basis points in December 2016 and an additional 75 basis points over the course of 2017. As economic conditions in the US continue to normalize, we expect incremental increases to short-term rates to continue in 2018.

At present, our interest rate exposure mainly relates to interest receipts on our cash balances ($2.2 billion at December 31, 2017); the mark-to-market value of derivative instruments; the fair value of and ongoing payments under US dollar interest-rate swaps; the carrying value of certain long-lived assets and liabilities; and to the interest payments on our variable-rate debt ($0.1 billion at December 31, 2017). Currently, the amount of interest expense recorded in our consolidated statement of income is not materially impacted by changes in interest rates, because the majority of debt was issued at fixed interest rates. The relative amounts of variable-rate financial assets and liabilities may change in the future, depending on the amount of operating cash flow we generate, as well as the level of capital expenditures and our ability to borrow on favorable terms using fixed rate debt instruments. Changes in interest rates affect the accretion expense recorded on our provision for environmental rehabilitation and therefore would affect our net earnings.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 41 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

REVIEW OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL RESULTS

Revenue

($ millions, except per ounce/pound   data in dollars)			For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Gold
000s oz sold1		5,302		5,503		6,083
000s oz produced1		5,323		5,517		6,117
Revenue		$7,631		$7,908		$7,813
Market price2		1,257		1,251		1,160
Realized price2,3		$1,258		$1,248		$1,157
Copper
millions lbs sold1		405		405		510
millions lbs produced1		413		415		511
Revenue		$608		$466		$1,002
Market price2		2.80		2.21		2.49
Realized price2,3		2.95		2.29		2.37
Other sales		$135		$184		$214
Total revenue		$8,374		$8,558		$9,029

1 Includes our equity share of gold ounces from Acacia and Pueblo Viejo and copper pounds from Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

2 Per ounce/pound weighted average.

3 Realized price is a non-GAAP financial performance measure with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

In 2017, gold revenues were down 4% compared to the prior year primarily due to a decrease in gold sales volume, partially offset by higher realized gold prices¹. The average realized gold price¹ for 2017 was up $10 per ounce compared to the prior year reflecting the higher market gold prices in 2017, which averaged $6 per ounce higher than 2016.

In 2017, gold production was 194 thousand ounces or 4% lower than the prior year, primarily as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017. Excluding the impact of the Veladero divestment, gold production decreased by 1% or 48 thousand ounces due to lower grade and recovery at Turquoise Ridge, lower grade at Pueblo Viejo and Hemlo, lower recovery at Lagunas Norte and lower throughput at Acacia as a result of reduced operations at Bulyanhulu. These decreases were partially offset by higher production at Barrick Nevada and Veladero attributed to higher throughput and grade.

Copper revenues for 2017 were up 30% compared to the prior year due to a higher realized copper price¹. In 2017, the realized copper price was up $0.66 per pound compared to 2016, due to the 27% increase in market copper prices over the prior year.

Copper production for 2017 was 2 million pounds lower than the prior year as lower production at Lumwana by 15 million pounds due to lower grades and recoveries was partially offset by increased production at Jabal Sayid of 13 million pounds, related to a full year of production in 2017 after it achieved of commercial production in July 2016.

Production Costs

($ millions, except per ounce/pound data in dollars)
For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Gold
Direct mining costs		$3,063		$3,215		$4,006
Depreciation		1,529		1,504		1,615
Royalty expense		206		224		235
Community relations		38		37		50
Cost of sales		$4,836		$4,980		$5,906
Cost of sales (per oz)1		794		798		859
Cash costs2,3		526		546		596
All-in sustaining costs2,3		750		730		831
Copper
Cost of sales		$399		$319		$814
Cost of sales (per lb)1		1.77		1.41		1.65
C1 cash costs2,3		1.66		1.49		1.73
All-in sustaining costs2,3		$2.34		$2.05		$2.33

1 Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales related to gold on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces. Cost of sales related to copper per pound is calculated using cost of sales related to copper including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

2 Per ounce/pound weighted average.

3 Cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and C1 cash costs are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

In 2017, cost of sales applicable to gold was 3% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower sales volume, which has contributed to a decrease in direct mining costs and royalty expense. This was partially offset by an increase in depreciation expense, as discussed below. On a per ounce basis, cost of sales applicable to gold⁴ after removing the portion related to non-controlling interests, was 1% lower than the prior year primarily due to a decrease in direct mining costs combined with a positive change in our sales mix with lower relative sales volume from our higher cost Acacia mines. Direct mining costs expense also decreased as a result of higher capitalized waste stripping activity at Barrick Nevada and Veladero

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 42 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

combined with lower inventory write-downs than the prior year and higher equipment rental costs in the prior year as a result of the oxygen plant motor failure at Pueblo Viejo in the fourth quarter of 2015. These decreases were partially offset by higher fuel prices and consulting costs associated with Best-in-Class initiatives. Direct mining costs in 2016 had also benefited from the receipt of insurance proceeds relating to the 2015 oxygen plant motor failure at Pueblo Viejo. Higher depreciation expense is mainly a result of higher depreciation at Pueblo Viejo relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment, partially offset by lower depreciation at Barrick Nevada associated with the South Arturo pit.

In 2017, gold all-in sustaining costs¹ were up $20 per ounce or 3% compared to the prior year primarily due to a planned increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures, partially offset by lower cost of sales per ounce⁴.

In 2017, cost of sales applicable to copper was 25% higher than the prior year as a result of higher power, fuel, consumables and contractor costs combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana. On a per pound basis, cost of sales applicable to copper⁴, after including our proportionate share of cost of sales at our equity method investees, increased 26% compared to the prior year primarily due to higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana as discussed above, partially offset by the positive sales mix impact of lower sales volume at Lumwana compared to the prior year. This was further impacted by higher direct mining costs at Zaldívar primarily related to higher fuel and labor costs combined with higher depreciation expense.

Copper all-in sustaining costs¹, which have been adjusted to include our proportionate share of equity method investments, were 14% higher than the prior year primarily reflecting the higher cost of sales applicable to copper combined with higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures at Lumwana and Jabal Sayid.

Capital Expenditures¹

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Minesite sustaining2		$1,109		$944		$1,359
Project capital expenditures3,4		273		175		133
Capitalized interest		—		—		17
Total consolidated  capital expenditures		$1,382		$1,119		$1,509
Attributable  consolidated  capital expenditures5		$1,364		$1,053		$1,414

1 These amounts are presented on a 100% accrued basis, except for attributable consolidated capital expenditures.

2 Includes both minesite sustaining and mine development.

3 Project capital expenditures are included in our calculation of all-in costs, but not included in our calculation of all-in sustaining costs.

4 Includes both minesite expansion and projects.

5 These amounts are presented on the same basis as our guidance, which include our 60% share of Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo, our 63.9% share of Acacia and our 50% share of Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid.

In 2017, total consolidated capital expenditures increased 24% compared to the prior year primarily due to an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures combined with an increase in project capital expenditures.

The 17% increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures reflects a $143 million increase in sustaining capital at Barrick Nevada relating to higher capitalized stripping costs at Goldstrike open pit and a greater number of minesite sustaining projects compared to 2016, combined with increased spending of $78 million relating to phases 4B and 5B of the leach pad expansion and additional equipment purchases at Veladero. These increases were partially offset by a $53 million decrease in sustaining capital at Acacia as a result of reduced operations at Bulyanhulu combined with lower capitalized stripping at North Mara relating to Nyabirama Stage 3 and 4.

Project capital expenditures increased by $98 million primarily as a result of greater spending incurred at Barrick Nevada relating to development of Crossroads and Cortez Hills Lower Zone, and Goldrush project drilling, partially offset by lower spending at South Arturo, which entered commercial production in August 2016.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 43 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

General and Administrative Expenses

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		2015
Corporate administration1		$201		$159		$183
Stock-based compensation2		26		42		8
Acacia		21		55		42
General & administrative expenses		$248		$256		$233

1 For the year ended December 31, 2017, corporate administration costs include approximately $3 million of severance costs (2016: $9 million; 2015: $29 million).

2 Based on US$14.47 share price as at December 31, 2017 (2016: US$15.98; 2015: US$7.38) and excludes Acacia.

General and administrative expenses were $8 million lower than the prior year primarily related to lower stock-based compensation expense due to decreases in Barrick’s and Acacia’s share prices. These were partially offset by higher corporate administration expenses, in line with expectation, mainly relating to increased spending on digital initiatives and upgrading IT systems.

Exploration, Evaluation and Project Costs

($ millions)	For the years ended  December 31
	2017	2016	2015
Minesite exploration and evaluation	$47	$44		$47
Global exploration and evaluation	126	88		116
Advanced project costs:
Pascua-Lama	122	59		119
Other	14	17		12
Corporate development	13	14		42
Business improvement and innovation	32	15		19
Global exploration and evaluation and project expense	$307	$193		$308
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses	$354	$237		$355

Exploration, evaluation and project costs for 2017 increased $117 million compared to the prior year. The increase is primarily due to a $63 million increase in project costs at Pascua-Lama including study costs. The increase was further impacted by a $38 million increase in global exploration expenses, including Alturas, and various earn-in projects combined with a $17 million increase in business improvement and innovation, primarily related to innovation projects.

Finance Costs, Net

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015
Interest expense1		$511			$591			$737
Accretion		67			50			63
Loss (gain) on debt extinguishment		127			129			(68	)
Other finance costs		—			18			7
Finance income		(14	)		(13	)		(13	)
Finance costs, net		$691			$775			$726

1 For the year ended December 31, 2017, interest expense includes approximately $101 million of non-cash interest expense relating to the gold and silver streaming agreements with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and Royal Gold, Inc. (2016: $100 million; 2015: $61 million).

In 2017, net finance costs were $84 million lower than the prior year primarily due to an $80 million reduction in interest expense attributed to debt reductions combined with a decrease in other finance costs relating to amortization of debt issue costs and higher gains on interest rate hedges. These were partially offset by an increase in accretion expense. We also recorded $127 million and $129 million in losses on debt extinguishment in 2017 and 2016, respectively, as we have been actively reducing our outstanding debt balances in recent years.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 44 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Additional Significant Statement of Income Items

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015
Impairment charges (reversals)		($212	)		($250	)		$3,897
Loss (income) on currency translation		$72			$          199			$120
Other expense/(income)		($799	)		$60			($113	)
Impairment Charges (Reversals)
($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015
	Post-tax (our share)			Post-tax (our share)			Post-tax  (our  share)
Asset impairments (reversals)
Cerro Casale		$        (518	)		$          —			$       —
Bulyanhulu		350			—			—
Lumwana		(259	)		—			—
Pascua-Lama		407			1			399
Lagunas Norte		2			(20	)		26
Golden Sunlight		2			—			—
Veladero		—			(179	)		—
Equity method investments		—			49			—
Pueblo Viejo		—			—			386
Buzwagi		—			—			30
Round Mountain/Bald Mountain		—			—			53
Exploration sites		8			—			—
Other		1			3			53
Total asset impairment charges (reversals)		$            (7	)		$       (146	)		$       947
Goodwill
Goldstrike		$          —			$          —			$730
Zaldívar		—			—			427
Pueblo Viejo		—			—			412
Cortez		—			—			355
Lagunas Norte		—			—			247
Total goodwill impairment charges		$          —			$          —			$       2,171
Tax effects and NCI		(205	)		(104	)		779
Total impairment charges (reversals) (100%)		$        (212	)		$       (250	)		$       3,897

In 2017, we recognized $7 million (net of tax and non-controlling interests) of net impairment reversals for non-current assets. This was primarily as a result of impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017, combined with impairment reversals at Lumwana due to an increase in reserves. These were partially offset by an impairment taken at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine related to the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania and net impairments taken at Pascua-Lama, mainly attributable to the

reclassification of open-pit reserves to resources after receiving a closure order from the Chilean regulators. This compares to non-current asset impairment reversals of $146 million (net of tax and non-controlling interests) in the prior year primarily relating to net impairment reversals at Veladero and Lagunas Norte as a result of improvements in the cost structure, partially offset by a $49 million write-down of our equity method investment in Zaldívar due to the final purchase price adjustments. Refer to note 21 to the Financial Statements for a full description of impairment charges, including pre-tax amounts and sensitivity analysis.

Loss (Income) on Currency Translation

Loss on currency translation for 2017 decreased $127 million compared to the prior year primarily due to $81 million of currency translation losses recognized during the first quarter of 2016 as a result of the disposal and reorganization of certain Australian entities. This was further impacted by lower unrealized foreign currency translation losses relating to the Argentinean peso, which did not depreciate as quickly in the current year.

Other Expense (Income)

Other income was $799 million in 2017 compared to an expense of $60 million in the prior year. The increase primarily relates to 2017 gains of $718 million connected to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and $193 million on the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project. This was partially offset by an increase at Acacia relating to Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs combined with higher litigation expense. This compares to a $42 million loss, primarily relating to Zaldívar, as a result of the final purchase price adjustments recorded in 2016. For a further breakdown of other expense (income), refer to note 9 to the Financial Statements.

Income Tax Expense

Income tax expense was $1,231 million in 2017. The underlying effective tax rate for ordinary income in 2017 was 44% after adjusting for the net impact of foreign currency translation losses on deferred tax balances; the impact of impairment (reversals) charges; the impact of debt extinguishment costs; the impact of asset sales and non-hedge derivatives; the impact of non-deductible foreign exchange losses; the impact of United States tax reform; the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations; and the impact of US withholding taxes. The unadjusted tax rate for income in 2017 was 45% of the income before income taxes.

We record deferred tax charges or credits if changes in facts or circumstances affect the estimated tax basis of assets and therefore the amount of deferred tax assets or liabilities to reflect changing expectations in our ability to realize deferred tax assets. The interpretation of tax regulations and legislation and their application to our business is complex and subject to change. We have

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 45 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

significant amounts of deferred tax assets, including tax loss carry forwards, and also deferred tax liabilities. Potential changes of any of these amounts, as well as our ability to realize deferred tax assets, could significantly affect net income or cash flow in future periods.

Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
At 26.5% statutory rate	$	728		$	471
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions1		(96	)		(134	)
Impact of foreign tax rates2		215			113
Expenses not tax deductible		24			54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets		(241	)		—
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets		66			—
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances		10			23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments		(7	)		(5	)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets		21			35
United States tax reform		(203	)		—
Non-recognition of US AMT credits		—			13
Adjustments in respect of prior years		(6	)		(4	)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities		172			70
Impact of tax rate changes		—			(13	)
United States withholding taxes		252			—
Other withholding taxes		18			11
Mining taxes		266			267
Other items		12			16
Income tax expense	$	1,231		$	917

1 We are able to claim certain allowances and tax deductions unique to extractive industries that result in a lower effective tax rate.

2 We operate in multiple foreign tax jurisdictions that have tax rates different than the Canadian statutory rate.

The more significant items impacting income tax expense in 2017 and 2016 include the following:

Currency Translation

Deferred tax balances are subject to remeasurement for changes in currency exchange rates each period. The most significant balances are Argentinean deferred tax liabilities. In 2017 and 2016, tax expense of $10 million and $23 million, respectively, primarily arose from translation losses due to the weakening of the Argentinean peso against the US dollar. These losses are included within deferred tax expense/recovery.

United States Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017 Tax Reform was enacted in the United States. The significant changes include: (i) a reduction from 35% to 21% in the corporate income tax rate effective January 1, 2018, which resulted in a deferred tax recovery of $343 million on our net deferred tax liability in the US, (ii) a repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) effective January 1, 2018, (iii) the mandatory repatriation of earnings and

profits of specified foreign corporations effective December 31, 2017, which resulted in an estimated onetime 2017 toll charge of $228 million, offset by (iv) the recognition of our previously unrecognized deferred tax asset on AMT credits in the amount of $88 million, which can be used to offset the one-time toll charge. The net one-time 2017 toll charge payable amount of $140 million is payable over 8 years. $129 million of this amount has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (refer to note 29 to the Financial Statements). The impact of the United States Tax Reform may differ from this estimate due to changes in interpretations and assumptions we have made and guidance that may be issued.

Proposed Framework for Acacia Operations in Tanzania and the Increase to Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities in Tanzania

The terms of the Proposed Framework for Acacia Mining Operations in Tanzania were announced on October 19, 2017. The Proposed Framework indicates that in support of ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, on terms to be settled by a working group. A tax provision of $128 million had been recorded prior to December 31, 2016 in respect of tax disputes related to Acacia. Of this amount, $70 million was recorded in 2016. In the third quarter of 2017, an additional amount of $172 million was recorded as current tax expense. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for further information with respect to these matters.

United States Withholding Taxes

Prior to fourth quarter 2017, we had not previously recorded withholding tax related to the undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries because our intention was to reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries indefinitely. During fourth quarter 2017, we reassessed our intentions regarding those undistributed earnings. As a result of our reassessment, we concluded that it was no longer our intent to indefinitely reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries, and therefore in fourth quarter 2017, we recognized an increase in our income tax provision in the amount of $252 million, representing withholding tax on the undistributed United States earnings. $150 million was recorded in the tax charge for the year, and $102 million was recorded as deferred tax expense. Of the $150 million, $130 million has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (refer to note 29 to the Financial Statements).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 46 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

FINANCIAL CONDITION REVIEW

Summary Balance Sheet and Key Financial Ratios
($ millions, except ratios and share amounts)	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		As at December 31, 2015
Total cash and equivalents		$2,234		$2,389		$2,455
Current assets		2,450		2,485		3,013
Non-current assets		20,624		20,390		20,840
Total Assets		$25,308		$25,264		$26,308
Current liabilities excluding short-term debt		$1,688		$1,676		$1,644
Non-current liabilities excluding long-term debt1		6,130		5,344		5,241
Debt (current and long-term)		6,423		7,931		9,968
Total Liabilities		$14,241		$14,951		$16,853
Total shareholders’ equity		9,286		7,935		7,178
Non-controlling interests		1,781		2,378		2,277
Total Equity		$11,067		$10,313		$9,455
Total common shares outstanding (millions of shares)2		1,167		1,166		1,165
Key Financial Ratios:
Current ratio3		2.68:1		2.68:1		2.77:1
Debt-to-equity4		0.58:1		0.77:1		1.05:1

1 Non-current financial liabilities as at December 31, 2017 were $6,844 million (2016: $8,002 million; 2015: $10,068 million).

2 Total common shares outstanding do not include 1.0 million stock options.

3 Represents current assets (excluding assets held-for-sale) divided by current liabilities (including short-term debt and excluding liabilities held-for-sale) as at December 31, 2017, December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

4 Represents debt divided by total shareholders’ equity (including minority interest) as at December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

Balance Sheet Review

Total assets were $25.3 billion at December 31, 2017, in line with the balance at December 31, 2016, as the sale of 50% percent of our Veladero mine in Argentina and 25% of the Cerro Casale project in Chile, combined with impairment charges at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and our Pascua-Lama project, were offset by the remeasurement of our remaining interest in the Veladero mine and the Cerro Casale project, combined with asset impairment reversals, mainly at Lumwana. The proceeds from the Veladero transaction were a primary source of funding for debt repayments, and were combined with a portion of our existing cash balance, which further reduced total assets. Our asset base is primarily comprised of non-current assets such as property, plant and equipment and goodwill, reflecting the capital-intensive nature of the mining business and our history of growth through acquisitions. Other significant assets include production inventories, indirect taxes recoverable and receivable, concentrate sales receivables, other government transaction and joint venture related receivables, and cash and equivalents. Total liabilities at December 31, 2017 totaled $14.2 billion, approximately $0.7 billion lower than at December 31, 2016, reflecting $1.5 billion of debt repayments made during the year, partially offset by increases in our provisions for environmental rehabilitation of $0.8 billion.

Shareholders’ Equity
As at February 6, 2018	Number of shares
Common shares		1,166,577,478
Stock options		999,467

Financial Position and Liquidity

Total cash and cash equivalents as at December 31, 2017 was $2.2 billion³. Our capital structure comprises a mix of debt and shareholders’ equity. As at December 31, 2017, our total debt was $6.4 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $4.2 billion) and our debt-to-equity ratio was 0.58:1. This compares to debt as at December 31, 2016 of $7.9 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $5.5 billion), and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.77:1.

At the beginning of 2017, we set a target to reduce our total debt by $2.9 billion, to around $5 billion, by the end of 2018 – half of which was targeted in 2017. We exceeded our 2017 target, reducing total debt by $1.5 billion in 2017. We currently have less than $100 million² in debt due before 2020, and approximately $5 billion of our outstanding debt matures after 2032.

In 2018, we have capital commitments of $79 million and expect to incur attributable sustaining and project capital expenditures of approximately $1,400 to $1,600 million in 2018 based on our guidance range on page 33. In 2018, we have contractual obligations and commitments of $ 548 million in purchase obligations for supplies and consumables and $30 million in derivative liabilities which will form part of operating costs. In addition, we have

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 47 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

$362 million in interest payments and other amounts as detailed in the table on page 66. We expect to fund these commitments through operating cash flow, which is our primary source of liquidity, as well as existing cash balances.

Our operating cash flow is dependent on the ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows. The market prices of gold and, to a lesser extent, copper are the primary drivers of our operating cash flow. Other options to enhance liquidity include further portfolio optimization and the creation of new joint ventures and partnerships; issuance of debt or equity securities in the public markets or to private investors, which could be undertaken for liquidity enhancement and/or in connection with establishing a strategic partnership; and drawing the $4.0 billion available under our undrawn credit facility (subject to compliance with covenants and the making of certain representations and warranties, this facility is available for drawdown as a source of financing).

Many factors, including but not limited to general market conditions and then prevailing metals prices, could impact our ability to issue securities on acceptable terms, as could our credit ratings. Moody’s and S&P currently rate our long-term debt as investment grade, with ratings of Baa3 and BBB-, respectively. In August 2016, S&P affirmed the Company’s BBB- rating and raised its outlook to positive from stable. Also in August 2016, Moody’s affirmed the Company’s Baa3 rating and revised its outlook to stable from negative. In September 2017, Moody’s and S&P each released reports affirming their existing ratings and outlooks. Further changes in our ratings could affect the trading prices of our securities and our cost of capital. If we were to borrow under our credit facility, the applicable interest rate on the amounts borrowed would be based, in part, on our credit ratings at the time. The key financial covenant in our undrawn credit facility requires Barrick to maintain a net debt to total capitalization ratio of less than 0.60:1. Barrick’s net debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.27:1 as at December 31, 2017 (0.35:1 as at December 31, 2016).

 Summary of Cash Inflow (Outflow)

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31
	2017			2016
Net cash provided by operating activities		$2,065			$2,640
Investing activities
Capital expenditures		($1,396	)		($1,126	)
Divestitures		990			588
Other		69			126
Total investing inflows/(outflows)		($337	)		($412	)
Financing activities
Net change in debt1		($1,533	)		($2,057	)
Dividends2		(125	)		(86	)
Other		(228	)		(154	)
Total financing inflows/(outflows)		($1,886	)		($2,297	)
Effect of exchange rate		3			3
Increase/(decrease) in cash and  equivalents		($155	)		($66	)

1 The difference between the net change in debt on a cash basis and the net change on the balance sheet is due to changes in non-cash charges, specifically the unwinding of discounts and amortization of debt issue costs.

2 In 2017 we declared and paid dividends in US dollars totaling $0.12 per share (2016: $0.08 per share; 2015: $0.14 per share).

In 2017, we generated $2,065 million in operating cash flow, compared to $2,640 million of operating cash flow in the prior year. The decrease of $575 million was due to lower gold sales as a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine on June 30, 2017, lower gold sales volume at Pueblo Viejo, Hemlo, Turquoise Ridge, Lagunas Norte and Acacia, partially offset by higher sales at Barrick Nevada attributed to higher grades and Best-in-Class initiatives positively impacting throughput. This was further impacted by working capital outflows reflecting the buildup of metals inventory at Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte and Acacia combined with an increase in exploration, evaluation and project expenses. Operating cash flow was also affected by lower cash flows attributed to non-controlling interest, combined with higher cash taxes paid. These outflows were partially offset by higher gold and copper prices as well as lower direct mining costs.

The ability of our operations to deliver projected future cash flows within the parameters of a reduced production profile, as well as future changes in gold and copper market prices, either favorable or unfavorable, will continue to have a material impact on our cash flow and liquidity.

Cash outflows from investing activities in 2017 amounted to $337 million compared to $412 million of cash inflows in the prior year. The decrease of $75 million compared to 2016 is primarily due to $402 million of additional proceeds from the divestitures in the current year relating to $990 million from the divestiture of a 50% interest in Veladero in 2017 compared to $588 million of proceeds

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 48 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

from the sale of Bald Mountain and our 50% interest in Round Mountain in 2016. This was partially offset by a planned increase in capital expenditures on a cash basis of $270 million in the current period.

Net financing cash outflows for 2017 amounted to $1,886 million, compared to $2,297 million in the prior year. The net financing cash outflows in 2017 and 2016

primarily consist of net debt repayments including non-cash items of $1,533 million and $2,057 million, respectively, as we achieved our debt reduction goals. This was combined with higher outflows associated with non-controlling interests and dividends, partially offset by a reduction in debt extinguishment costs.

 Summary of Financial Instruments¹

As at December 31, 2017
Financial Instrument	Principal/Notional Amount				Associated Risks
					●  Interest rate
Cash and equivalents			$2,234	million	●  Credit
					●  Credit
Accounts receivable			$239	million	●  Market
					●  Market
Other investments			$33	million	●  Liquidity
Accounts payable			$1,059	million	●  Liquidity
Debt			$6,456	million	●  Interest rate
Restricted share units			$41	million	●  Market
Deferred share units			$12	million	●  Market
Derivative instruments - currency contracts		AUD	21	million	●  Market/liquidity
		CAD	8	million
		PGK	32	million
Derivative instruments - gold contracts			105	thousand oz	●  Market/liquidity
Derivative instruments - copper contracts			60	million lbs	●  Credit
					●  Interest rate
Derivative instruments - energy contracts		Diesel	1	million bbls	●  Market/liquidity
					●  Credit
					●  Interest rate
Derivative instruments - interest rate contracts		Receive float interest rate swaps	$71	million	●  Market/liquidity

1 Refer to note 25 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding financial instruments.

OPERATING SEGMENTS PERFORMANCE

Review of Operating Segments Performance

In the first quarter of 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. Barrick’s business is now organized into eleven individual minesites, one grouping of two minesites, one publicly traded company and one project. Barrick’s Chief Operating Decision Maker, the President, reviews the operating results, assesses performance and makes capital allocation decisions at the minesite, grouping, Company and/or project level. Therefore, each individual minesite, with the exception of Barrick Nevada, Acacia and the Pascua-Lama project, is an operating segment for financial reporting purposes. Our updated presentation of our reportable

operating segments is now four individual gold mines (Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge), Barrick Nevada, Acacia and our Pascua-Lama project. The remaining operating segments, our remaining gold and copper mines, have been grouped into an “other” category and will not be reported on individually. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. Segment performance is evaluated based on a number of measures including operating income before tax, production levels and unit production costs. Certain costs are managed on a consolidated basis and are therefore not reflected in segment income.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 49 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Barrick Nevada¹, Nevada USA

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Total tonnes mined (000s)		211,090		192,753		10 %		223,661
Open pit		208,240		189,941		10 %		221,501
Underground		2,850		2,812		1 %		2,160
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		2.73		1.74		57 %		1.87
Underground mined		10.58		11.39		(7)%		13.40
Processed		3.50		2.62		34 %		2.72
Ore tonnes processed (000s)		23,894		32,473		(26)%		29,158
Oxide mill		4,562		4,197		9 %		3,476
Roaster		4,902		4,789		2 %		5,050
Autoclave		4,258		3,503		22 %		2,605
Heap leach		10,172		19,984		(49)%		18,027
Gold produced (000s/oz)		2,312		2,155		7 %		2,052
Oxide mill		957		569		68 %		530
Roaster		929		1,115		(17)%		1,177
Autoclave		248		242		2 %		204
Heap leach		178		229		(22)%		141
Gold sold (000s/oz)		2,357		2,162		9 %		1,981
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$2,961		$2,703		10 %		$2,272
Cost of sales ($ millions)		1,869		1,896		(1)%		1,551
Segment income ($ millions)		1,052		771		36 %		678
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		1,845		1,578		17 %		1,215
Capital expenditures ($ millions)3		584		328		78 %		339
Minesite sustaining		360		217		66 %		211
Project		224		111		102 %		128
Cost of sales (per oz)		792		876		(10)%		782
Cash costs (per oz)2		455		502		(9)%		504
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		624		618		1 %		631
All-in costs (per oz)2		$722		$678		6 %		$715

1 Includes our 60% share of South Arturo.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

3 2015 figures exclude capitalized interest.

Financial Results

Barrick Nevada’s segment income for 2017 was 36% higher than the prior year primarily due to an increase in sales volume combined with higher realized gold prices¹ and a decrease in cost of sales.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 7% higher than the prior year primarily due to higher grades mined and processed from Cortez Hills open pit (“CHOP”) coupled with higher throughput at the oxide mill as a result of Best-in-Class process improvements and an increased permit limit. These improvements resulted in the highest annual throughput level ever achieved at the oxide mill. This was partially offset by lower Goldstrike open pit stockpile grades available for processing at the roaster compared to higher stockpile grades in the prior year, fewer Goldstrike underground ounces processed due to a decrease in long-hole stoping and available stopes to mine, and fewer leach tonnes mined and placed in the current year at Cortez. Lower grades at Cortez Hills underground (“CHUG”) as it advances deeper into the mine were partially offset by higher mining rates as a result of digitization initiatives such as short interval control and automation. For 2017, gold sales were higher

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 50 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

than production due to a drawdown of work in process inventory in the current year as a result of Best-in-Class process improvements.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ for 2017 was $84 per ounce lower than the prior year primarily due to the impact of higher sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher capitalized waste stripping activity at Crossroads and lower depreciation associated with South Arturo as mining ended in July 2017 and which had a high depreciation per ounce impact due to the short mine life. These decreases in cost of sales per ounce⁴ were partially offset by lower grades mined and processed from CHUG, Goldstrike underground and Goldstrike open pit, as well as higher autoclave production in the current year, which is the highest cost per tonne processing facility for Barrick Nevada. This was further impacted by inventory write-downs in the prior year which were not experienced in the current year.

All-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $6 per ounce from the prior year primarily due to higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures, partially offset by lower direct mining costs combined with a higher sales volume. Lower direct mining costs were mainly due to higher capitalized waste stripping at Crossroads, which is classified as project capital expenditures.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 78% from the prior year due to higher minesite sustaining capital combined with higher project expenditures. Higher minesite sustaining capital is attributed to higher capitalized stripping relating to the 3rd and 4th northwest laybacks at the Goldstrike open pit; underground cooling and ventilation project to allow mining below 3,600 feet at the Goldstrike underground; tailings expansions; the

autoclave thiosulfate water treatment plant conversion which significantly improved water balances and the consumption of fresh reagent; the roaster oxygen plant upgrade to increase plant availability; and digitization initiatives to enhance productivity and efficiency. Investment in digitization initiatives resulted in a significant increase in mining rates at CHUG and increased oxide mill performance. Project capital expenditures in 2017 increased compared to the prior year as a result of capitalized stripping and dewatering at Crossroads combined with underground development at Cortez Hills Lower Zone, the range front declines, and Goldrush project drilling. These were partially offset by a decrease in pre-production stripping at the South Arturo pit, which entered commercial production in August 2016.

Outlook

At Barrick Nevada we expect gold production to be in the range of 2,000 to 2,255 thousand ounces, which is lower than 2017 production levels. Lower production is expected at CHOP and CHUG. At Cortez Hills open pit, mining will transition from purely oxide ore to a mix of oxide, refractory, and transitional ores. Grade mined from Cortez Hills underground is expected to be lower as we progress deeper in the mine. This is partially offset by increased throughput at the oxide mill, increased grades at Goldstrike open pit from processing the 3rd northwest layback compared to stockpile processing in the prior year, and higher grades at Goldstrike underground. Throughput initiatives at the autoclave are expected to more than offset lower autoclave recovery as we transition primarily from an all acid blend to an alkaline/acid blend.

In 2018, we expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to remain in the range of $760 to $810 per ounce as lower production is offset by lower CHOP depreciation. We expect cash costs¹ to be in the range of $470 to $530, which is higher than 2017 due to lower ounces sold. CHUG is expected to exceed its increased mining rates achieved in the fourth quarter of 2017 driven by digital initiatives such as short interval control and automation, and continued transition to bulk mining, which is significantly lowering its overall expected cost per tonne in 2018. This is offset by an increase in Goldstrike open pit’s expected cost per tonne as we mine ore at the bottom of the pit and continue to strip the 4th northwest layback, increased CHOP dewatering costs, and major roaster maintenance planned mid-2018. All-in sustaining costs¹ are expected to remain in the range of $610 to $660 per ounce as lower production is offset by lower sustaining capital expenditures for tailings expansions, process improvements, and Goldstrike underground projects to enable mining deeper in the mine.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 51 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Pueblo Viejo (60% basis)¹, Dominican Republic

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Open pit tonnes mined (000s)		23,430		23,278		1 %		22,736
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		3.07		3.13		(2) %		3.35
Processed		4.57		5.29		(14) %		4.94
Autoclave ore tonnes processed (000s)		4,791		4,527		6 %		4,150
Gold produced (000s/oz)		650		700		(7) %		572
Gold sold (000s/oz)		637		700		(9) %		597
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$850		$925		(8) %		$757
Cost of sales ($ millions)		445		395		13 %		525
Segment income ($ millions)		395		528		(25) %		230
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		538		621		(13) %		390
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		69		61		13 %		61
Minesite sustaining		69		61		13 %		61
Project		—		—		— %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		699		564		24 %		881
Cash costs (per oz)2		405		395		3 %		467
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		525		490		7 %		597
All-in costs (per oz)2		$525		$490		7 %		$597

1 Pueblo Viejo is accounted for as a subsidiary with a 40% non-controlling interest. The results in the table and the discussion that follows are based on our 60% share only.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Pueblo Viejo’s segment income for 2017 was 25% lower than the prior year primarily due to a decrease in sales volumes attributed to lower ore grades combined with higher cost of sales, partially offset by higher gold prices.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 7% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower ore grades processed in the current year as compared to higher grades processed from the Moore pit in the prior year, partially offset by higher recovery rates. Improvements in carbon management and reagent cyanide addition have improved recoveries compared to the prior year. Higher throughput for 2017 was due to optimization of autoclave operations and fewer descaling shutdowns as a result of Best-in-Class initiatives.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was $135 per ounce higher than the prior year primarily due to the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher depreciation expense relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment and higher fuel prices. 2016 cost of sales per ounce⁴ was also lower due

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 52 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

to one-time insurance proceeds recorded in the third quarter of 2016 relating to the 2015 oxygen plant motor failure. This was partially offset by higher equipment rental costs in the prior year as a result of the oxygen plant motor failure.

In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $35 per ounce compared to the prior year due to higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures combined with the higher cost of sales per ounce⁴. All-in sustaining costs¹ were not impacted by the aforementioned insurance proceeds and depreciation adjustment as the insurance benefit was excluded from our calculation and depreciation does not form part of all-in sustaining costs¹.

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 13% compared to the prior year primarily attributed to the timing of mining equipment replacements, increased capitalization of costs related to the process plant and construction of the Bonao III power substation. This was partially offset by a decrease in capitalized stripping costs as a result of planned mine plan sequencing.

Outlook

At Pueblo Viejo, we expect our equity share of 2018 gold production to be in the range of 585 to 615 thousand ounces, below 2017 production levels, driven by reduced gold head grade, partially offset by increased autoclave throughput resulting from improved maintenance strategies and small-scale pre-oxidation and flotation concentrate pre-processing expansions.

In 2018, we expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to be in the range of $720 to $750 per ounce, cash costs¹ to be $425 to $450 per ounce and all-in-sustaining costs¹ to be $590 to $620 per ounce. All three measures are expected to be higher than 2017 primarily due to a reduction in total ounces produced and sold, higher fuel prices and higher sustaining capital expenditures related mainly to increased capitalized waste stripping, tailings dam construction, Quisqueya power station gas conversion and Bonao sub-station construction capital projects. Byproduct credits are expected to be higher than 2017, reflecting increased metal prices, ore grades and recoveries for both silver and copper.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 53 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Lagunas Norte, Peru

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Open pit tonnes mined (000s)		32,859		40,847		(20)%		49,126
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		1.41		1.18		19%		1.10
Processed		1.05		1.12		(6)%		1.02
Heap leach ore tonnes processed (000s)		17,874		17,253		4%		21,880
Gold produced (000s/oz)		387		435		(11)%		560
Gold sold (000s/oz)		397		425		(7)%		565
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$514		$548		(6)%		$673
Cost of sales ($ millions)		245		276		(11)%		378
Segment income ($ millions)		259		260		— %		285
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)1		327		356		(8)%		454
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		25		56		(55)%		67
Minesite sustaining		20		51		(61)%		67
Project		5		5		— %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		617		651		(5)%		669
Cash costs (per oz)1		405		383		6 %		329
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)1		483		529		(9)%		509
All-in costs (per oz)1		$497		$540		(8)%		$509

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Lagunas Norte’s segment income for 2017 was in line with the prior year primarily due to lower sales volumes, offset by higher realized gold prices¹ combined with lower depreciation expense.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 11% lower than the prior year as a result of processing harder material with lower grades and slower recovery rates combined with a higher percentage of older stock material, in line with expectations as the mine matures. Productivity for 2017 was further impacted by heavy rains causing road closures and power outages early in the year combined with lower efficiency with the loading and hauling equipment.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ for 2017 was $34 per ounce lower than the prior year mainly due to lower depreciation expense and realized cost savings from the Best-in-Class program, such as initiatives to improve efficiencies in the carbon in column circuit, implementation of short interval control and improvements in planned maintenance. These were partially offset by the impact of lower sales

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 54 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

volume and higher direct mining costs, resulting from lower capitalized waste stripping and higher processing costs driven by higher tonnage processed and increased supplies consumption given the treatment of different ore types in the mine plan. In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ decreased by $46 per ounce compared to the prior year primarily due to the decrease in minesite sustaining capital expenditures, partially offset by higher direct mining costs.

In 2017, capital expenditures decreased by 55% compared to the prior year due to lower minesite sustaining capital relating to the construction of phase 6 of the leach pad, which was completed in the prior year period, combined with lower capitalized stripping. Project expenditures relate to ongoing studies for the sequenced life-of-mine extension which involves the potential construction of a grinding and carbon-in-leach processing circuit to treat carbonaceous oxides ore which may be expanded later with flotation and pressure oxidation circuits to treat refractory material.

Outlook

At Lagunas Norte we expect 2018 production to be in the range of 230 to 270 thousand ounces, lower than 2017 production levels, as a result of the progressive depletion of oxide ores, which are being replaced with harder ore material with lower kinetics and recoveries.

We expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to be in the range of $780 to $910 per ounce. This increase, in comparison with 2017, is mainly driven by the impact of lower gold sales combined with an increase in depreciation expense and higher corporate social responsibility expenses. We expect cash costs¹ to be in the range of $420 to $490 per ounce and all-in sustaining costs¹ to be in the range of $670 to $780 per ounce. The increase in all-in sustaining costs¹ in comparison with 2017 is driven mainly by the decrease in production and increase in sustaining capital expenditures in 2018. Operational costs are expected to decrease aligned to the reduced mine production plan compared to 2017. Best-in-Class operational initiatives for 2018 will be focused on getting gold ounces from injection wells and slag processing.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 55 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Veladero, Argentina¹

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Open pit tonnes mined (000s)		48,376		62,227		(22)%		83,409
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		1.00		0.82		22 %		0.81
Processed		1.02		0.82		24 %		0.82
Heap leach ore tonnes processed (000s)		21,190		28,028		(24)%		28,385
Gold produced (000s/oz)		432		544		(21)%		602
Gold sold (000s/oz)		458		532		(14)%		629
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$591		$685		(14)%		$720
Cost of sales ($ millions)		410		464		(12)%		499
Segment income ($ millions)		173		220		(21)%		216
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		292		338		(14)%		324
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		173		95		82 %		242
Minesite sustaining		173		95		82 %		242
Project		—		—		— %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		897		872		3 %		792
Cash costs (per oz)2		598		582		3 %		552
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		987		769		28 %		946
All-in costs (per oz)2		$987		$769		28 %		$946

1 We sold 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017; therefore these represent results on a 100% basis from January 1 to June 30, 2017 and on a 50% basis from July 1, 2017 onwards.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Veladero’s segment income for 2017 was 21% lower than the prior year primarily due to the impact of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017, partly offset by higher realized gold prices¹. This was further impacted by an increase in depreciation expense as a result of the fair value increments applied to our remaining 50% interest, which was required to be fair valued because of the change in control.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 21% lower compared to the prior year due to the divestment of 50% of the mine as at June 30, 2017. Excluding the impact of the divestment, gold production increased 18% in the current year primarily as a result of higher grades processed combined with higher tonnes placed on the leach pad, partially offset by lower recovery reflecting the impact of the temporary restriction due to the March 28,

2017 incident with the leach pumping system. The prior year was negatively impacted by the temporary suspension of operations late in the third quarter of 2016 combined with severe weather conditions.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was $25 per ounce higher than the prior year primarily due to the impact of higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense as a result of the impact of the fair value increments relating to the revaluation of our remaining 50% of the Veladero mine, partially offset by a lack of depreciation in the second quarter of 2017 as Veladero was classified as held-for-sale pending the close of the sale on June 30, 2017. The increase in direct mining costs primarily related to consulting services, camp costs, mining costs due to additional fleet, maintenance and labor and contractors due to the impact of inflation in Argentina. These increases were partially offset by higher

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 56 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

capitalized waste stripping costs in the current year as there was no capitalized waste stripping in the third quarter of 2016 as a result of severe weather conditions. In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $218 per ounce compared to the prior year primarily due to an increase in minesite sustaining capital expenditures combined with an increase in cost of sales per ounce⁴.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 82% compared to the prior year primarily due to higher minesite sustaining capital expenditures relating to the construction of phases 4B and 5B of the leach pad expansion, leach pad improvements and equipment purchases combined with higher capitalized stripping costs.

On April 6, 2017, we announced the sale to Shandong Gold of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine, which reflects the first step in our strategic partnership with Shandong. The transaction closed on June 30, 2017 and we received total cash consideration of $990 million, which reflected working capital adjustments of $30 million in the fourth quarter of 2017. Refer to note 4 to the Financial Statements for more information.

On December 30, 2016, the San Juan provincial mining authority approved the fifth update to the Veladero mine’s environmental impact study (“EIS”), which as submitted by the Company had included a request for approval of the leach pad expansion for Phases 6 to 9. Environmental approval for Phases 6 to 9 of the leach pad expansion was confirmed on May 19, 2017 by the San Juan Mining Minister.

March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution

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

On March 29, 2017, the San Juan provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against Minera Argentina Gold SRL (“MAG”) (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold S.A. or MAGSA) in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following inspection of corrective actions.

On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. The Company filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.

On December 27, 2017, MAG received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending.    Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Provincial Amparo Action

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

The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 57 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Federal Amparo Action

On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident. The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAG submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAG also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial Court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court and a decision on the matter is pending. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Veladero experienced operational incidents in 2015 and 2016 which also resulted in regulatory and legal proceedings as summarized below.

September 2015 Release of Cyanide-bearing Process Solution

On March 11, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso/$ exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On December 29, 2016, the request for reconsideration was rejected by the Provincial mining authority. On July 11, 2017, the San

Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts.    MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the San Juan mining authority. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution

Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding

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

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

On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated the administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident.

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

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 58 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority, which remains pending. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the valley leach facility (“VLF”). In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution incident described above. The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Outlook

At Veladero we expect 2018 production to be in the range of 275 to 330 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share), lower than 2017 production levels. The decrease is a result of the divestment of 50% of the Veladero mine as at June 30, 2017. This is combined with slightly lower ore grade to the leach pad in 2018, offset by ongoing soluble inventory drawdown with improved solution management.

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ is expected to be in the range of $970 to $1,110 per ounce which is higher than 2017, mainly due to higher depreciation expense reflecting the effect of the fair value increments applied to our remaining 50% interest. We expect cash costs¹ in 2018 to be in the range of $560 to $620 per ounce, lower than 2017 levels mainly due to lower direct operating costs, partly offset by the impact of higher charges from the production inventory movements. All-in sustaining costs¹ are expected to be between $960 and $1,100 per ounce, aligned with 2017 as lower cash costs¹ are offset by higher capitalized waste stripping. Operating costs at Veladero are also highly sensitive to local inflation and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. We have assumed an average ARS:USD exchange rate of ARS18.3: $1.00 and a local inflation rate of 15% for the purposes of preparing our cash costs¹ and all-in sustaining costs¹ guidance for 2018.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 59 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Turquoise Ridge (75% basis), Nevada USA

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		%  Change		2015
Underground tonnes mined (000s)		643		598		8 %		349
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Underground mined		15.45		16.85		(8)%		18.34
Gold produced (000s/oz)		211		266		(21)%		217
Gold sold (000s/oz)		222		257		(14)%		202
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$280		$322		(13)%		$235
Cost of sales ($ millions)		159		155		3 %		141
Segment income ($ millions)		119		166		(28)%		92
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)1		147		193		(24)%		115
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		36		32		13 %		32
Minesite sustaining		32		32		— %		32
Project		4		—		100 %		—
Cost of sales (per oz)		715		603		19 %		697
Cash costs (per oz)1		589		498		18 %		581
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)1		733		625		17 %		742
All-in costs (per oz)1		$753		$625		20 %		$742

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Financial Results

Turquoise Ridge’s segment income for 2017 was 28% lower than the prior year primarily due to a decrease in sales volume combined with higher cost of sales, partially offset by higher realized gold prices¹.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 21% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower grades combined with issues related to higher organic carbon content and the subsequent decision to process 17 thousand ounces at Barrick Nevada, which was recognized as Barrick Nevada production. Lower grades in the current year were due to the planned mining of the south zone to control organic carbon content in the ore. This was partially offset by higher tonnes mined resulting from Best-in-Class initiatives driving increased equipment availability combined with improved mine engineering to take advantage of the larger ore geometry. These activities resulted in a 22% increase in tonnes mined per employee from the prior year.

Production

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was $112 per ounce higher than the prior year mainly reflecting the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs combined with higher processing costs associated with processing lower grade ore and higher organic carbon content ore. In 2017, all-in sustaining costs¹ increased by $108 per ounce compared to the prior year primarily reflecting the impact of higher cost of sales per ounce⁴.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 60 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In 2017, capital expenditures increased by 13% compared to the prior year as a result of higher project capital expenditures relating to the construction of the third shaft. Minesite sustaining capital expenditures were in line with the prior year as higher expenditures relating to the timing of spending combined with the construction of the water treatment plant, were offset by lower capitalized underground development costs.

Outlook

At Turquoise Ridge we expect 2018 production to be in the range of 240 to 270 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share), exceeding 2017 production levels, as mine productivity continues to improve. Turquoise Ridge has completely transitioned to standardized equipment allowing for greater mining flexibility, increased reliability, and a reduced truck fleet and we continue to incorporate mechanical cutting as a mining method and short interval control. Capital and waste development requirements are in line with 2017 mining rates.

The cost of sales per ounce⁴ is expected to be in the range of $670 to $720 per ounce which is in line with 2017. We expect cash costs¹ in 2018 to be in the range of $580 to $620 per ounce, consistent with 2017, and all-in sustaining costs¹ to be in the range of $650 to $730 per ounce. All-in sustaining costs¹ in 2018 are expected to be lower than 2017 due to a reduction in sustaining capital as the construction of the third shaft is included in project capital.

In February 2018, Barrick and Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) reached a new, seven-year toll milling agreement for the processing of Turquoise Ridge ore at Newmont’s Twin Creeks facility. The agreement supports plans to expand production and unlock the full potential of Turquoise Ridge by increasing processing capacity. It provides for throughput of 850,000 tons per year in 2018 and 2019, rising to 1.2 million tons per year between 2020 and 2024. Processing costs are in line with market rates, and are reflected in our guidance for Turquoise Ridge.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 61 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Acacia Mining plc (100% basis), Africa

Summary of Operating and Financial Data					For the years ended December 31
	2017		2016		% Change		2015
Total tonnes mined (000s)		31,917		38,491		(17)%		41,390
Open pit		30,666		37,141		(17)%		40,099
Underground		1,251		1,350		(7)%		1,291
Average grade (grams/tonne)
Open pit mined		1.45		1.48		(2)%		1.65
Underground mined		8.32		9.62		(14)%		9.02
Processed1		3.00		3.00		— %		2.80
Ore tonnes processed (000s)		8,719		9,818		(11)%		9,268
Gold produced (000s/oz)		768		830		(7)%		732
Gold sold (000s/oz)		593		817		(27)%		721
Segment revenue ($ millions)		$751		$1,045		(28)%		$860
Cost of sales ($ millions)		469		719		(35)%		837
Segment income ($ millions)		191		299		(36)%		(1)
Segment EBITDA ($ millions)2		298		465		(36)%		142
Capital expenditures ($ millions)		148		191		(23)%		177
Minesite sustaining		137		190		(28)%		178
Project		11		1		(1,000)%		(1)
Cost of sales (per oz)		791		880		(10)%		1,161
Cash costs (per oz)2		587		640		(8)%		772
All-in sustaining costs (per oz)2		875		958		(9)%		1,112
All-in costs (per oz)2		$894		$960		(7)%		$1,111

1 Includes processing of tailings retreatment.

2 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

Barrick holds a 63.9 percent equity interest in Acacia Mining plc, a publicly traded company listed on the London Stock Exchange that is operated independently of Barrick.

Financial Results

Acacia’s segment income for 2017 was 36% lower than the prior year primarily due to lower sales volume as a result of the concentrate export ban, affecting sales from Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi combined with higher costs related to the Bulyanhulu reduced operations, partially offset by higher realized gold prices¹ and lower cost of sales.

Segment Income and Segment EBITDA¹

In 2017, gold production was 7% lower than the prior year primarily caused by a decrease at Bulyanhulu due to the decision to transition to reduced operations in the third quarter of 2017 and droughts experienced in the Kahama district combined with lower production from North Mara as a result of lower grades at the Gokona underground mine and Nyabirama pit. These were partially offset by an increase at Buzwagi as a result of higher grade ore from the main ore zone at the bottom of the open pit and higher ore tonnes mined. Gold ounces sold were lower than ounces produced primarily as a result of the ban on concentrate exports, as described below.

Production (100%)

(000s ounces)

Cost of sales per ounce⁴ in 2017 was 10% lower than the prior year primarily reflecting the impact of the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 62 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

buildup in inventory due to the ban on concentrate exports combined with lower depreciation expense. These decreases were partially offset by lower capitalized underground development costs at Bulyanhulu and lower waste stripping at North Mara’s Nyabirama pit combined with the impact of lower sales volume on unit production costs. All-in sustaining costs¹ were 9% lower than the prior year due to lower cost of sales per ounce⁴ combined with lower stock-based compensation expense and a decrease in minesite sustaining capital expenditures.

Cost of Sales, Cash Costs¹ and AISC¹

($ per ounce)

In 2017, capital expenditures decreased by 23% compared to the prior year due mostly to a reduction in minesite sustaining capital expenditures primarily at Bulyanhulu attributed to reduced operations combined with lower capitalized waste stripping at North Mara relating to Nyabirama Stage 4. This was partially offset by an increase in project capital expenditures mainly relating to capitalized drilling at North Mara’s Gokona underground.

Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes with the Government of Tanzania

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (“Ban”) following a directive made by the President to promote the creation of a domestic smelting industry. Following the directive, Acacia ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate (“concentrate”) including containers previously approved for export prior to the ban which are located in Dar es Salaam.

The prevention of exports impacts Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi which produce gold in both doré and in concentrate form due to the mineralogy of the ore. North Mara is unaffected due to 100% of its production being doré. Since the export ban was imposed, impacting approximately 25% of 2017 production, Acacia has seen a buildup of approximately $264 million of concentrate inventory in Tanzania, based on current prices, with approximately 186 thousand ounces of gold, 12.1 million pounds of copper and 159 thousand ounces of silver contained in the unsold concentrate. As a result of the transition to a reduced operations program at Bulyanhulu, and the changes to the process flowsheet at Buzwagi, all of Acacia’s mines are now solely producing

doré and, as such, will no longer see a further buildup of concentrate.

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

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

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

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

In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 63 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

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

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

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

of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the Government’s share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Negotiations concerning the proposed framework remain ongoing and the definitive terms of any final proposal for the implementation of the framework remain outstanding. Barrick is targeting completion of discussions aimed at agreeing to and documenting the details of the announced framework by the first half of 2018. Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia.

Outlook

Acacia successfully managed through a challenging environment to deliver a year of resilient performance in 2017. As a result of Bulyanhulu’s transition to reduced operations and the planned transition of Buzwagi to a stockpile processing operation in 2018, we expect to see a decrease in production from 2017 levels to 275 to 305 thousand ounces (Barrick’s share).

We expect cost of sales per ounce⁴ to be in the range of $970 to $1,020 per ounce, cash costs¹ of $690 to $720 per ounce and all-in sustaining costs¹ of $935 to $985 per ounce. The increase in all three measures from 2017 is mainly due to the negative impact of approximately $50 per ounce due to increased inventory costs at Buzwagi as Acacia processes ore stockpiles previously classified as ore inventory. We expect production to be broadly stable through the year, although due to the roll-over of cost from the movement to reduced operations in the first quarter of 2018, we expect increased cash flow in the second half of the year. All gold produced in 2018 is expected to be in doré form.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 64 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Pascua-Lama, Argentina/Chile

The Pascua-Lama project, located on the border between Chile and Argentina, contains 21.3 million ounces of measured and indicated gold resources.

As described below, in January 2018 we received a resolution of closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”). The resolution does not affect the Company’s ongoing evaluation of an underground, block-caving operation at Pascua-Lama, which would require additional permitting and regulatory approvals in both Argentina and Chile, unconnected to the recent SMA decision. In any underground scenario, Barrick would also close site facilities and surface disturbance in Chile not necessary for an underground mine. As a result, we have increased our provision for environmental remediation at Pascua-Lama by $644 million in the fourth quarter of 2017.

In light of the order to close surface facilities in Chile, and current plans to evaluate an underground mine, Barrick is reclassifying Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves of approximately 14 million ounces⁶, which are based on an open pit mine plan, as measured and indicated resources. As a result, we have recorded an impairment of $429 million at Pascua-Lama in the fourth quarter of 2017.

We have formed a working group with Shandong Gold to study a potential partnership at Pascua-Lama, building on our existing joint venture at the nearby Veladero mine. Our Investment Committee will continue to scrutinize the project as it advances, applying a high degree of consistency and rigor — as we do for all capital allocation decisions at the Company — before further review by the Executive Committee and the Board at each stage of advancement.

SMA Regulatory Sanctions

On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against Compańía Minera Nevada (“CMN”) into a single proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the original resolution issued by the SMA in May 2013 in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the Project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.

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

2018. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Constitutional Protection Action

On August 12, 2016, the court ruled in favor of CMN and Sernageomin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Temporary Closure Plan for the Pascua-Lama project. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the Chilean Supreme Court and on March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the Temporary Closure Plan, ruling that additional information regarding the SMA regulatory sanction process was required from the environmental regulator, and ordering Sernageomin to issue a new resolution on the Temporary Closure Plan after receiving such information. On August 29, 2017, Sernageomin issued a new resolution in which it reapproved the Temporary Closure Plan as originally issued. This approval is valid through September 2019. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Water Quality Review

CMN initiated a review of the baseline water quality of the Rio Estrecho in August 2013 as required by a July 15, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals of Copiapo, Chile. The purpose of the review was to establish whether the water quality baseline has changed since the Pascua-Lama project received its environmental approval in February 2006 and, if so, to require CMN to adopt the appropriate corrective measures. As a result of that study, CMN requested certain modifications to its environmental permit water quality requirements. On June 6, 2016, the responsible agency approved a partial amendment of the environmental permit to better reflect the water quality baseline from 2009. That approval was appealed by certain water users and indigenous residents of the Huasco Valley. On October 19, 2016, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over claims of this nature, voted to uphold the permit amendments. On January 27, 2017, the Environmental Court agreed to consider an appeal of the Chilean Committee’s decision brought by CMN and the water users and indigenous residents. A hearing took place on July 25, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the water users withdrew their appeal. The Environmental Court dismissed that appeal on January 5, 2018. A decision of the Environmental Court on the remaining appeals is still pending. Refer to note 36 to the Financial Statements for more information regarding this matter.

Water Treatment Plant

The water treatment plant on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project was damaged during the second quarter of 2016 as a result of heavy snowfall. The water treatment plant consists of two main components, the high density sludge unit followed by the reverse osmosis unit. In June 2017, repairs were completed and the water treatment plant resumed normal operations. CMN has reviewed its contingency plan with Chilean regulatory authorities.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 65 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Claims

We are currently subject to various litigation proceedings as disclosed in note 36 to the Financial Statements, and we may be involved in disputes with other parties in the future that may result in litigation. If we are unable to resolve these disputes favorably, it may have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, cash flow and results of operations.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts that give rise to commitments for future minimum payments. The following table summarizes the remaining contractual maturities of our financial liabilities and operating and capital commitments shown on an undiscounted basis:

					Payments due
($ millions)					as at December 31, 2017
											2023
	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		and thereafter		Total
Debt1
Repayment of principal		$32		$33		$263		$636		$337		$5,109		$6,410
Capital leases		27		11		4		1		1		2		46
Interest		362		360		356		331		311		5,042		6,762
Provisions for environmental rehabilitation2		141		145		212		262		228		2,812		3,800
Operating leases		21		19		11		8		8		1		68
Restricted share units		9		27		5		—		—		—		41
Pension benefits and other post-retirement benefits		15		15		14		14		13		205		276
Derivative liabilities3		30		2		—		—		—		—		32
Purchase obligations for supplies and consumables4		548		305		181		109		4		—		1,147
Capital commitments5		79		5		4		4		4		22		118
Social development costs6		7		11		3		1		1		204		227
Total		$1,271		$933		$1,053		$1,366		$907		$13,397		$18,927

1 Debt and Interest - Our debt obligations do not include any subjective acceleration clauses or other clauses that enable the holder of the debt to call for early repayment, except in the event that we breach any of the terms and conditions of the debt or for other customary events of default. We are not required to post any collateral under any debt obligations. Projected interest payments on variable rate debt were based on interest rates in effect at December 31, 2017. Interest is calculated on our long-term debt obligations using both fixed and variable rates.

2 Provisions for Environmental Rehabilitation - Amounts presented in the table represent the undiscounted uninflated future payments for the expected cost of provisions for environmental rehabilitation.

3 Derivative Liabilities - Amounts presented in the table relate to derivative contracts disclosed under note 25C to the Financial Statements. Payments related to derivative contracts may be subject to change given variable market conditions.

4 Purchase Obligations for Supplies and Consumables - Includes commitments related to new purchase obligations to secure a supply of acid, tires and cyanide for our production process.

5 Capital Commitments - Purchase obligations for capital expenditures include only those items where binding commitments have been entered into.

6 Social Development Costs – Includes a commitment of $157 million related to the potential funding of a power transmission line in Argentina, the majority of which is not expected to be paid prior to 2023.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 66 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

REVIEW OF QUARTERLY RESULTS

Quarterly Information¹

	2017										2016
($ millions, except where indicated)	Q4			Q3			Q2		Q1		Q4		Q3		Q2		Q1
Revenues		$2,228			$1,993			$2,160		$1,993		$2,319		$2,297		$2,012		$1,930
Realized price per ounce – gold2		1,280			1,274			1,258		1,220		1,217		1,333		1,259		1,181
Realized price per pound – copper2		3.34			3.05			2.60		2.76		2.62		2.18		2.14		2.18
Cost of sales		1,411			1,270			1,277		1,342		1,454		1,291		1,336		1,324
Net earnings (loss)		(314	)		(11	)		1,084		679		425		175		138		(83	)
Per share (dollars)3		(0.27	)		(0.01	)		0.93		0.58		0.36		0.15		0.12		(0.07	)
Adjusted net earnings2		253			200			261		162		255		278		158		127
Per share (dollars)2,3		0.22			0.17			0.22		0.14		0.22		0.24		0.14		0.11
Operating cash flow		590			532			448		495		711		951		527		451
Cash capital expenditures		350			307			405		334		326		277		253		270
Free cash flow2		$240			$225			$43		$161		$385		$674		$274		$181

1 Sum of all the quarters may not add up to the annual total due to rounding.

2 Realized price, adjusted net earnings, adjusted net earnings per share and free cash flow are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures of performance presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure used in this section of the MD&A to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

3 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share.

Our recent financial results reflect our emphasis on cost control and growing operating cash flow and free cash flow. While gold prices have fluctuated around $1,200 per ounce, we are consistently generating positive free cash flow¹. This free cash flow, combined with the proceeds from various divestitures, have allowed us to strengthen our balance sheet over the past two years. In the fourth quarter of 2017, we recorded $521 million (net of tax effects and non-controlling interest) of net asset impairments primarily relating to impairments at the Pascua-Lama project and Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine, partially offset by an impairment reversal at Lumwana. In the third quarter of 2017, we recognized a $172 million tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania. In the second quarter of 2017, we recorded $858 million (net of tax effects) of gains on the disposition of 50% of the Veladero mine and a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project. In the first quarter of 2017, we recorded a net asset impairment reversal of $522 million (net of tax effects and non-controlling interest) primarily relating to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we recorded a net asset impairment reversal of $199 million (net of tax effects) primarily relating to impairment reversals at Veladero and Lagunas Norte.

Fourth Quarter Results

In the fourth quarter of 2017, we reported a net loss of $314 million and adjusted net earnings¹ of $253 million, compared to net earnings of $425 million and adjusted net earnings¹ of $255 million in the fourth quarter of 2016. The net loss in the fourth quarter of 2017 reflects the recording of $521 million (net of tax effects and non-controlling interests) in net impairment charges

compared to net impairment reversals of $199 million (net of tax effects) recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. The lower net earnings in the fourth quarter of 2017 primarily reflects the recognition of impairment charges rather than impairment reversals in the prior year period combined with lower gold sales volumes, partially offset by an increase in realized gold and copper prices¹. The decrease in adjusted net earnings¹ primarily reflects higher income tax expense combined with a decrease in gold sales volume, partially offset by higher realized gold and copper prices¹ compared to the fourth quarter of 2016.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, gold and copper sales were 1.37 million ounces and 107 million pounds, respectively, compared to 1.52 million ounces (1.42 million ounces excluding the impact of divestments) and 107 million pounds, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2016. The decrease in gold sales was primarily due to lower grades at Barrick Nevada combined with lower sales at Acacia due to reduced operations at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine, partially offset by higher sales at Porgera and Lagunas Norte. Revenues in the fourth quarter of 2017 were lower than the same prior year period, reflecting lower gold sales volumes, partially offset by higher market prices for gold and copper.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, cost of sales was $1.4 billion, a decrease of $43 million compared to the same prior year period, primarily due to lower sales volume, which have contributed to a decrease in direct mining costs and royalty expense. This was partially offset by an increase in depreciation expense, as discussed below. Cost of sales per ounce⁴ was $801 per ounce, an increase of $17 per ounce, primarily due to higher direct mining

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 67 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

costs mainly due to higher consumables and power at Pueblo Viejo, partially offset by higher capitalized waste stripping activity at Barrick Nevada and higher depreciation expense mainly as a result of higher depreciation at Pueblo Viejo relating to a tailings storage facility depreciation adjustment, partially offset by lower depreciation at Barrick Nevada associated with the South Arturo pit. The increase was further partially offset by a positive change in our sales mix with lower relative sales volume from the higher cost Bulyanhulu mine at Acacia. Cost of sales per pound⁴ was $1.79, an increase of $0.36 per pound from the same prior year period due to higher direct mining costs combined with higher depreciation expense at Lumwana, partially offset by a positive sales mix impact of lower sales volume at Lumwana compared to the same prior year period. This was further impacted by higher direct mining costs at Zaldívar primarily related to higher fuel and labor costs.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, operating cash flow was $590 million, compared to $711 million in the same prior year period. The decrease in operating cash flow primarily

reflects lower gold sales volume combined with unfavorable working capital movements mainly related to the timing of accounts receivable balances, partially offset by higher realized gold and copper prices, a decrease in income tax payments and a decrease in interest paid.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, free cash flow¹ was $240 million, lower than the $385 million in the same prior year period. The decrease was caused by lower operating cash flow generated in the fourth quarter of 2017 compared to the same prior year period combined with slightly higher cash capital expenditures of $350 million, compared to $326 million in the fourth quarter of 2016. The higher cash capital expenditures were primarily a result of higher project capital expenditures, partially offset by a reduction in capitalized development primarily at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and North Mara mines.

INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Internal control over financial reporting is a framework designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with IFRS. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting framework includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with IFRS, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Disclosure controls and procedures form a broader framework designed to provide reasonable assurance that other financial information disclosed publicly fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the periods presented in this MD&A and Barrick’s Annual Report. The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures framework includes processes designed to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to management by others within those entities to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Together, the internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures frameworks provide internal control over financial reporting and disclosure. Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting and disclosure may not prevent or detect all misstatements. Further, the effectiveness of internal control is subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may change.

The management of Barrick, at the direction of our President and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the period covered by this report based on the framework and criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on that evaluation, management concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as at December 31, 2017.

There were no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Barrick’s annual management report on internal control over financial reporting and the integrated audit report of Barrick’s auditors for the year ended December 31, 2017 will be included in Barrick’s 2017 Annual Report and its 2017 Form 40-F/Annual Information Form on file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 68 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

IFRS CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

Management has discussed the development and selection of our critical accounting estimates with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, and the Audit Committee has reviewed the disclosure relating to such estimates in conjunction with its review of this MD&A. The accounting policies and methods we utilize determine how we report our financial condition and results of operations, and they may require management to make estimates or rely on assumptions about matters that are inherently uncertain. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) under the historical cost convention, as modified by revaluation of certain financial assets, derivative contracts and post-retirement assets. Our significant accounting policies are disclosed in note 2 of the Financial Statements, including a summary of current and future changes in accounting policies.

Critical Accounting Estimates and Judgments

Certain accounting estimates have been identified as being “critical” to the presentation of our financial condition and results of operations because they require us to make subjective and/or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain; or there is a reasonable likelihood that materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions and estimates. Our significant accounting judgments, estimates and assumptions are disclosed in note 3 of the accompanying Financial Statements.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

Adjusted net earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure which excludes the following from net earnings:

● Impairment charges (reversals) related to intangibles, goodwill, property, plant and equipment, and investments;

● Acquisition/disposition gains/losses;

● Foreign currency translation gains/losses;

● Significant tax adjustments;

● Unrealized gains/losses on non-hedge derivative instruments; and

● Tax effect and non-controlling interest of the above items.

Management uses this measure internally to evaluate our underlying operating performance for the reporting periods presented and to assist with the planning and forecasting of future operating results. Management believes that adjusted net earnings is a useful measure of our performance because impairment charges, acquisition/disposition gains/losses and significant tax adjustments do not reflect the underlying operating performance of our core mining business and are not necessarily indicative of future operating results. Furthermore, foreign currency translation gains/losses and unrealized gains/losses from non-hedge derivatives are not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the reporting periods presented. The tax effect and non-controlling interest of the adjusting items are also excluded to reconcile the amounts to Barrick’s share on a post-tax basis, consistent with net earnings.

As noted, we use this measure for internal purposes. Management’s internal budgets and forecasts and public guidance do not reflect the types of items we adjust for. Consequently, the presentation of adjusted net earnings enables investors and analysts to better understand the underlying operating performance of our core mining business through the eyes of management. Management periodically evaluates the components of adjusted net earnings based on an internal assessment of performance measures that are useful for evaluating the operating performance of our business segments and a review of the non-GAAP measures used by mining industry analysts and other mining companies.

Adjusted net earnings is intended to provide additional information only and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measures are not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate these measures differently. The following table reconciles these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 69 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Net Earnings to Net Earnings per Share, Adjusted Net Earnings and Adjusted Net Earnings per Share

										For the three months ended
($ millions, except per share amounts in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss) attributable to equity holders of the Company		$1,438			$655			($2,838	)		($314	)		$425
Impairment charges (reversals) related to long-lived assets1		(212	)		(250	)		3,897			916			(304	)
Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses2		(911	)		42			(187	)		(29	)		7
Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses		72			199			120			12			18
Significant tax adjustments3		244			43			134			61			(16	)
Other expense adjustments4		178			114			135			17			39
Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments		(1	)		(32	)		11			5			(9	)
Tax effect and non-controlling interest5		68			47			(928	)		(415	)		95
Adjusted net earnings		$876			$818			$344			$253			$255
Net earnings (loss) per share6		1.23			0.56			(2.44	)		(0.27	)		0.36
Adjusted net earnings per share6		0.75			0.70			0.30			0.22			0.22

1 Net impairment reversals for the current year primarily relate to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017 and impairment reversals at Lumwana during the fourth quarter of 2017, partially offset by net impairments at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project during the fourth quarter of 2017.

2 Disposition gains for the current year primarily relate to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project.

3 Significant tax adjustments for the current year primarily relate to dividend withholding tax expense and a tax provision relating to the impact of the proposed framework for Acacia operations in Tanzania, partially offset by the anticipated impact of the U.S tax reform.

4 Other expense adjustments for the current year primarily relate to losses on debt extinguishment and reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine.

5 Tax effect and non-controlling interest for the current year primarily relates to the impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project, tax provision at Acacia and Pueblo Viejo depreciation adjustment discussed above.

6 Calculated using weighted average number of shares outstanding under the basic method of earnings per share.

Free Cash Flow

Free cash flow is a measure that excludes capital expenditures from net cash provided by operating activities. Management believes this to be a useful indicator of our ability to operate without reliance on additional borrowing or usage of existing cash.

Free cash flow is intended to provide additional information only and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS, and should not be considered in

isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measure is not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate this measure differently. The following table reconciles this non-GAAP measure to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

Reconciliation of Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities to Free Cash Flow

($ millions)				For the years ended December 31						For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net cash provided by operating activities		$2,065			$2,640			$2,794			$590			$711
Capital expenditures		(1,396	)		(1,126	)		(1,713	)		(350	)		(326	)
Free cash flow		$669			$1,514			$1,081			$240			$385

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 70 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Cash costs per ounce, All-in sustaining costs per ounce, All-in costs per ounce, C1 cash costs per pound and All-in sustaining costs per pound

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce are non-GAAP financial measures which are calculated based on the definition published by the World Gold Council (“WGC”) (a market development organization for the gold industry comprised of and funded by 23 gold mining companies from around the world, including Barrick). The WGC is not a regulatory organization. Management uses these measures to monitor the performance of our gold mining operations and its ability to generate positive cash flow, both on an individual site basis and an overall company basis.

Cash costs start with our cost of sales related to gold production and removes depreciation, the non-controlling interest of cost of sales and includes byproduct credits. All-in sustaining costs start with cash costs and include sustaining capital expenditures, general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs and reclamation cost accretion and amortization. These additional costs reflect the expenditures made to maintain current production levels.

All-in costs starts with all-in sustaining costs and adds additional costs that reflect the varying costs of producing gold over the life-cycle of a mine, including: project capital expenditures (capital expenditures at new projects and discrete projects at existing operations intended to increase production capacity and will not benefit production for at least 12 months) and other non-sustaining costs (primarily exploration and evaluation costs, community relations costs and general and administrative costs that are not associated with current operations). These definitions recognize that there are different costs associated with the life-cycle of a mine, and that it is therefore appropriate to distinguish between sustaining and non-sustaining costs.

We believe that our use of cash costs, all-in sustaining costs and all-in costs will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in understanding the costs associated with producing gold, understanding the economics of gold mining, assessing our operating performance and also our ability to generate free cash flow from current operations and to generate free cash flow on an overall company basis. Due to the capital-intensive nature of the industry and the long useful lives over which these items are depreciated, there can be a significant timing difference between net earnings calculated in accordance with IFRS and the amount of free cash flow that is being generated by a mine and therefore we believe these measures are useful non-

GAAP operating metrics and supplement our IFRS disclosures. These measures are not representative of all of our cash expenditures as they do not include income tax payments, interest costs or dividend payments. These measures do not include depreciation or amortization.

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs and all-in costs are intended to provide additional information only and do not have standardized definitions under IFRS, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. These measures are not equivalent to net income or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Although the WGC has published a standardized definition, other companies may calculate these measures differently.

In addition to presenting these metrics on a by-product basis, we have calculated these metrics on a co-product basis. Our co-product metrics remove the impact of other metal sales that are produced as a by-product of our gold production from cost per ounce calculations, but does not reflect a reduction in costs for costs associated with other metal sales.

C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound are non-GAAP financial measures related to our copper mine operations. We believe that C1 cash costs per pound enables investors to better understand the performance of our copper operations in comparison to other copper producers who present results on a similar basis. C1 cash costs per pound excludes royalties and non-routine charges as they are not direct production costs. All-in sustaining costs per pound is similar to the gold all-in sustaining costs metric and management uses this to better evaluate the costs of copper production. We believe this measure enables investors to better understand the operating performance of our copper mines as this measure reflects all of the sustaining expenditures incurred in order to produce copper. All-in sustaining costs per pound includes C1 cash costs, corporate general and administrative costs, minesite exploration and evaluation costs, royalties, environmental rehabilitation costs and write-downs taken on inventory to net realizable value.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 71 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)			For the years ended December 31						For the three months ended December 31
	Footnote		2017		2016		2015		2017		2016
Cost of sales related to gold production				$4,836		$4,980		$5,906		$1,292		$1,347
Depreciation				(1,529)		(1,504)		(1,615)		(404)		(396)
By-product credits		1		(135)		(184)		(214)		(30)		(41)
Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives		2		23		89		128		4		18
Non-recurring items		3		—		24		(210)		—		—
Other		4		(106)		(44)		25		(35)		(20)
Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)		5		(299)		(358)		(394)		(81)		(91)
Cash costs				$2,790		$3,003		$3,626		$746		$817
General & administrative costs				248		256		233		62		39
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6		47		44		47		8		18
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		7		1,109		944		1,359		279		298
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)		8		64		59		145		13		18
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other		9		(273)		(287)		(362)		(74)		(78)
All-in sustaining costs				$3,985		$4,019		$5,048		$1,034		$1,112
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		6		307		193		308		90		64
Community relations costs not related to current operations				4		8		12		1		2
Project capital expenditures		7		273		175		133		81		51
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (non-operating sites)		8		20		11		12		4		4
Non-controlling interest and copper operations		9		(21)		(42)		(43)		(9)		(4)
All-in costs				$4,568		$4,364		$5,470		$1,201		$1,229
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)		10		5,302		5,503		6,083		1,372		1,519
Cost of sales per ounce		11,12		$794		$798		$859		$801		$784
Cash costs per ounce		12		$526		$546		$596		$545		$540
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$544		$569		$619		$561		$557
All-in sustaining costs per ounce		12		$750		$730		$831		$756		$732
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$768		$753		$854		$772		$749
All-in costs per ounce		12		$860		$792		$900		$882		$809
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)		12,13		$878		$815		$923		$898		$826

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for our gold and copper mines for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $30 million (2016: $41 million) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $135 million (2016: $151 million; 2015: $140 million) and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge derivatives

Includes realized hedge losses of $5 million and $27 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $14 million and $73 million, respectively; 2015: $106 million), and realized non-hedge gains of $1 million and $4 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $4 million and $16 million losses, respectively; 2015: $22 million losses). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

3 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of our cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

4 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $nil and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $4 million and $16 million, respectively; 2015: $14 million). 2016 and 2017 includes the removal of cash costs associated with our Pierina mine, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure, of $35 million and $108 million for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, respectively (2016: $24 million and $66 million, respectively).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 72 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

5 Non-controlling interests (Pueblo Viejo and Acacia)

Non-controlling interests include non-controlling interests related to gold production of $137 million and $454 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $127 million and $508 million, respectively; 2015: $681 million). Refer to Note 5 of the Financial Statements for further information.

6 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects. Refer to page 44 of this MD&A.

7 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to our gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush. Refer to page 43 of this MD&A.

8 Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

9 Non-controlling interest and copper operations

Removes general & administrative costs related to non-controlling interests and copper based on a percentage allocation of revenue. Also removes exploration, evaluation and project costs, rehabilitation costs and capital expenditures incurred by our copper sites and the non-controlling interest of our Acacia and Pueblo Viejo operating segment and South Arturo. In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. The impact is summarized as the following:

($ millions)	For the years ended December 31							For the three months ended December 31
Non-controlling interest, copper operations and other		2017		2016		2015			2017		2016
General & administrative costs		($21	)	($36	)	($53	)		($8	)	($5	)
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		(12	)	(9	)	(8	)		1		(3	)
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)		(10	)	(9	)	(13	)		(2	)	(4	)
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		(230	)	(233	)	(288	)		(65	)	(66	)
All-in sustaining costs total		($273	)	($287	)	($362	)		($74	)	($78	)
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs		(17	)	(12	)	(11	)		(8	)	(4	)
Project capital expenditures		(4	)	(30	)	(32	)		(1	)	—
All-in costs total		($21	)	($42	)	($43	)		($9	)	($4	)

10 Ounces sold - equity basis

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the impact of Pierina, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

11 Cost of sales per ounce

In 2016 and 2017, figures remove the cost of sales impact of Pierina of $55 million and $174 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $30 million and $82 million, respectively), which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure. Cost of sales per ounce excludes non-controlling interest related to gold production. Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

12 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

13 Co-product costs per ounce

Cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce presented on a co-product basis remove the impact of by-product credits of our gold production (net of non-controlling interest) calculated as:

($ millions)			For the years ended December 31					For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016		2015			2017		2016
By-product credits	$135			$184		$214			$30		$41
Non-controlling interest	(30	)		(53	)	(62	)		(6	)	(13	)
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$105			$131		$152			$24		$28

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 73 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash costs, All-in sustaining costs and All-in costs, including on a per ounce basis, by operating segment

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																	For the three months ended December 31, 2017
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo  Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight		Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to   gold production			$428			$241			$75			$108			$55			$114			$53			$14		$69			$79
Depreciation			(155	)		(107	)		(18	)		(33	)		(10	)		(25	)		(8	)		—		(12	)		(16	)
By-product credits	1		(1	)		(14	)		(4	)		(5	)		—			—			—			—		(1	)		—
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Other	3		—			—			—			—			—			1			—			—		—			—
Non-controlling interests			(1	)		(49	)		—			—			—			(31	)		—			—		—			—
Cash costs			$271			$71			$53			$70			$45			$59			$45			$14		$56			$63
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			9			—			—		—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		4			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		1			3
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		94			30			8			39			8			18			10			—		16			8
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		4			3			1			—			—			1			1			—		(1	)		—
Non-controlling interests			—			(13	)		—			—			—			(12	)		—			—		—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$373			$91			$62			$109			$53			$75			$56			$14		$72			$74
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		4			—			—			—			—			—			—			—		—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		63			—			—			—			4			3			—			—		—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			(1	)		—			—		—			—
All-in costs			$440			$91			$62			$109			$57			$77			$56			$14		$72			$74
Ounces sold - equity basis   (000s ounces)			539			182			114			114			81			94			64			11		80			93
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$794			$795			$659			$953			$672			$774			$831			1,221		864			850
Cash costs per ounce	8		$506			$388			$461			$609			$550			$581			$690			$1,218		$705			$675
Cash costs per ounce (on a   co-product basis)	8,9		$507			$490			$508			$618			$550			$587			$695			$1,228		$715			$680
All-in sustaining costs per   ounce	8		$696			$498			$547			$950			$638			$779			$864			$1,262		$897			$796
All-in sustaining costs per   ounce (on a co-product   basis)	8,9		$697			$600			$594			$959			$638			$785			$869			$1,272		$907			$801
All-in costs per ounce	8		$818			$498			$553			$950			$692			$803			$878			$1,267		$897			$796
All-in costs per ounce (on a   co-product basis)	8,9		$819			$600			$600			$959			$692			$809			$883			$1,277		$907			$801

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 74 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																	For the three months ended December 31, 2016
	Footnote	Barrick     Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$504			$144			$60			$173			$41			$195			$53			$17			$54			$76
Depreciation			(224	)		(21	)		(19	)		(42	)		(8	)		(44	)		(7	)		(2	)		(9	)		(15	)
By-product credits	1		(1	)		(17	)		(4	)		(7	)		—			(10	)		—			—			—			—
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			1			—			—			—			1			—			—			—			2
Non-controlling interests			—			(39	)		—			—			—			(52	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$279			$68			$37			$124			$33			$90			$46			$15			$45			$63
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			(1	)		—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		8			—			—			1			—			1			—			—			1			2
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		74			32			3			49			9			56			14			1			13			6
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		9			2			2			1			—			2			—			—			—			1
Non-controlling interests			(4	)		(13	)		—			—			—			(21	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$366			$89			$42			$175			$42			$127			$60			$16			$59			$72
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		6			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		34			—			1			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$406			$89			$43			$175			$42			$127			$60			$16			$59			$72
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			582			198			98			194			69			134			74			13			59			99
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$864			$450			$612			$892			$595			$935			$728			$1,264			$912			$772
Cash costs per ounce	8		$478			$341			$379			$642			$484			$679			$625			$1,162			$765			$638
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$479			$471			$418			$716			$484			$713			$630			$1,173			$775			$631
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$630			$443			$436			$905			$610			$952			$822			$1,245			$981			$731
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$631			$573			$475			$979			$610			$986			$827			$1,256			$991			$724
All-in costs per ounce	8		$696			$443			$447			$905			$610			$953			$822			$1,245			$981			$731
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$697			$573			$486			$979			$610			$987			$827			$1,256			$991			$724

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 75 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																				For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$1,869			$730			$245			$410			$159			$469			$193			$55			$239			$292
Depreciation			(793	)		(229	)		(68	)		(119	)		(28	)		(107	)		(27	)		(3	)		(39	)		(58	)
By-product credits	1		(3	)		(72	)		(16	)		(17	)		—			(7	)		(1	)		—			(3	)		(2	)
Non-recurring items	2		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			—			—			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(1	)		(171	)		—			—			—			(127	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$1,072			$258			$161			$274			$131			$229			$165			$52			$197			$232
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			21			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		16			—			4			3			—			—			—			—			1			9
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		360			114			20			173			32			137			44			—			55			20
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		25			13			7			2			1			6			5			2			(2	)		3
Non-controlling interests			(3	)		(51	)		—			—			—			(61	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$1,470			$334			$192			$452			$164			$332			$214			$54			$251			$264
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		8			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		224			—			5			—			4			11			5			1			—			—
Non-controlling interests			—			—			—			—			—			(4	)		—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$1,702			$334			$197			$452			$168			$339			$219			$55			$251			$264
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			2,357			637			397			458			222			379			196			41			253			362
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$792			$699			$617			$897			$715			$791			$986			$1,334			$944			$806
Cash costs per ounce	8		$455			$405			$405			$598			$589			$587			$841			$1,265			$781			$642
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$456			$475			446			$636			$589			$598			$846			$1,270			$791			$647
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$624			$525			$483			$987			$733			$875			$1,092			$1,329			$993			$729
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co- product basis)	8,9		$625			$595			$524			$1,025			$733			$886			$1,097			$1,334			$1,003			$734
All-in costs per ounce	8		$722			$525			$497			$987			$753			$894			$1,119			$1,349			$993			$729
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$723			$595			$538			$1,025			$753			$905			$1,124			$1,354			$1,003			$734

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 76 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																				For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Footnote	Barrick Nevada			Pueblo Viejo			Lagunas Norte			Veladero			Turquoise Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Golden Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$1,896			$644			$276			$464			$155			$719			$188			$54			$203			$289
Depreciation			(807	)		(147	)		(96	)		(118	)		(27	)		(166	)		(26	)		(5	)		(34	)		(56	)
By-product credits	1		(2	)		(90	)		(17	)		(27	)		—			(39	)		(1	)		—			(2	)		(2	)
Non-recurring items	2		—			34			—			(10	)		—			—			—			—			—			—
Other	3		—			5			—			—			—			8			—			—			—			7
Non-controlling interests			—			(170	)		—			—			—			(188	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$1,087			$276			$163			$309			$128			$334			$161			$49			$167			$238
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			55			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		10			—			2			1			—			3			—			—			1			5
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		217			101			51			95			32			190			37			2			43			21
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		26			10			8			4			1			6			1			2			(2	)		4
Non-controlling interests			(4	)		(44	)		—			—			—			(88	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$1,336			$343			$224			$409			$161			$500			$199			$53			$209			$268
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		19			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		141			—			5			—			—			1			—			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(30	)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$1,466			$343			$229			$409			$161			$501			$199			$53			$209			$268
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			2,162			700			425			532			257			522			237			36			243			380
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$876			$564			$651			$872			$603			$880			$795			$1,512			$836			$762
Cash costs per ounce	8		$502			$395			$383			$582			$498			$640			$679			$1,376			$689			$627
Cash costs per ounce (on a co- product basis)	8,9		$503			$473			$423			$632			$498			$677			$683			$1,385			$697			$615
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$618			$490			$529			$769			$625			$958			$839			$1,493			$858			$706
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$619			$568			$569			$819			$625			$995			$843			$1,502			$866			$694
All-in costs per ounce	8		$678			$490			$540			$769			$625			$960			$839			$1,493			$858			$706
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$679			$568			$580			$819			$625			$997			$843			$1,502			$866			$694

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 77 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars)																	For the year ended December 31, 2015
		Barrick			Pueblo			Lagunas						Turquoise									Golden
	Footnote	Nevada			Viejo			Norte			Veladero			Ridge			Acacia			Hemlo			Sunlight			Porgera			Kalgoorlie
Cost of sales related to gold production			$1,551			$904			$378			$499			$141			$837			$192			$134			$375			$306
Depreciation			(537	)		(277	)		(169	)		(108	)		(23	)		(143	)		(38	)		(38	)		(37	)		(74	)
By-product credits	1		(2	)		(120	)		(18	)		(22	)		—			(36	)		(1	)		(2	)		(1	)		(1	)
Non-recurring items	2		(12	)		(47	)		(5	)		(21	)		(1	)		(109	)		—			(11	)		—			—
Other	3		—			13			—			—			—			8			—			—			—			6
Non-controlling interests			—			(194	)		—			—			—			(200	)		—			—			—			—
Cash costs			$1,000			$279			$186			$348			$117			$357			$153			$83			$337			$237
General & administrative costs			—			—			—			—			—			42			—			—			—			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs	4		12			1			3			2			—			2			1			2			2			2
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures	5		211			102			67			242			32			178			38			7			93			34
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization (operating sites)	6		27			25			32			4			1			9			1			13			2			7
Non-controlling interests			—			(51	)		—			—			—			(75	)		—			—			—			—
All-in sustaining costs			$1,250			$356			$288			$596			$150			$513			$193			$105			$434			$280
Project exploration and evaluation and project costs	4		40			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Project capital expenditures	5		159			—			—			—			—			(1	)		39			—			—			—
Non-controlling interests			(31	)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
All-in costs			$1,418			$356			$288			$596			$150			$512			$232			$105			$434			$280
Ounces sold - equity basis (000s ounces)			1,981			597			565			629			202			461			216			76			426			315
Cost of sales per ounce	7,8		$782			$881			$669			$792			$697			$1,161			$887			$1,768			$881			$973
Cash costs per ounce	8		$504			$467			$329			$552			$581			$772			$708			$1,098			$791			$752
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$505			$595			$361			$587			$581			$810			$711			$1,121			$794			$738
All-in sustaining costs per ounce	8		$631			$597			$509			$946			$742			$1,112			$895			$1,379			$1,018			$886
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$632			$725			$541			$981			$742			$1,150			$898			$1,402			$1,021			$872
All-in costs per ounce	8		$715			$597			$509			$946			$742			$1,111			$1,075			$1,379			$1,018			$886
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)	8,9		$716			$725			$541			$981			$742			$1,149			$1,078			$1,402			$1,021			$872

1 By-product credits

Revenues include the sale of by-products for our gold mines and energy sales from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine for the three months ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $nil) and the year ended December 31, 2017 of $nil (2016: $33 million; 2015: $74 million) up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

2 Non-recurring items

These gains/costs are not indicative of our cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.

3 Other

Other adjustments include adding the net margins related to power sales at Pueblo Viejo of $nil and $nil, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $nil and $5 million, respectively; 2015: $12 million) and adding the cost of treatment and refining charges of $1 million and $1 million, respectively, for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $2 million and $9 million, respectively; 2015: $8 million).

4 Exploration and evaluation costs

Exploration, evaluation and project expenses are presented as minesite if it supports current mine operations and project if it relates to future projects. Refer to page 44 of this MD&A.

5 Capital expenditures

Capital expenditures are related to our gold sites only and are presented on a 100% accrued basis. They are split between minesite sustaining and project capital expenditures. Project capital expenditures are distinct projects designed to increase the net present value of the mine and are not related to current production. Significant projects in the current year are Crossroads, Cortez Hills Lower Zone, Range Front Declines and Goldrush. Refer to page 43 of this MD&A.

6 Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization

Includes depreciation on the assets related to rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations and accretion on the rehabilitation provisions of our gold operations, split between operating and non-operating sites.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 78 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

7 Cost of sales per ounce

Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces.

8 Per ounce figures

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

9 Co-product costs per ounce

Cost of sales per ounce, cash costs per ounce, all-in sustaining costs per ounce and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

($ millions)												For the three months ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	1	$	14		$	4	$	5	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
Non-controlling interest		—		(6	)		—		—		—		—			—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	1	$	8		$	4	$	5	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	1	$	—
												For the three months ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	1	$	17		$	4	$	7	$	—	$	10		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
Non-controlling interest		—		(9	)		—		—		—		(4	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	1	$	8		$	4	$	7	$	—	$	6		$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—
															For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	3	$	72		$	16	$	17	$	—	$	7		$	1	$	—	$	3	$	2
Non-controlling interest		—		(28	)		—		—		—		(3	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	3	$	44		$	16	$	17	$	—	$	4		$	1	$	—	$	3	$	2
															For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	2	$	90		$	17	$	27	$	—	$	39		$	1	$	—	$	2	$	2
Non-controlling interest		—		(39	)		—		—		—		(14	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	2	$	51		$	17	$	27	$	—	$	25		$	1	$	—	$	2	$	2
															For the year ended December 31, 2015
	Barrick		Pueblo			Lagunas				Turquoise							Golden
	Nevada		Viejo			Norte		Veladero		Ridge		Acacia			Hemlo		Sunlight		Porgera		Kalgoorlie
By-product credits	$	2	$	120		$	18	$	22	$	—	$	36		$	1	$	2	$	1	$	1
Non-controlling interest		—		(49	)		—		—		—		(13	)		—		—		—		—
By-product credits (net of non-controlling interest)	$	2	$	71		$	18	$	22	$	—	$	23		$	1	$	2	$	1	$	1

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 79 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)	For the years ended December 31									For the three months       ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Cost of sales		$399			$319			$814			$107			$84
Depreciation/amortization		(83	)		(45	)		(104	)		(24	)		(15	)
Treatment and refinement charges		157			167			178			41			43
Cash cost of sales applicable to equity method investments		245			203			23			75			53
Less: royalties		(38	)		(41	)		(101	)		(11	)		(9	)
By-product credits		(5	)		—			(1	)		(1	)		—
Other		—			—			72			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales		$675			$603			$881			$187			$156
General & administrative costs		12			14			21			3			3
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		12			7			6			3			2
Royalties		38			41			101			11			9
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		6			—			—			1			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		204			169			177			67			48
All-in sustaining costs		$947			$834			$1,186			$272			$218
Pounds sold - consolidated basis (millions pounds)		405			405			510			107			107
Cost of sales per pound1,2		$1.77			$1.41			$1.65			$1.79			$1.43
C1 cash cost per pound1		$1.66			$1.49			$1.73			$1.72			$1.47
All-in sustaining costs per pound1		$2.34			$2.05			$2.33			$2.51			$2.04

1 Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

2 Cost of sales per pound related to copper is calculated using cost of sales including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 80 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Copper Cost of Sales to C1 cash costs and All-in sustaining costs, including on a per pound basis, by operating site

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)										For the three months ended December 31
	2017												2016
	Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid
Cost of sales		73			104			23			59			84			11
Depreciation/amortization		(16	)		(24	)		(5	)		(13	)		(15	)		(3	)
Treatment and refinement charges		—			37			4			—			41			2
Less: royalties		—			(11	)		—			—			(9	)		—
By-product credits		—			—			—			—			—			—
C1 cash cost of sales		57			106			22			46			101			10
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		—			3			—			—			3			—
Royalties		—			11			—			—			9			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		1			—			—			—			—			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		21			43			3			16			27			6
All-in sustaining costs		79			163			25			62			140			16
Pounds sold - consolidated basis (millions pounds)		32			65			10			31			70			6
Cost of sales per pound1,2		2.29			1.60			2.15			1.87			1.20			1.89
C1 cash cost per pound1		1.78			1.63			2.05			1.46			1.45			1.79
All-in sustaining costs per pound1		2.45			2.52			2.41			1.97			1.99			2.73

($ millions, except per pound information in dollars)																			For the years ended December 31
				2017									2016									2015
	Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid			Zaldívar			Lumwana			Jabal Sayid
Cost of sales	$	243		$	396		$	75		$	221		$	319		$	33		$	424		$	418		$	—
Depreciation/amortization		(55	)		(83	)		(17	)		(44	)		(45	)		(6	)		(50	)		(59	)		—
Treatment and refinement charges		—			144			14			—			161			6			—			178			—
Less: royalties		—			(38	)		—			—			(41	)		—			—			(101	)		—
By-product credits		—			—			(5	)		—			—			—			(1	)		—			—
Other		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			72			—
C1 cash cost of sales	$	188		$	419		$	67		$	177		$	394		$	33		$	373		$	508		$	—
Rehabilitation - accretion and amortization		—			12			—			—			7			—			1			5			—
Royalties		—			38			—			—			41			—			—			101			—
Minesite exploration and evaluation costs		4			2			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Minesite sustaining capital expenditures		58			123			23			56			96			17			78			99			—
All-in sustaining costs	$	250		$	594		$	90		$	233		$	538		$	50		$	452		$	713		$	—
Pounds sold - consolidated basis  (millions pounds)		113			253			39			114			274			17			215			295			—
Cost of sales per pound1,2	$	2.15		$	1.57		$	1.90		$	1.93		$	1.16		$	1.98		$	1.97		$	1.42		$	—
C1 cash cost per pound1	$	1.66		$	1.66		$	1.70		$	1.55		$	1.44		$	1.97		$	1.74		$	1.72		$	—
All-in sustaining costs per  pound1	$	2.21		$	2.35		$	2.30		$	2.05		$	1.97		$	2.98		$	2.11		$	2.42		$	—

¹  Cost of sales per pound, C1 cash costs per pound and all-in sustaining costs per pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

² Cost of sales per pound applicable to copper is calculated using cost of sales including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 81 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA

EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure, which excludes the following from net earnings:

● Income tax expense;

● Finance costs;

● Finance income; and

● Depreciation.

Management believes that EBITDA is a valuable indicator of our ability to generate liquidity by producing operating cash flow to fund working capital needs, service debt obligations, and fund capital expenditures. Management uses EBITDA for this purpose. EBITDA is also frequently used by investors and analysts for valuation purposes whereby EBITDA is multiplied by a factor or “EBITDA multiple” that is based on an observed or inferred relationship between EBITDA and market values to determine the approximate total enterprise value of a company.

Adjusted EBITDA removes the effect of “impairment charges” and starting in the second quarter 2017 MD&A, we began including additional adjusting items in the Adjusted EBITDA reconciliation to provide a greater level of consistency with the adjusting items included in our Adjusted Net Earnings reconciliation. These new items include: acquisition/disposition gains/losses; foreign

currency translation gains/losses; other expense adjustments; and unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments. These amounts are adjusted to remove any impact on finance costs/income, income tax expense and/or depreciation as they do not affect EBITDA. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. We believe this additional information will assist analysts, investors and other stakeholders of Barrick in better understanding our ability to generate liquidity from operating cash flow, by excluding these amounts from the calculation as they are not indicative of the performance of our core mining business and not necessarily reflective of the underlying operating results for the periods presented.

EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA are intended to provide additional information to investors and analysts and do not have any standardized definition under IFRS, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA exclude the impact of cash costs of financing activities and taxes, and the effects of changes in operating working capital balances, and therefore are not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from operations as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA differently.

Reconciliation of Net Earnings to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA

($ millions)				For the years ended December 31						For the three months ended December 31
	2017			2016			2015			2017			2016
Net earnings (loss)		$1,516			$861			($3,113	)		($467	)		$512
Income tax expense		1,231			917			(31	)		51			223
Finance costs, net1		624			725			663			115			200
Depreciation		1,647			1,574			1,771			434			418
EBITDA		$5,018			$4,077			($710	)		$133			$1,353
Impairment charges (reversals) of long-lived assets2		(212	)		(250	)		3,897			916			(304	)
Acquisition/disposition (gains)/losses3		(911	)		42			(187	)		(29	)		7
Foreign currency translation (gains)/losses		72			199			120			12			18
Other expense adjustments4		51			(15	)		203			17			(20	)
Unrealized gains on non-hedge derivative instruments		(1	)		(32	)		11			5			(9	)
Adjusted EBITDA		$4,017			$4,021			$3,334			$1,054			$1,045

1 Finance costs exclude accretion.

2 Net impairment reversals for the current year primarily relate to impairment reversals at the Cerro Casale project upon reclassification of the project’s net assets as held-for-sale as at March 31, 2017 and impairment reversals at Lumwana during the fourth quarter of 2017, partially offset by net impairments at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine and the Pascua-Lama project during the fourth quarter of 2017.

3 Disposition gains for the current year primarily relate to the sale of a 50% interest in the Veladero mine and the gain related to the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale project.

4 Other expense adjustments primarily consist of reduced operations program costs at Acacia’s Bulyanhulu mine.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 82 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Segment Income to Segment EBITDA

($ millions)					For the year ended December 31, 2017
	Barrick Nevada	Pueblo Viejo  (60%)		Lagunas Norte	Veladero	Turquoise Ridge	Acacia (100%)
Segment Income	$1,052		$              395	$              259	$              173	$              119		$              191
Depreciation	793		143	68	119	28		107
Segment EBITDA	$            1,845		$              538	$              327	$              292	$              147		$              298
					For the year ended December 31, 2016
	Barrick Nevada	Pueblo Viejo (60%)		Lagunas Norte	Veladero	Turquoise Ridge	Acacia (100%)
Segment Income	$771		$528	$260	$220	$166		$299
Depreciation	807		93	96	118	27		166
Segment EBITDA	$1,578		$621	$356	$338	$193		$465
					For the year ended December 31, 2015
	Barrick Nevada	Pueblo Viejo (60%)		Lagunas Norte	Veladero	Turquoise Ridge	Acacia (100%)
Segment Income	$678		$230	$285	$216	$92		($1	)
Depreciation	537		160	169	108	23		143
Segment EBITDA	$1,215		$390	$454	$324	$115		$142

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 83 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Realized Price

Realized price is a non-GAAP financial measure which excludes from sales:

● Unrealized gains and losses on non-hedge derivative contracts;

● Unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses on provisional pricing from copper and gold sales contracts;

● Sales attributable to ore purchase arrangements;

● Treatment and refining charges; and

● Export duties.

This measure is intended to enable Management to better understand the price realized in each reporting period for gold and copper sales because unrealized mark-to-market values of non-hedge gold and copper derivatives are subject to change each period due to changes in market factors such as market and forward gold and copper prices, so that prices ultimately realized may differ from those recorded. The exclusion of such unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses from the presentation of this performance measure enables investors to understand performance based on the realized proceeds of selling gold and copper production.

The gains and losses on non-hedge derivatives and receivable balances relate to instruments/balances that

mature in future periods, at which time the gains and losses will become realized. The amounts of these gains and losses reflect fair values based on market valuation assumptions at the end of each period and do not necessarily represent the amounts that will become realized on maturity. We also exclude export duties that are paid upon sale and netted against revenues as well as treatment and refining charges that are paid to the refiner on gold and copper concentrate sales that are netted against revenues. We believe this provides investors and analysts with a more accurate measure with which to compare to market gold prices and to assess our gold sales performance. For those reasons, management believes that this measure provides a more accurate reflection of our Company’s past performance and is a better indicator of its expected performance in future periods.

The realized price measure is intended to provide additional information, and does not have any standardized definition under IFRS and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with IFRS. The measure is not necessarily indicative of sales as determined under IFRS. Other companies may calculate this measure differently. The following table reconciles realized prices to the most directly comparable IFRS measure.

Reconciliation of Sales to Realized Price per ounce/pound

For the years ended December 31
($ millions, except per ounce/pound information in dollars)				Gold								Copper
	2017			2016			2015			2017		2016		2015
Sales		$7,631			$7,908			$7,813			$608		$466		$1,002
Sales applicable to non-controlling interests		(810	)		(948	)		(826	)		—		—		—
Sales applicable to equity method investments1,2		—			—			—			427		293		26
Realized non-hedge gold/copper derivative (losses) gains		3			(2	)		—			—		—		—
Sales applicable to Pierina3		(153	)		(112	)		—			—		—		—
Treatment and refinement charges		1			16			14			157		167		178
Export duties		—			2			34			—		—		—
Revenues - as adjusted		$6,672			$6,864			$7,035			$1,192		$926		$1,206
Ounces/pounds sold (000s ounces/millions pounds)3		5,302			5,503			6,083			405		405		510
Realized gold/copper price per ounce/pound4		$1,258			$1,248			$1,157			$2.95		$2.29		$2.37

1 Represents sales of $325 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 (2016: $259 million; 2015: $26 million) applicable to our 50% equity method investment in Zaldívar and $116 million (2016: $40 million; 2015: $nil) applicable to our 50% equity method investment in Jabal Sayid.

2 Sales applicable to equity method investments are net of treatment and refinement charges.

3 Figures exclude Pierina from the calculation of realized price per ounce, which is mining incidental ounces as it enters closure.

4 Realized price per ounce/pound may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 84 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The scientific and technical information contained in this MD&A has been reviewed and approved by Steven Haggarty, P. Eng., Senior Director, Metallurgy of Barrick; Rick Sims, Registered Member SME, Vice President, Reserves and Resources of Barrick; and Patrick Garretson, Registered Member SME, Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning of Barrick who are each a “Qualified Person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

ENDNOTES

1 These are non-GAAP financial performance measures with no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers. For further information and a detailed reconciliation of each non-GAAP measure to the most directly comparable IFRS measure, please see pages 69 to 84 of this MD&A.

2 Amount excludes capital leases and includes Acacia (100% basis).

3 Includes $87 million cash primarily held at Acacia, which may not be readily deployed.

4 Cost of sales related to gold per ounce is calculated using cost of sales related to gold on an attributable basis (removing the non-controlling interest of 40% Pueblo Viejo and 36.1% Acacia from cost of sales), divided by attributable gold ounces. Cost of sales related to copper per pound is calculated using cost of sales related to copper including our proportionate share of cost of sales attributable to equity method investments (Zaldívar and Jabal Sayid), divided by consolidated copper pounds (including our proportionate share of copper pounds from our equity method investments).

5 Total reportable incident frequency rate (TRIFR) is a ratio calculated as follows: number of reportable injuries x 200,000 hours divided by the total number of hours worked. Reportable injuries include fatalities, lost time injuries, restricted duty injuries, and medically treated injuries.

6 Estimated in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Estimates are as of December 31, 2017, unless otherwise noted. Proven reserves of 398.3 million tonnes grading 1.91 g/t, representing 24.5 million ounces of gold, and 170.7 million tonnes grading 0.556%, representing 2.095 billion pounds of copper. Probable reserves of 0.9 billion tonnes grading 1.39 g/t, representing 40.1 million ounces of gold, and 456.7 million tonnes grading 0.592%, representing 5.956 billion pounds of copper. Measured resources of 400.0 million tonnes grading 0.92 g/t, representing 11.8 million ounces of gold, and 90.9 million tonnes grading 0.401%, representing 803.1 million pounds of copper. Indicated resources of 1.6 billion tonnes grading 1.54 g/t, representing 76.8 million ounces of gold, and 581.2 million tonnes grading 0.506%, representing 6.484 billion pounds of copper. Inferred resources of 795.4 million tonnes grading 1.21 g/t, representing 30.8 million ounces of gold, and 125.4 million tonnes grading 0.482%, representing 1.331 billion pounds of copper. Pascua-Lama measured resources of 42.8 million tonnes grading 1.86 g/t representing 2.6 ounces of gold, and indicated resources of 391.7 tonnes grading 1.49 g/t, representing 18.8 ounces of gold. Goldrush probable reserves of 5.7 tonnes grading 8.12 g/t, representing 1.5 ounces of gold. Norte Abierto (formerly known as the Cerro Casale project, comprised of the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits) proven reserves of 114.9 million tonnes grading 0.65 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 2.4 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis), and probable reserves of 484.0 million tonnes grading 0.59 g/t (50 percent basis), representing 9.2 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis). Norte Abierto measured resources of 310.1 million tonnes grading 0.57 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 5.7 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis, indicated resources of 391.8 million tonnes grading 0.47 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 6.0 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis), and inferred resources of 99.1 million tonnes grading 0.29 g/t (50 percent basis) representing 0.9 million ounces of gold (50 percent basis). Complete mineral reserve and mineral resource data for all mines and projects referenced in this MD&A, including tonnes, grades, and ounces, can be found on pages 87-92 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2017 Report.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 85 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTS: A measure of cost per ounce/pound for gold/copper. Refer to page 72 of this MD&A for further information and a reconciliation of the measure.

AUTOCLAVE: Oxidation process in which high temperatures and pressures are applied to convert refractory sulfide mineralization into amenable oxide ore.

BY-PRODUCT: A secondary metal or mineral product recovered in the milling process such as silver.

C1 CASH COSTS: A measure of cost per pound for copper. Refer to page 80 of this MD&A for further information and a reconciliation of the measure.

CASH COSTS: A measure of cost per ounce for gold. Refer to page 72 of this MD&A for further information and a reconciliation of the measure.

CONCENTRATE: A very fine, powder-like product containing the valuable ore mineral from which most of the waste mineral has been eliminated.

CONTAINED OUNCES: Represents ounces in the ground before reduction of ounces not able to be recovered by the applicable metallurgical process.

DEVELOPMENT: Work carried out for the purpose of opening up a mineral deposit. In an underground mine this includes shaft sinking, crosscutting, drifting and raising. In an open pit mine, development includes the removal of overburden.

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

DORÉ: Unrefined gold and silver bullion bars usually consisting of approximately 90 percent precious metals that will be further refined to almost pure metal.

DRILLING:

Core: drilling with a hollow bit with a diamond cutting rim to produce a cylindrical core that is used for geological study and assays. Used in mineral exploration.

In-fill: any method of drilling intervals between existing holes, used to provide greater geological detail and to help establish reserve estimates.

EXPLORATION: Prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond-drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

FREE CASH FLOW: A measure that reflects our ability to generate cash flow. Refer to page 70 of this MD&A for a definition.

GRADE: The amount of metal in each tonne of ore, expressed as troy ounces per ton or grams per tonne for precious metals and as a percentage for most other metals.

Cut-off grade: the minimum metal grade at which an ore body can be economically mined (used in the calculation of ore reserves).

Mill-head grade: metal content of mined ore going into a mill for processing.

Recovered grade: actual metal content of ore determined after processing.

Reserve grade: estimated metal content of an ore body, based on reserve calculations.

HEAP LEACHING: A process whereby gold/copper is extracted by “heaping” broken ore on sloping impermeable pads and continually applying to the heaps a weak cyanide solution/sulfuric acid which dissolves the contained gold/copper. The gold/copper-laden solution is then collected for gold/copper recovery.

HEAP LEACH PAD: A large impermeable foundation or pad used as a base for ore during heap leaching.

MERRILL-CROWE PROCESS: A separation technique for removing gold from a cyanide solution.

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

MINERAL RESERVE: See pages 87 to 92 – Summary Gold/Copper Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources.

MINERAL RESOURCE: See pages 87 to 92 – Summary Gold/Copper Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources.

MINING RATE: Tonnes of ore mined per day or even specified time period.

OPEN PIT: A mine where the minerals are mined entirely from the surface.

ORE: Rock, generally containing metallic or non-metallic minerals, which can be mined and processed at a profit.

ORE BODY: A sufficiently large amount of ore that can be mined economically.

OUNCES: Troy ounces of a fineness of 999.9 parts per 1,000 parts.

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

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

REFINING: The final stage of metal production in which impurities are removed from the molten metal.

STRIPPING: Removal of overburden or waste rock overlying an ore body in preparation for mining by open pit methods. Expressed as the total number of tonnes mined or to be mined for each ounce of gold or pound of copper.

TAILINGS: The material that remains after all economically and technically recoverable precious metals have been removed from the ore during processing.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 86 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources

GOLD MINERAL RESERVES ^(1,2)

As at December 31, 2017	PROVEN						PROBABLE						TOTAL
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs
Based on attributable ounces	(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		50,013		2.82		4,537		9,198		3.78		1,117		59,211		2.97		5,654
Goldstrike Underground		4,009		11.47		1,479		4,718		8.77		1,330		8,727		10.01		2,809
Goldstrike Property Total		54,022		3.46		6,016		13,916		5.47		2,447		67,938		3.87		8,463
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		2.67		5,335		19,222		3.06		1,889		81,359		2.76		7,224
Cortez		19,145		1.46		898		148,775		1.92		9,188		167,920		1.87		10,086
Goldrush		—		—		—		5,671		8.12		1,481		5,671		8.12		1,481
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		7,183		15.61		3,605		4,689		15.48		2,334		11,872		15.56		5,939
South Arturo (60.00%)		2,267		3.28		239		1,557		2.52		126		3,824		2.97		365
Hemlo		935		3.66		110		23,993		2.16		1,664		24,928		2.21		1,774
Golden Sunlight		270		1.15		10		182		3.42		20		452		2.06		30
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (3)		114,851		0.65		2,391		483,950		0.59		9,232		598,801		0.60		11,623
Veladero (50.00%) (4)		14,198		0.72		330		99,716		0.78		2,486		113,914		0.77		2,816
Lagunas Norte		25,719		2.23		1,840		29,711		2.27		2,165		55,430		2.25		4,005
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		635		9.21		188		12,620		4.56		1,850		13,255		4.78		2,038
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		75,145		0.89		2,161		23,915		2.21		1,697		99,060		1.21		3,858
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		1,864		10.66		639		10,716		6.86		2,362		12,580		7.42		3,001
North Mara (63.90%)		5,298		2.40		408		11,628		2.89		1,080		16,926		2.73		1,488
Buzwagi (63.90%)		9,108		0.92		269		—		—		—		9,108		0.92		269
OTHER		5,556		0.21		38		6,282		0.25		51		11,838		0.23		89
TOTAL		398,333		1.91		24,477		896,543		1.39		40,072		1,294,876		1.55		64,549
COPPER MINERAL RESERVES (1)
As at December 31, 2017	PROVEN						PROBABLE						TOTAL
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs
Based on attributable pounds	(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)
Zaldívar (50.00%)		132,477		0.493		1,440.3		81,757		0.538		970.4		214,234		0.510		2,410.7
Lumwana		32,711		0.503		362.9		368,685		0.572		4,651.1		401,396		0.567		5,014.0
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		5,556		2.380		291.5		6,282		2.418		334.9		11,838		2.400		626.4
TOTAL		170,744		0.556		2,094.7		456,724		0.592		5,956.4		627,468		0.582		8,051.1

⁽¹⁾  See accompanying endnote #1.

⁽²⁾  See accompanying endnote #2.

⁽³⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 87 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

GOLD MINERAL RESOURCES ^(1,2)

As at December 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs		Contained ozs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained ozs
Based on attributable ounces	(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(000’s)		(gm/t)		(000’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit		1,764		2.61		148		3,840		2.89		357		505		267		2.80		24
Goldstrike Underground		1,524		9.92		486		2,427		7.78		607		1,093		1,270		9.38		383
Goldstrike Property Total		3,288		6.00		634		6,267		4.78		964		1,598		1,537		8.24		407
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		2.39		598		93,913		2.47		7,456		8,054		27,637		2.43		2,155
Cortez		2,586		1.88		156		28,837		1.85		1,712		1,868		9,874		2.01		638
Goldrush		140		10.44		47		31,379		9.27		9,351		9,398		8,817		8.24		2,335
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)		2,944		9.03		855		2,162		9.37		651		1,506		1,697		13.03		711
South Arturo (60.00%)		2,927		1.19		111.6		8,365		1.12		301		412.6		749		0.46		11
Hemlo		1,107		2.67		95		40,232		1.36		1,763		1,858		4,949		2.78		442
Golden Sunlight		121		1.54		6		3,013		1.79		173		179		2,442		2.17		170
Donlin Gold (50.00%)		3,865		2.52		313		266,803		2.24		19,190		19,503		46,108		2.02		2,997
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (3)		11,478		0.30		112		136,846		0.36		1,574		1,686		247,720		0.38		2,995
Caspiche (50.00%) (3)		310,050		0.57		5,655		391,750		0.47		5,965		11,620		99,050		0.29		921
Pascua-Lama (4)		42,809		1.86		2,564		391,734		1.49		18,783		21,347		15,400		1.74		863
Veladero (50.00%) (5)		3,324		0.48		51		66,771		0.57		1,225		1,276		33,486		0.43		464
Lagunas Norte		1,925		0.87		54		29,017		0.96		896		950		1,857		0.92		55
Alturas		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		210,965		1.00		6,793
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)		149		5.22		25		12,316		4.62		1,828		1,853		11,879		4.15		1,584
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)		3,166		0.96		98		12,120		1.21		473		571		1,252		2.48		100
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		11.53		324		8,334		8.78		2,352		2,676		15,469		9.75		4,848
North Mara (63.90%)		1,291		2.63		109		6,522		2.77		581		690		4,112		4.15		548
Buzwagi (63.90%)		13		2.39		1		2,878		1.04		96		97		31,898		0.77		790
Nyanzaga (57.51%)		—		—		—		12,520		3.45		1,389		1,389		2,933		3.49		329
Tankoro (31.95%)		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		13,739		1.52		671
OTHER		216		0.29		2		2,404		0.61		47		49		1,860		0.25		15
TOTAL		400,046		0.92		11,810.6		1,554,183		1.54		76,770		88,5.81		795,430		1.21		30,842
COPPER MINERAL RESOURCES (1,2)
As at December 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
	Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs		Contained lbs		Tonnes		Grade		Contained lbs
Based on attributable pounds	(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)		(millions)		(000’s)		(%)		(millions)
Zaldívar (50.00%)		62,629		0.402		555.5		25,248		0.389		216.4		771.9		4,408		0.511		49.7
Lumwana		28,041		0.388		239.9		553,524		0.505		6,161.3		6,401.2		119,094		0.452		1,187.4
Jabal Sayid (50.00%)		216		1.617		7.7		2,404		2.004		106.2		113.9		1,860		2.300		94.3
TOTAL		90,886		0.401		803.1		581,176		0.506		6,483.9		7,287.0		125,362		0.482		1,331.4

⁽¹⁾  Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾  See accompanying endnote #1.

⁽³⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #5.

⁽⁵⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 88 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

SUMMARY GOLD MINERAL RESERVES AND MINERAL RESOURCES ^(1,2,3,4)

For the years ended December 31				2017						2016
Based on attributable ounces		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Ounces (000 ’s)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Ounces (000 ’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Goldstrike Open Pit	(proven and probable)		59,211		2.97		5,654		65,000		3.00		6,271
	(mineral resource)		5,604		2.80		505		5,225		2.66		447
Goldstrike Underground	(proven and probable)		8,727		10.01		2,809		5,685		9.88		1,806
	(mineral resource)		3,951		8.60		1,093		3,006		10.44		1,009
Goldstrike Property Total	(proven and probable)		67,938		3.87		8,463		70,685		3.55		8,077
	(mineral resource)		9,555		5.20		1,598		8,231		5.50		1,456
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)	(proven and probable)		81,359		2.76		7,224		85,821		2.93		8,087
	(mineral resource)		101,686		2.46		8,054		105,642		2.33		7,910
Cortez	(proven and probable)		167,920		1.87		10,086		151,002		2.11		10,220
	(mineral resource)		31,423		1.85		1,868		31,336		2.13		2,143
Goldrush	(proven and probable)		5,671		8.12		1,481		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		31,519		9.27		9,398		30,998		9.61		9,576
Turquoise Ridge (75.00%)	(proven and probable)		11,872		15.56		5,939		8,291		15.11		4,029
	(mineral resource)		5,106		9.17		1,506		50,790		5.81		9,485
South Arturo (60.00%)	(proven and probable)		3,824		2.97		365		980		3.87		122
	(mineral resource)		11,292		1.14		413		29		1.07		1
Hemlo	(proven and probable)		24,928		2.21		1,774		25,782		1.92		1,588
	(mineral resource)		41,339		1.40		1,858		58,897		0.91		1,720
Golden Sunlight	(proven and probable)		452		2.06		30		827		2.67		71
	(mineral resource)		3,134		1.78		179		15,145		1.38		671
Donlin Gold (50.00%)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		270,668		2.24		19,503		270,668		2.24		19,503
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (5)	(proven and probable)		598,801		0.60		11,623		898,202		0.60		17,434
	(mineral resource)		148,324		0.35		1,686		222,485		0.35		2,529
Caspiche (50.00%) (5)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		701,800		0.51		11,620		—		—		—
Pascua-Lama (6)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		277,870		1.57		14,050
	(mineral resource)		434,543		1.53		21,347		156,673		1.45		7,297
Veladero (50.00%) (7)	(proven and probable)		113,914		0.77		2,816		252,125		0.83		6,749
	(mineral resource)		70,095		0.57		1,276		212,335		0.48		3,303
Lagunas Norte	(proven and probable)		55,430		2.25		4,005		70,670		1.86		4,218
	(mineral resource)		30,942		0.95		950		57,445		0.63		1,168
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC
Porgera (47.50%)	(proven and probable)		13,255		4.78		2,038		14,455		4.75		2,207
	(mineral resource)		12,465		4.62		1,853		13,775		4.07		1,802
Kalgoorlie (50.00%)	(proven and probable)		99,060		1.21		3,858		100,073		1.29		4,140
	(mineral resource)		15,286		1.16		571		14,114		0.89		402
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		12,580		7.42		3,001		13,958		7.29		3,271
	(mineral resource)		9,208		9.04		2,676		8,885		8.91		2,544
North Mara (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		16,926		2.73		1,488		15,202		2.47		1,209
	(mineral resource)		7,813		2.75		690		12,888		2.36		979
Buzwagi (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		9,108		0.92		269		9,624		1.27		392
	(mineral resource)		2,891		1.04		97		16,532		1.23		654
Nyanzaga (57.51%)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		12,520		3.45		1,389		14,205		3.49		1,594
Golden Ridge (63.90%)	(proven and probable)		—		—		—		—		—		—
	(mineral resource)		—		—		—		5,076		2.78		454
OTHER	(proven and probable)		11,838		0.23		89		11,331		0.24		86
	(mineral resource)		2,620		0.58		49		2,621		0.52		44
TOTAL	(proven and probable)		1,294,876		1.55		64,549		2,006,898		1.33		85,950
	(mineral resource)		1,954,229		1.41		88,581		1,308,770		1.79		75,235

⁽¹⁾  Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #1.

⁽³⁾  Measured plus indicated resources.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #2.

⁽⁵⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽⁶⁾  See accompanying endnote #5.

⁽⁷⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 89 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

CONTAINED SILVER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESERVES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN PROVEN GOLD RESERVES						IN PROBABLE GOLD RESERVES						TOTAL
					Contained						Contained						Contained		Process
	Tonnes		Grade		ozs		Tonnes		Grade		ozs		Tonnes		Grade		ozs		recovery %
Based on attributable ounces	(000s)		(gm/t)		(000s)		(000s)		(gm/t)		(000s)		(000s)		(gm/t)		(000s)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		62,137		17.97		35,909		19,222		15.55		9,612		81,359		17.40		45,521		77.8	%
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		114,851		1.91		7,043		483,950		1.43		22,300		598,801		1.52		29,343		69.0	%
Lagunas Norte		24,648		4.36		3,455		29,711		5.94		5,670		54,359		5.22		9,125		37.7	%
Veladero (50.00%) (3)		7,466		12.69		3,047		99,716		14.77		47,359		107,182		14.63		50,406		10.0	%
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%) (4)		1,864		5.59		335		7,402		8.44		2,009		9,266		7.87		2,344		65.0	%
TOTAL		210,966		7.34		49,789		640,001		4.23		86,950		850,967		5.00		136,739		48.0	%

⁽¹⁾  Silver is accounted for as a by-product credit against reported or projected gold production costs.

⁽²⁾  See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽³⁾  See accompanying endnote #4.

⁽⁴⁾  See accompanying endnote #6.

CONTAINED COPPER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESERVES ⁽¹⁾

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

 ⁽¹⁾ Copper is accounted for as a by-product credit against reported or projected gold production costs.

 ⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #3.

 ⁽³⁾ See accompanying endnote #6.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 90 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

CONTAINED SILVER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESOURCES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	MEASURED (M)						INDICATED (I)						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable ounces	Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000 ’s)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000 ’s)		Ounces (000 ’s)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (gm/t)		Contained ozs (000 ’s)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		14.25		3,561		93,913		13.61		41,095		44,656		27,637		10.81		9,605
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		11,478		1.20		441		136,846		1.06		4,656		5,097		247,720		1.04		8,253
Caspiche (50.00%) (2)		310,050		1.20		11,976		391,750		1.20		15,147		27,123		99,050		0.91		2,909
Pascua-Lama (3)		42,809		57.21		78,747		391,734		52.22		657,718		736,465		15,400		17.83		8,830
Lagunas Norte		1,925		2.71		168		29,017		2.83		2,642		2,810		1,857		3.35		200
Veladero (50.00%) (4)		3,324		8.95		956		66,771		12.25		26,287		27,243		33,486		10.99		11,830
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		7.15		201		8,334		6.55		1,755		1,956		15,469		6.96		3,461
TOTAL		378,233		7.90		96,050		1,118,365		20.84		749,300		845,350		440,619		3.18		45,088

⁽¹⁾ Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽³⁾ See accompanying endnote #5.

⁽⁴⁾ See accompanying endnote #4.

CONTAINED COPPER WITHIN REPORTED GOLD RESOURCES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017	IN MEASURED (M) GOLD RESOURCES						IN INDICATED (I) GOLD RESOURCES						(M) + (I)		INFERRED
Based on attributable pounds	Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)		Contained lbs (millions)		Tonnes (000 ’s)		Grade (%)		Contained lbs (millions)
NORTH AMERICA
Pueblo Viejo (60.00%)		7,773		0.067		11.5		93,913		0.081		167.6		179.1		27,637		0.086		52.3
SOUTH AMERICA
Cerro Casale (50.00%) (2)		11,478		0.132		33.4		136,846		0.164		495.9		529.3		247,720		0.192		1,046.8
Caspiche (50.00%) (2)		277,100		0.230		1,405.1		363,950		0.180		1,444.3		2,849.4		97,800		0.120		258.7
Pascua-Lama (3)		42,809		0.101		95.7		391,734		0.082		704.6		800.3		15,400		0.049		16.5
AFRICA
Bulyanhulu (63.90%)		874		0.405		7.8		8,334		0.441		81.0		88.8		15,469		0.632		215.5
Buzwagi (63.90%)		13		0.349		0.1		2,878		0.109		6.9		7.0		31,898		0.081		56.9
TOTAL		340,047		0.207		1,553.6		997,655		0.132		2,900.3		4,453.9		435,924		0.171		1,646.7

⁽¹⁾ Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

⁽²⁾ See accompanying endnote #3.

⁽³⁾ See accompanying endnote #5.

NICKEL MINERAL RESOURCES ⁽¹⁾

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2017

MEASURED (M)

INDICATED (I)

(M) + (I)

INFERRED

Based on attributable pounds

Tonnes (000 ’s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

Tonnes (000 ’s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

Contained lbs (millions)

Tonnes (000 ’s)

Grade (%)

Contained lbs (millions)

AFRICA

Kabanga (50.00%)

6,905

2.490

379.0

11,705

2.720

701.9

1,080.9

10,400

2.600

596.1

⁽¹⁾  Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 91 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

Mineral Reserves and Resources Endnotes

1. Mineral reserves (“reserves”) and mineral resources (“resources”) have been estimated as at December 31, 2017 in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, Industry Guide 7 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (as interpreted by Staff of the SEC), applies different standards in order to classify mineralization as a reserve. In addition, while the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources are required pursuant to National Instrument 43-101, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize such terms. Canadian standards differ significantly from the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and mineral resource information contained herein is not comparable to similar information regarding mineral reserves disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. U.S. investors should understand that “inferred” mineral resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. In addition, U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of Barrick’s mineral resources constitute or will be converted into reserves. Calculations have been prepared by employees of Barrick, its joint venture partners or its joint venture operating companies, as applicable, under the supervision of Rick Sims, Vice President, Resources and Reserves, of Barrick, Steven Haggarty, Senior Director, Metallurgy, of Barrick and Patrick Garretson, Senior Director, Life of Mine Planning, of Barrick. Except as noted below, reserves have been estimated based on an assumed gold price of US$1,200 per ounce, an assumed silver price of US$16.50 per ounce, and an assumed copper price of US$2.75 per pound and long-term average exchange rates of 1.25 CAD/US$ and 0.75 US$/AUD. Reserves at Kalgoorlie assumed a gold price of AUD$1,600 and Bulyanhulu, North Mara and Buzwagi assumed a gold price of US$1,100. Reserve estimates incorporate current and/or expected mine plans and cost levels at each property. Varying cut-off grades have been used depending on the mine and type of ore contained in the reserves. Barrick’s normal data verification procedures have been employed in connection with the calculations. Verification procedures include industry-standard quality control practices. Resources as at December 31, 2017 have been estimated using varying cut-off grades, depending on both the type of mine or project, its maturity and ore types at each property. For a breakdown of reserves and resources by category and for a more detailed description of the key assumptions, parameters, and methods used in estimating Barrick’s reserves and resources, see Barrick’s most recent Annual Information Form/Form 40-F on file with Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

3. On June 9, 2017, the Company sold 25% of its interest in Cerro Casale to Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”). Goldcorp concurrently purchased Kinross Gold Corporation’s 25% interest in Cerro Casale, resulting in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50% interest in the joint operation. In connection with this transaction, Goldcorp also acquired the Caspiche Project from Exeter Resource Corporation, which was also contributed to the joint operation. Moving forward, the joint venture will be referred to as Norte Abierto, which includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits. For additional information, see page 116 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End Report 2017.

4. On June 30, 2017, the Company sold 50 percent of its interest in the Veladero mine to Shandong Gold Group Co., Ltd. For additional information regarding this matter, see page 116 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End Report 2017.

5. On January 17, 2018, Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (SMA) ordered the closure of existing infrastructure on the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project. As a result, the Company has reclassified Pascua- Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources. For additional information, see page 158 of Barrick’s Fourth Quarter and Year-End Report 2017.

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

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 92 RESERVES AND RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY

Management’s Responsibility for Financial Statements

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared by and are the responsibility of the Board of Directors and Management of the Company.

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board and reflect Management’s best estimates and judgments based on currently available information. The Company has developed and maintains a system of internal controls in order to ensure, on a reasonable and cost effective basis, the reliability of its financial information.

The consolidated financial statements have been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants. Their report outlines the scope of their examination and opinion on the consolidated financial statements.

Catherine Raw

Executive Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer

Toronto, Canada

February 14, 2018

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 93

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Barrick’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting.

Barrick’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017. Barrick’s Management used the Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) to evaluate the effectiveness of Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting. Based on management’s assessment, Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2017.

The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2017 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, as stated in their report which is located on pages 95 - 96 of Barrick’s 2017 Annual Financial Statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 94

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Barrick Gold Corporation

Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Barrick Gold Corporation and its subsidiaries, (together, the company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, cash flow and changes in equity for the years then ended, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the consolidated financial statements). We also have audited the company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IFRS). Also in our opinion, the company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

Basis for Opinions

The company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on the company’s consolidated financial statements and on the company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud,

      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

      PwC Tower, 18 York Street, Suite 2600, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J oB2

      T: +1 416 863 1133, F: +1 416 365 8215, www.pwc.com/ca

         “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.

and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

(Signed) “PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP”

Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

February 14, 2018

We have served as the company’s auditor since at least 1982. We have not determined the specific year we began serving as auditor of the company.

2

Consolidated Statements of Income

Barrick Gold Corporation
For the years ended December 31 (in millions of United States dollars, except per share data)	2017		2016
Revenue (notes 5 and 6)	$8,374		$8,558
Costs and expenses
Cost of sales (notes 5 and 7)	5,300		5,405
General and administrative expenses (note 11)	248		256
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses (notes 5 and 8)	354		237
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212	)	(250	)
Loss on currency translation (note 9b)	72		199
Closed mine rehabilitation (note 27b)	55		130
Income from equity investees (note 16)	(76	)	(20	)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)	(6	)	(12	)
Other expense (income) (note 9a)	(799	)	60
Income before finance items and income taxes	3,438		2,553
Finance costs, net (note 14)	(691	)	(775	)
Income before income taxes	2,747		1,778
Income tax expense (note 12)	(1,231	)	(917	)
Net income	$1,516		$861
Attributable to:
Equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$1,438		$655
Non-controlling interests (note 32)	$78		$206
Earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation (note 13)
Net income
Basic	$1.23		$0.56
Diluted	$1.23		$0.56

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 97 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

Barrick Gold Corporation  For the years ended December 31 (in millions of United States dollars)	2017		2016
Net income	$1,516		$861
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of taxes
Items that may be reclassified subsequently to profit or loss:
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax $3 and ($9)	(16	)	16
Realized (gains) losses on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, net of tax ($9) and ($8)	23		64
Currency translation adjustments, net of tax $nil and $nil	9		95
Items that will not be reclassified to profit or loss:
Actuarial gain (loss) on post-employment benefit obligations, net of tax ($6) and ($4)	18		7
Net change on equity investments, net of tax $nil and $nil	4		6
Total other comprehensive income	38		188
Total comprehensive income	$1,554		$1,049
Attributable to:
Equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$1,476		$843
Non-controlling interests	$78		$206

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 98 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow

Barrick Gold Corporation  For the years ended December 31 (in millions of United States dollars)	2017		2016
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$1,516		$861
Adjustments for the following items:
Depreciation	1,647		1,574
Finance costs (note 14)	705		788
Impairment reversals (note 10)	(212	)	(250	)
Income tax expense (note 12)	1,231		917
Currency translation losses (note 9b)	72		199
Loss (gain) on sale of non-current assets/investments (note 9a)	(911	)	42
Change in working capital (note 15)	(728	)	(428	)
Other operating activities (note 15)	(181	)	(63	)
Operating cash flows before interest and income taxes	3,139		3,640
Interest paid	(425	)	(513	)
Income taxes paid	(649	)	(487	)
Net cash provided by operating activities	2,065		2,640
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Property, plant and equipment
Capital expenditures (note 5)	(1,396	)	(1,126	)
Sales proceeds	28		135
Divestitures (note 4)	990		588
Investment purchases	(7	)	—
Net funds (invested) received from equity method investments	48		(9	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	(337	)	(412	)
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Debt (note 25b)
Proceeds	—		5
Repayments	(1,533	)	(2,062	)
Dividends (note 31)	(125	)	(86	)
Funding from non-controlling interests (note 32)	13		70
Disbursements to non-controlling interests (note 32)	(139	)	(95	)
Debt extinguishment costs	(102	)	(129	)
Net cash used in financing activities	(1,886	)	(2,297	)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and equivalents	3		3
Net decrease in cash and equivalents	(155	)	(66	)
Cash and equivalents at beginning of year (note 25a)	2,389		2,455
Cash and equivalents at the end of year	$2,234		$2,389

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 99 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Balance Sheets

Barrick Gold Corporation  (in millions of United States dollars)	As at December 31, 2017			As at   December 31,   2016
ASSETS
Current assets
Cash and equivalents (note 25a)		$2,234		$2,389
Accounts receivable (note 18)		239		249
Inventories (note 17)		1,890		1,930
Other current assets (note 18)		321		306
Total current assets		4,684		4,874
Non-current assets
Non-current portion of inventory (note 17)		1,681		1,536
Equity in investees (note 16)		1,213		1,185
Property, plant and equipment (note 19)		13,806		14,103
Intangible assets (note 20a)		255		272
Goodwill (note 20b)		1,330		1,371
Deferred income tax assets (note 30)		1,069		977
Other assets (note 22)		1,270		946
Total assets		$25,308		$25,264
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current liabilities
Accounts payable (note 23)		$1,059		$1,084
Debt (note 25b)		59		143
Current income tax liabilities		298		283
Other current liabilities (note 24)		331		309
Total current liabilities		1,747		1,819
Non-current liabilities
Debt (note 25b)		6,364		7,788
Provisions (note 27)		3,141		2,363
Deferred income tax liabilities (note 30)		1,245		1,520
Other liabilities (note 29)		1,744		1,461
Total liabilities		14,241		14,951
Equity
Capital stock (note 31)		20,893		20,877
Deficit		(11,759	)	(13,074)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(169	)	(189)
Other		321		321
Total equity attributable to Barrick Gold Corporation shareholders		9,286		7,935
Non-controlling interests (note 32)		1,781		2,378
Total equity		11,067		10,313
Contingencies and commitments (notes 2, 17, 19 and 36)
Total liabilities and equity		$25,308		$25,264

 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

Signed on behalf of the Board,
John L. Thornton, Chairman	Steven J. Shapiro, Director

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 100 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity

Barrick Gold Corporation			Attributable to equity holders of the Company
(in millions of United States dollars)	Common Shares (in thousands)		Capital stock		Retained earnings (deficit)			Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)1			Other2		Total equity attributable to shareholders			Non- controlling interests			Total equity
At January 1, 2017		1,165,574		$20,877		($13,074	)		($189	)		$321		$7,935			$2,378			$10,313
Net income		—		—		1,438			—			—		1,438			78			1,516
Total other comprehensive income		—		—		18			20			—		38			—			38
Total comprehensive income		—		$—		$1,456			$20			$—		$1,476			$78			$1,554
Transactions with owners
Dividends		—		—		(125	)		—			—		(125	)		—			(125	)
Dividend reinvestment plan		1,003		16		(16	)		—			—		—			—			—
Decrease in non-controlling interest (note 4b)		—		—		—			—			—		—			(493	)		(493	)
Funding from non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			13			13
Other decrease in non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			(195	)		(195	)
Total transactions with owners		1,003		$16		($141	)		$—			$—		($125	)		($675	)		($800	)
At December 31, 2017		1,166,577		$20,893		($11,759	)		($169	)		$321		$9,286			$1,781			$11,067
At January 1, 2016		1,165,081		$20,869		($13,642	)		($370	)		$321		$7,178			$2,277			$9,455
Net Income		—		—		655			—			—		655			206			861
Total other comprehensive income		—		—		7			181			—		188			—			188
Total comprehensive income		—		$—		$662			$181			$—		$843			$206			$1,049
Transactions with owners
Dividends		—		—		(86	)		—			—		(86	)		—			(86	)
Dividend reinvestment plan		493		8		(8	)		—			—		—			—			—
Funding from non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			70			70
Other decrease in non-controlling interests		—		—		—			—			—		—			(175	)		(175	)
Total transactions with owners		493		$8		($94	)		$—			$—		($86	)		($105	)		($191	)
At December 31, 2016		1,165,574		$20,877		($13,074	)		($189	)		$321		$7,935			$2,378			$10,313

¹ Includes cumulative translation adjustments as at December 31, 2017: $73 million loss (2016: $82 million).

² Includes additional paid-in capital as at December 31, 2017: $283 million (December 31, 2016: $283 million) and convertible borrowings - equity component as at December 31, 2017: $38 million (December 31, 2016: $38 million).

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 101 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Barrick Gold Corporation.    Tabular dollar amounts in millions of United States dollars, unless otherwise shown. References to A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, GBP, PGK, SAR, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW are to Australian dollars, Argentinean pesos, Canadian dollars, Chilean pesos, Dominican pesos, Euros, British pound sterling, Papua New Guinea kina, Saudi riyal, Tanzanian shillings, South African rand, and Zambian kwacha, respectively.

1 > CORPORATE INFORMATION

Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick” or the “Company”) is a corporation governed by the Business Corporations Act (Ontario). The Company’s head and registered office is located at Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower, 161 Bay Street, Suite 3700, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S1. We are principally engaged in the production and sale of gold and copper, as well as related activities such as exploration and mine development. Our producing gold mines are located in Canada, the United States, Peru, and the Dominican Republic and our producing copper mine is in Zambia. Following the sale of 50% of our Veladero gold mine located in Argentina (noted in note 4a), we hold a 50% interest in the Veladero mine. We hold a 50% interest in KCGM, a gold mine located in Australia and hold a 50% equity interest in Barrick Niugini Limited (“BNL”), which owns a 95% interest in Porgera, a gold mine located in Papua New Guinea. We also hold a 63.9% equity interest in Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”), a company listed on the London Stock Exchange that owns gold mines and exploration properties in Africa. We have a 50% interest in Zaldívar, a copper mine located in Chile and a 50% interest in Jabal Sayid, a copper mine located in Saudi Arabia. We also have various gold projects located in South America and North America. We sell our gold and copper production into the world market.

2 > SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

a)    Statement of Compliance

These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) under the historical cost convention, as modified by revaluation of derivative contracts and certain financial assets. Accounting policies are consistently applied to all years presented, unless otherwise stated. These consolidated financial statements were approved for issuance by the Board of Directors on February 14, 2018.

b)    Basis of Preparation

Subsidiaries

These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Barrick and its subsidiaries. All intercompany balances, transactions, income and expenses, and profits or losses have been eliminated on consolidation. We consolidate subsidiaries where we have the ability to exercise control. Control of an investee is defined to exist when we are exposed to variable returns from our involvement with the investee and have the ability to affect those returns through our power over the investee. Specifically, we control an investee if, and only if, we have all of the following: power over the investee (i.e., existing rights that give us the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the investee); exposure, or rights, to variable returns from our involvement with the investee; and the ability to use our power over the investee to affect its returns. For non wholly-owned, controlled subsidiaries, the net assets attributable to outside equity shareholders are presented as “non-controlling interests” in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet. Profit or loss for the period that is attributable to non-controlling interests is calculated based on the ownership of the minority shareholders in the subsidiary.

Joint Arrangements

A joint arrangement is defined as one over which two or more parties have joint control, which is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an arrangement. This exists only when the decisions about the relevant activities (being those that significantly affect the returns of the arrangement) require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control. There are two types of joint arrangements: joint operations (“JO”) and joint ventures (“JV”).

A JO is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the assets and obligations for the liabilities, relating to the arrangement. In relation to our interests in joint operations, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

A JV is a joint arrangement whereby the parties that have joint control of the arrangement have rights to the net assets of the joint venture. Our investments in JVs are accounted for using the equity method.

On acquisition, an equity method investment is initially recognized at cost. The carrying amount of equity method investments includes goodwill identified on acquisition, net of any accumulated impairment losses. The carrying amount is adjusted by our share of post-acquisition net income or loss; depreciation, amortization or impairment of the fair value adjustments made on the underlying balance sheet at the date of acquisition; dividends; cash contributions; and our share of post-acquisition movements in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 102 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Outlined below is information related to our joint arrangements and entities other than 100% owned Barrick subsidiaries at December 31, 2017:

	Place of business	Entity type	Economic interest1	Method2
Acacia Mining plc3	Tanzania	Subsidiary, publicly traded	63.9%	Consolidation
Pueblo Viejo3	Dominican Republic	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
South Arturo3	United States	Subsidiary	60%	Consolidation
Norte Abierto Project4	Chile	JO	50%	Our share
Donlin Gold Project	United States	JO	50%	Our share
Kalgoorlie Mine	Australia	JO	50%	Our share
Porgera Mine5	Papua New Guinea	JO	47.5%	Our share
Turquoise Ridge Mine5	United States	JO	75%	Our share
Veladero6	Argentina	JO	50%	Our share
GNX7,8	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method
Jabal Sayid7	Saudi Arabia	JV	50%	Equity Method
Kabanga Project7,8	Tanzania	JV	50%	Equity Method
Zaldívar7	Chile	JV	50%	Equity Method

¹ Unless otherwise noted, all of our joint arrangements are funded by contributions made by their partners in proportion to their economic interest.

² For our JOs, we recognize our share of any assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the JO.

³ We consolidate our interests in Acacia, Pueblo Viejo and South Arturo and record a non-controlling interest for the 36.1%, 40% and 40%, respectively, that we do not own.

⁴ We divested 25% of Cerro Casale on June 9, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%. As part of that transaction, we formed a joint operation with Goldcorp. The joint operation, which is now referred to as Norte Abierto, includes the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵ We have joint control given that decisions about relevant activities require unanimous consent of the parties to the joint operation.

⁶ We divested 50% of Veladero on June 30, 2017, bringing our ownership down to 50%.

⁷ Barrick has commitments of $301 million relating to its interest in the joint ventures.

⁸ These JVs are early stage exploration projects and, as such, do not have any significant assets, liabilities, income, contractual commitments or contingencies. Expenses are recognized through our equity pick-up (loss). Refer to note 16 for further details.

c)    Business Combinations

On the acquisition of a business, the acquisition method of accounting is used, whereby the purchase consideration is allocated to the identifiable assets and liabilities on the basis of fair value at the date of acquisition. Provisional fair values allocated at a reporting date are finalized as soon as the relevant information is available, within a period not to exceed 12 months from the acquisition date with retroactive restatement of the impact of adjustments to those provisional fair values effective as at the acquisition date. Incremental costs related to acquisitions are expensed as incurred.

When the cost of the acquisition exceeds the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired, the difference is recorded as goodwill. If the fair value attributable to Barrick’s share of the identifiable net assets exceeds the cost of acquisition, the difference is recognized as a gain in the consolidated statement of income.

Non-controlling interests represent the fair value of net assets in subsidiaries, as at the date of acquisition, that are not held by Barrick and are presented in the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet.

d)    Non-current Assets and Disposal Groups Held- for-Sale and Discontinued Operations

Non-current assets and disposal groups are classified as assets held-for-sale (“HFS”) if it is highly probable that the value of these assets will be recovered primarily through sale rather than through continuing use. They are recorded at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less cost of disposal. Impairment losses on initial classification as HFS and subsequent gains and losses on remeasurement are recognized in the income statement. Once classified as HFS, property, plant and equipment are no longer amortized. The assets and liabilities are presented as HFS in the consolidated balance sheet when the sale is highly probable, the asset or disposal group is available for immediate sale in its present condition and management is committed to the sale, which should be expected to be completed within one year from the date of classification.

A discontinued operation is a component of the Company that can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the Company and represents a major line of business or geographic area, and the value of this component is expected to be recovered primarily through sale rather than continuing use.

Results of operations and any gain or loss from disposal are excluded from income before finance items and income taxes and are reported separately as income/loss from discontinued operations.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 103 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e)    Foreign Currency Translation

The functional currency of the Company, for each subsidiary of the Company, and for joint arrangements and associates, is the currency of the primary economic environment in which it operates. The functional currency of all of our operations is the US dollar. We translate non-US dollar balances for these operations into US dollars as follows:

· Property, plant and equipment (“PP&E”), intangible assets and equity method investments using the rates at the time of acquisition;

· Fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) equity investments using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses permanently recorded in Other Comprehensive Income (“OCI”);

· Deferred tax assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in income tax expense;

· Other assets and liabilities using the closing exchange rate as at the balance sheet date with translation gains and losses recorded in other income/expense; and

· Income and expenses using the average exchange rate for the period, except for expenses that relate to non-monetary assets and liabilities measured at historical rates, which are translated using the same historical rate as the associated non-monetary assets and liabilities.

f)    Revenue Recognition

We record revenue when evidence exists that all of the following criteria are met:

· The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the product have been transferred to the buyer;

· Neither continuing managerial involvement to the degree usually associated with ownership, nor effective control over the goods sold, has been retained;

· The amount of revenue can be reliably measured;

· It is probable that the economic benefits associated with the sale will flow to us; and

· The costs incurred or to be incurred in respect of the sale can be reliably measured.

These conditions are generally satisfied when title passes to the customer.

Gold Bullion Sales

Gold bullion is sold primarily in the London spot market. The sales price is fixed on the date of sale based on the gold spot price. Generally, we record revenue from gold bullion sales at the time of physical delivery, which is also the date that title to the gold passes.

Concentrate Sales

Under the terms of concentrate sales contracts with independent smelting companies, gold and copper sales prices are provisionally set on a specified future date after shipment based on market prices. We record revenues under these contracts at the time of shipment, which is also when the risk and rewards of ownership pass to the smelting companies, using forward market gold and copper prices on the expected date that final sales prices will be determined. Variations between the price recorded at the shipment date and the actual final price set under the smelting contracts are caused by changes in market gold and copper prices, which result in the existence of an embedded derivative in accounts receivable. The embedded derivative is recorded at fair value each period until final settlement occurs, with changes in fair value classified as provisional price adjustments and included in revenue in the consolidated statement of income.

g)    Exploration and Evaluation (“E&E”)

Exploration expenditures are the costs incurred in the initial search for mineral deposits with economic potential or in the process of obtaining more information about existing mineral deposits. Exploration expenditures typically include costs associated with prospecting, sampling, mapping, diamond drilling and other work involved in searching for ore.

Evaluation expenditures are the costs incurred to establish the technical and commercial viability of developing mineral deposits identified through exploration activities or by acquisition. Evaluation expenditures include the cost of (i) establishing the volume and grade of deposits through drilling of core samples, trenching and sampling activities in an ore body that is classified as either a mineral resource or a proven and probable reserve; (ii) determining the optimal methods of extraction and metallurgical and treatment processes; (iii) studies related to surveying, transportation and infrastructure requirements; (iv) permitting activities; and (v) economic evaluations to determine whether development of the mineralized material is commercially justified, including scoping, prefeasibility and final feasibility studies.

Exploration and evaluation expenditures are expensed as incurred unless management determines that probable future economic benefits will be generated as a result of the expenditures. Once the technical feasibility and commercial viability of a program or project has been demonstrated with a prefeasibility study, and we have recognized reserves in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101, we account for future expenditures incurred in the development of that program or project in accordance with our policy for Property, Plant and Equipment, as described in note 2n.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 104 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

h)    Production Stage

A mine that is under construction is determined to enter the production stage when the project is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. We use the following factors to assess whether these criteria have been met: (1) the level of capital expenditures compared to construction cost estimates; (2) the completion of a reasonable period of testing of mine plant and equipment; (3) the ability to produce minerals in saleable form (within specifications); and (4) the ability to sustain ongoing production of minerals.

When a mine construction project moves into the production stage, the capitalization of certain mine construction costs ceases and costs are either capitalized to inventory or expensed, except for capitalizable costs related to property, plant and equipment additions or improvements, open pit stripping activities that provide a future benefit, underground mine development or expenditures that meet the criteria for capitalization in accordance with IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment.

i)    Earnings per Share

Earnings per share as computed by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share reflects the potential dilution that could occur if additional common shares are assumed to be issued under securities that entitle their holders to obtain common shares in the future. For stock options, the number of additional shares for inclusion in diluted earnings per share calculations is determined using the treasury stock method. Under this method, stock options that have an exercise price less than the average market price of our common shares are assumed to be exercised and the proceeds are used to repurchase common shares at the average market price for the period. The incremental number of common shares issued under stock options and repurchased from proceeds is included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share.

j)    Taxation

Current tax for each taxable entity is based on the local taxable income at the local statutory tax rate enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date and includes adjustments to tax payable or recoverable in respect of previous periods.

Deferred tax is recognized using the balance sheet method in respect of all temporary differences between the tax bases of assets and liabilities, and their carrying amounts for financial reporting purposes, except as indicated below.

Deferred income tax liabilities are recognized for all taxable temporary differences, except:

· Where the deferred income tax liability arises from the initial recognition of goodwill, or the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

· In respect of taxable temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, where the timing of the reversal of the temporary differences can be controlled and it is probable that the temporary differences will not reverse in the foreseeable future.

Deferred income tax assets are recognized for all deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses, to the extent that it is probable that taxable profit will be available against which the deductible temporary differences and the carry forward of unused tax assets and unused tax losses can be utilized, except:

· Where the deferred income tax asset relating to the deductible temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of an asset or liability in an acquisition that is not a business combination and, at the time of the acquisition, affects neither the accounting profit nor taxable profit or loss; and

· In respect of deductible temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and interests in joint arrangements, deferred tax assets are recognized only to the extent that it is probable that the temporary differences will reverse in the foreseeable future and taxable profit will be available against which the temporary differences can be utilized.

The carrying amount of deferred income tax assets is reviewed at each balance sheet date and reduced to the extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profit will be available to allow all or part of the deferred income tax asset to be utilized. To the extent that an asset not previously recognized fulfills the criteria for recognition, a deferred income tax asset is recorded.

Deferred tax is measured on an undiscounted basis at the tax rates that are expected to apply in the periods in which the asset is realized or the liability is settled, based on tax rates and tax laws enacted or substantively enacted at the balance sheet date.

Current and deferred tax relating to items recognized directly in equity are recognized in equity and not in the income statement.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 105 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Royalties and Special Mining Taxes

Income tax expense includes the cost of royalties and special mining taxes payable to governments that are calculated based on a percentage of taxable profit whereby taxable profit represents net income adjusted for certain items defined in the applicable legislation.

Indirect Taxes

Indirect tax recoverable is recorded at its undiscounted amount, and is disclosed as non-current if not expected to be recovered within twelve months.

k)    Other Investments

Investments in publicly quoted equity securities that are neither subsidiaries nor associates are categorized as fair value through other comprehensive income (“FVOCI”) pursuant to the irrevocable election available in IFRS 9 for these instruments. FVOCI equity investments (referred to as “other investments”) are recorded at fair value with all realized and unrealized gains and losses recorded permanently in OCI.

l)    Inventory

Material extracted from our mines is classified as either ore or waste. Ore represents material that, at the time of extraction, we expect to process into a saleable form and sell at a profit. Raw materials are comprised of both ore in stockpiles and ore on leach pads as processing is required to extract benefit from the ore. Ore is accumulated in stockpiles that are subsequently processed into gold/copper in a saleable form. The recovery of gold and copper from certain oxide ores is achieved through the heap leaching process. Work in process represents gold/copper in the processing circuit that has not completed the production process, and is not yet in a saleable form. Finished goods inventory represents gold/copper in saleable form.

Metal inventories are valued at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Cost is determined on a weighted average basis and includes all costs incurred, based on a normal production capacity, in bringing each product to its present location and condition. Cost of inventories comprises direct labor, materials and contractor expenses, including non-capitalized stripping costs; depreciation on PP&E including capitalized stripping costs; and an allocation of general and administrative costs. As ore is removed for processing, costs are removed based on the average cost per ounce/pound in the stockpile. Net realizable value is determined with reference to relevant market prices less applicable variable selling expenses.

Mine operating supplies represent commodity consumables and other raw materials used in the production process, as well as spare parts and other maintenance supplies that are not classified as capital items. Provisions are recorded to reduce mine operating

supplies to net realizable value, which is generally calculated by reference to its salvage or scrap value, when it is determined that the supplies are obsolete. Provisions are reversed to reflect subsequent recoveries in net realizable value where the inventory is still on hand.

m)    Royalties

Certain of our properties are subject to royalty arrangements based on mineral production at the properties. The primary type of royalty is a net smelter return (NSR) royalty. Under this type of royalty we pay the holder an amount calculated as the royalty percentage multiplied by the value of gold production at market gold prices less third-party smelting, refining and transportation costs. Royalty expense is recorded on completion of the production or sales process in cost of sales. Other types of royalties include:

· Net profits interest (NPI) royalty to other than a government,

· Modified net smelter return (NSR) royalty,

· Net smelter return sliding scale (NSRSS) royalty,

· Gross proceeds sliding scale (GPSS) royalty,

· Gross smelter return (GSR) royalty,

· Net value (NV) royalty,

· Land tenement (LT) royalty, and a

· Gold revenue royalty.

n)    Property, Plant and Equipment

Estimated useful lives of Major Asset Categories

Buildings, plant and equipment	7 – 27 years
Underground mobile equipment	5 - 7 years
Light vehicles and other mobile equipment	2 - 3 years
Furniture, computer and office equipment	2 - 3 years

Buildings, Plant and Equipment

At acquisition, we record buildings, plant and equipment at cost, including all expenditures incurred to prepare an asset for its intended use. These expenditures consist of: the purchase price; brokers’ commissions; and installation costs including architectural, design and engineering fees, legal fees, survey costs, site preparation costs, freight charges, transportation insurance costs, duties, testing and preparation charges.

We capitalize costs that meet the asset recognition criteria. Costs incurred that do not extend the productive capacity or useful economic life of an asset are considered repairs and maintenance expense and are accounted for as a cost of the inventory produced in the period.

Buildings, plant and equipment are depreciated on a straight-line basis over their expected useful life, which commences when the assets are considered available for use. Once buildings, plant and equipment are considered available for use they are measured at cost less

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 106 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

accumulated depreciation and applicable impairment losses.

Depreciation on equipment utilized in the development of assets, including open pit and underground mine development, is recapitalized as development costs attributable to the related asset.

Mineral Properties

Mineral properties consist of: the fair value attributable to mineral reserves and resources acquired in a business combination or asset acquisition; underground mine development costs; open pit mine development costs; capitalized exploration and evaluation costs; and capitalized interest. In addition, we incur project costs which are generally capitalized when the expenditures result in a future benefit.

i) Acquired Mining Properties

On acquisition of a mining property, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the proven and probable mineral reserves, mineral resources and exploration potential attributable to the property. The estimated fair value attributable to the mineral reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is depreciated on a units of production (“UOP”) basis whereby the denominator is the proven and probable reserves and the portion of mineral resources considered to be probable of economic extraction. The estimated fair value attributable to mineral resources that are not considered to be probable of economic extraction at the time of the acquisition is not subject to depreciation until the resources become probable of economic extraction in the future. The estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses is recorded as an intangible asset and is not subject to depreciation until the property enters production.

ii) Underground Mine Development Costs

At our underground mines, we incur development costs to build new shafts, drifts and ramps that will enable us to physically access ore underground. The time over which we will continue to incur these costs depends on the mine life. These underground development costs are capitalized as incurred.

Capitalized underground development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis, whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current life of mine (“LOM”) plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

iii) Open Pit Mine Development Costs

In open pit mining operations, it is necessary to remove overburden and other waste materials to access ore from

which minerals can be extracted economically. The process of mining overburden and waste materials is referred to as stripping. Stripping costs incurred in order to provide initial access to the ore body (referred to as pre-production stripping) are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Pre-production stripping costs are capitalized until an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is extracted, after which time such costs are either capitalized to inventory or, if it qualifies as an open pit stripping activity that provides a future benefit, to PP&E. We consider various relevant criteria to assess when an “other than de minimis” level of mineral is produced. Some of the criteria considered would include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the amount of minerals mined versus total ounces in LOM ore; (2) the amount of ore tons mined versus total LOM expected ore tons mined; (3) the current stripping ratio versus the LOM strip ratio; and (4) the ore grade versus the LOM grade.

Stripping costs incurred during the production stage of a pit are accounted for as costs of the inventory produced during the period that the stripping costs are incurred, unless these costs are expected to provide a future economic benefit to an identifiable component of the ore body. Components of the ore body are based on the distinct development phases identified by the mine planning engineers when determining the optimal development plan for the open pit. Production phase stripping costs generate a future economic benefit when the related stripping activity: (1) improves access to a component of the ore body to be mined in the future; (2) increases the fair value of the mine (or pit) as access to future mineral reserves becomes less costly; and (3) increases the productive capacity or extends the productive life of the mine (or pit). Production phase stripping costs that are expected to generate a future economic benefit are capitalized as open pit mine development costs.

Capitalized open pit mine development costs are depreciated on a UOP basis whereby the denominator is the estimated ounces/pounds of gold/copper in proven and probable reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction based on the current LOM plan that benefit from the development and are considered probable of economic extraction.

Construction-in-Progress

Assets under construction are capitalized as construction-in-progress until the asset is available for use. The cost of construction-in-progress comprises its purchase price and any costs directly attributable to bringing it into working condition for its intended use. Construction-in-progress amounts related to development projects are included in the carrying amount of the development project. Construction-in-progress amounts incurred at operating mines are presented as a separate asset within PP&E.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 107 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Construction-in-progress also includes deposits on long lead items. Construction-in-progress is not depreciated. Depreciation commences once the asset is complete and available for use.

Leasing Arrangements

The determination of whether an arrangement is, or contains, a lease is based on the substance of the arrangement at inception date, including whether the fulfillment of the arrangement is dependent on the use of a specific asset or assets or whether the arrangement conveys a right to use the asset.

Leasing arrangements that transfer substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the asset to Barrick are classified as finance leases. Assets acquired via a finance lease are recorded as an asset with a corresponding liability at an amount equal to the lower of the fair value of the leased property and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Each lease payment is allocated between the liability and finance costs using the effective interest method, whereby a constant rate of interest expense is recognized on the balance of the liability outstanding. The interest element of the lease is charged to the consolidated statement of income as a finance cost.

PP&E assets acquired under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the useful life of the asset and the lease term.

All other leases are classified as operating leases. Operating lease payments are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Capitalized Interest

We capitalize interest costs for qualifying assets. Qualifying assets are assets that require a significant amount of time to prepare for their intended use, including projects that are in the exploration and evaluation, development or construction stages. Qualifying assets also include significant expansion projects at our operating mines. Capitalized interest costs are considered an element of the cost of the qualifying asset which is determined based on gross expenditures incurred on an asset. Capitalization ceases when the asset is substantially complete or if active development is suspended or ceases. Where the funds used to finance a qualifying asset form part of general borrowings, the amount capitalized is calculated using a weighted average of rates applicable to the relevant borrowings during the period. Where funds borrowed are directly attributable to a qualifying asset, the amount capitalized represents the borrowing costs specific to those borrowings. Where surplus funds available out of money borrowed specifically to finance a project are temporarily invested, the total capitalized interest is reduced by

income generated from short-term investments of such funds.

Insurance

We record losses relating to insurable events as they occur. Proceeds receivable from insurance coverage are recorded at such time as receipt is receivable or virtually certain and the amount receivable is fixed or determinable. For business interruption insurance the amount recoverable is only recognized when receipt is virtually certain, as supported by notification of a minimum or proposed settlement amount from the insurance adjuster.

o)    Impairment (and Reversals of Impairment) of Non-Current Assets

We review and test the carrying amounts of PP&E and intangible assets with finite lives when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist. Impairment assessments on PP&E and intangible assets are conducted at the level of the cash generating unit (“CGU”), which is the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and includes most liabilities specific to the CGU. For operating mines and projects, the individual mine/project represents a CGU for impairment testing.

The recoverable amount of a CGU is the higher of Value in Use (“VIU”) and Fair Value Less Costs of Disposal (“FVLCD”). We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU amounts and therefore used as the recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes. An impairment loss is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of a CGU over its recoverable amount where both the recoverable amount and carrying value include the associated other assets and liabilities, including taxes where applicable, of the CGU. Where it is not appropriate to allocate the loss to a separate asset, an impairment loss related to a CGU is allocated to the carrying amount of the assets of the CGU on a pro rata basis based on the carrying amount of its non-monetary assets.

Impairment Reversal

An assessment is made at each reporting date to determine whether there is an indication that previously recognized impairment losses may no longer exist or may have decreased. A previously recognized impairment loss is reversed only if there has been a change in the assumptions used to determine the CGU’s recoverable amount since the last impairment loss was recognized. This reversal is recognized in the consolidated statements of income and is limited to the carrying value that would have been determined, net of any depreciation where applicable, had no impairment charge been recognized in prior years. When an impairment reversal is undertaken, the recoverable amount is assessed by reference to the higher of VIU and FVLCD. We have determined that the FVLCD is greater than the VIU

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 108 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

amounts and therefore used as recoverable amount for impairment testing purposes.

p)    Intangible Assets

Intangible assets acquired by way of an asset acquisition or business combination are recognized if the asset is separable or arises from contractual or legal rights and the fair value can be measured reliably on initial recognition.

On acquisition of a mineral property in the exploration stage, we prepare an estimate of the fair value attributable to the exploration licenses acquired, including the fair value attributable to mineral resources, if any, of that property. The fair value of the exploration license is recorded as an intangible asset (acquired exploration potential) as at the date of acquisition. When an exploration stage property moves into development, the acquired exploration potential attributable to that property is transferred to mining interests within PP&E.

We also have water rights associated with our mineral properties. Upon acquisition, they are measured at initial cost and are depreciated when they are being used. They are also subject to impairment testing when an indicator of impairment is considered to exist.

q)    Goodwill

Under the acquisition method of accounting, the costs of business combinations are allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on the estimated fair value at the date of acquisition. The excess of the fair value of consideration paid over the fair value of the identifiable net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. Goodwill is not amortized; instead it is tested for impairment in the fourth quarter and also when there is an indicator of impairment. At the date of acquisition, goodwill is assigned to the CGU or group of CGUs that is expected to benefit from the synergies of the business combination. For the purposes of impairment testing, goodwill is allocated to the Company’s operating segments, which are our individual mine sites and corresponds to the level at which goodwill is internally monitored by the Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President.

The recoverable amount of an operating segment is the higher of VIU and FVLCD. A goodwill impairment is recognized for any excess of the carrying amount of the operating segment over its recoverable amount. Goodwill impairment charges are not reversible.

r)    Debt

Debt is recognized initially at fair value, net of financing costs incurred, and subsequently measured at amortized cost. Any difference between the amounts originally received and the redemption value of the debt is recognized in the consolidated statements of income over the period to maturity using the effective interest method.

s)        Derivative Instruments and Hedge Accounting

Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments are recorded at fair value on the consolidated balance sheet, classified based on contractual maturity. Derivative instruments are classified as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”), hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”) or non-hedge derivatives. Derivatives designated as either a fair value or cash flow hedge that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Derivative assets and derivative liabilities are shown separately in the balance sheet unless there is a legal right to offset and intent to settle on a net basis.

Fair Value Hedges

Changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges are recorded in the consolidated statements of income, together with any changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability or firm commitment that is attributable to the hedged risk.

Cash Flow Hedges

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives that are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges is recognized in equity. The gain or loss relating to the ineffective portion is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. Amounts accumulated in equity are transferred to the consolidated statements of income in the period when the forecasted transaction impacts earnings. When the forecasted transaction that is hedged results in the recognition of a non-financial asset or a non-financial liability, the gains and losses previously deferred in equity are transferred from equity and included in the measurement of the initial carrying amount of the asset or liability.

When a derivative designated as a cash flow hedge expires or is sold and the forecasted transaction is still expected to occur, any cumulative gain or loss relating to the derivative that is recorded in equity at that time remains in equity and is recognized in the consolidated statements of income when the forecasted transaction occurs. When a forecasted transaction is no longer expected to occur, the cumulative gain or loss that was recorded in equity is immediately transferred to the consolidated statements of income.

Non-Hedge Derivatives

Derivative instruments that do not qualify as either fair value or cash flow hedges are recorded at their fair value

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 109 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

at the balance sheet date, with changes in fair value recognized in the consolidated statements of income.

t)    Embedded Derivatives

Derivatives embedded in other financial instruments or executory contracts are accounted for as separate derivatives when their risks and characteristics are not closely related to their host financial instrument or contract. In some cases, the embedded derivatives may be designated as hedges and are accounted for as described above.

u)    Environmental Rehabilitation Provision

Mining, extraction and processing activities normally give rise to obligations for environmental rehabilitation. Rehabilitation work can include facility decommissioning and dismantling; removal or treatment of waste materials; site and land rehabilitation, including compliance with and monitoring of environmental regulations; security and other site-related costs required to perform the rehabilitation work; and operation of equipment designed to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. The extent of work required and the associated costs are dependent on the requirements of relevant authorities and our environmental policies. Routine operating costs that may impact the ultimate closure and rehabilitation activities, such as waste material handling conducted as an integral part of a mining or production process, are not included in the provision. Abnormal costs arising from unforeseen circumstances, such as the contamination caused by unplanned discharges, are recognized as an expense and liability when the event that gives rise to an obligation occurs and reliable estimates of the required rehabilitation costs can be made.

Provisions for the cost of each rehabilitation program are normally recognized at the time that an environmental disturbance occurs or a new legal or constructive obligation is determined. When the extent of disturbance increases over the life of an operation, the provision is increased accordingly. The major parts of the carrying amount of provisions relate to closure/rehabilitation of tailings ponds, heap leach pads and waste dumps; demolition of buildings/mine facilities; ongoing water treatment; and ongoing care and maintenance and security of closed mines. Costs included in the provision encompass all closure and rehabilitation activity expected to occur progressively over the life of the operation at the time of closure and post-closure in connection with disturbances as at the reporting date. Estimated costs included in the determination of the provision reflect the risks and probabilities of alternative estimates of cash flows required to settle the obligation at each particular operation. The expected rehabilitation costs are estimated based on the cost of external contractors performing the work or the cost of performing the work internally depending on management’s intention.

The timing of the actual rehabilitation expenditure is dependent upon a number of factors such as the life and nature of the asset, the operating license conditions and the environment in which the mine operates. Expenditures may occur before and after closure and can continue for an extended period of time depending on rehabilitation requirements. Rehabilitation provisions are measured at the expected value of future cash flows, which exclude the effect of inflation, discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate. The unwinding of the discount, referred to as accretion expense, is included in finance costs and results in an increase in the amount of the provision. Provisions are updated each reporting period for changes to expected cash flows and for the effect of changes in the discount rate, and the change in estimate is added or deducted from the related asset and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Significant judgments and estimates are involved in forming expectations of future activities, the amount and timing of the associated cash flows and the period over which we estimate those cash flows. Those expectations are formed based on existing environmental and regulatory requirements or, if more stringent, our environmental policies which give rise to a constructive obligation.

When provisions for closure and rehabilitation are initially recognized, the corresponding cost is capitalized as an asset, representing part of the cost of acquiring the future economic benefits of the operation. The capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities is recognized in PP&E and depreciated over the expected economic life of the operation to which it relates.

Adjustments to the estimated amount and timing of future closure and rehabilitation cash flows are a normal occurrence in light of the significant judgments and estimates involved. The principal factors that can cause expected cash flows to change are: the construction of new processing facilities; changes in the quantities of material in reserves and resources with a corresponding change in the life of mine plan; changing ore characteristics that impact required environmental protection measures and related costs; changes in water quality that impact the extent of water treatment required; changes in discount rates; changes in foreign exchange rates; changes in Barrick’s closure policies; and changes in laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment.

Rehabilitation provisions are adjusted as a result of changes in estimates and assumptions. Those adjustments are accounted for as a change in the corresponding cost of the related assets, including the related mineral property, except where a reduction in the provision is greater than the remaining net book value of

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 110 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

the related assets, in which case the value is reduced to nil and the remaining adjustment is recognized in the consolidated statements of income. In the case of closed sites, changes in estimates and assumptions are recognized immediately in the consolidated statements of income. For an operating mine, the adjusted carrying amount of the related asset is depreciated prospectively. Adjustments also result in changes to future finance costs.

v)    Litigation and Other Provisions

Provisions are recognized when a present obligation exists (legal or constructive), as a result of a past event, for which it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation, and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. Provisions are discounted to their present value using a current US dollar real risk-free pre-tax discount rate and the accretion expense is included in finance costs.

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued, which may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

If the assessment of a contingency suggests that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reliably estimated, then a loss is recorded. When a contingent loss is not probable but is reasonably possible, or is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reliably estimated, then details of the contingent loss are disclosed. Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed unless they involve guarantees, in which case we disclose the nature of the guarantee. Legal fees incurred in connection with pending legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. Contingent gains are only recognized when the inflow of economic benefits is virtually certain.

w)    Stock-Based Compensation

We recognize the expense related to these plans over the vesting period, beginning once the grant has been approved and announced to the beneficiaries.

Cash-settled awards are measured at fair value initially using the market value of the underlying shares on the day preceding the date of the grant of the award and are required to be remeasured to fair value at each reporting date until settlement. The cost is then recorded over the vesting period of the award. This expense, and any changes in the fair value of the award, is recorded to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs. The cost of a cash-settled award is recorded within liabilities until settled. Barrick offers cash-settled

(Restricted Share Units (“RSU”), Deferred Share Units (“DSU”), Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”) and Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

Equity-settled awards are measured at fair value, using the Lattice model for stock options, with market related inputs as of the date of the grant. The cost is recorded over the vesting period of the award to the same expense category as the award recipient’s payroll costs (i.e., cost of sales or general and administrative) and the corresponding entry is recorded in equity. Equity-settled awards are not remeasured subsequent to the initial grant date. Barrick offers equity-settled (Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”), Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”) and Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)) awards to certain employees, officers and directors of the Company.

We use the accelerated method (also referred to as ‘graded’ vesting) for attributing stock option expense over the vesting period. Stock option expense incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Employee Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”)

Under Barrick’s ESOP, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted to the individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest equally over four years, beginning in the year after granting. The ESOP arrangement has graded vesting terms, and therefore multiple vesting periods must be valued and accounted for separately over their respective vesting periods. The compensation expense of the instruments issued for each grant under the ESOP is calculated using the Lattice model. The compensation expense is adjusted by the estimated forfeiture rate which is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate.

Restricted Share Units (“RSU”)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest within three years and upon vesting the employee will receive either cash or common shares, depending on the terms of the grant. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

A liability for RSUs is measured at fair value on the grant date and is subsequently adjusted for changes in fair

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 111 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

value. The liability is recognized on a straight-line basis over the vesting period, with a corresponding charge to compensation expense, as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration. Compensation expenses for RSUs incorporate an estimate for expected forfeiture rates based on which the fair value is adjusted.

Deferred Share Units (“DSU”)

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive at least 75% of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs or cash to purchase common shares that cannot be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of until the Director leaves the Board. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director leaves the Board, at which time the cash value of the DSUs is paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized immediately. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any change in fair value recorded as compensation expense in the period. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. We also allow granting of DSUs to other officers and employees at the discretion of the Board Compensation Committee.

Performance Restricted Share Units (“PRSU”)

Under our PRSU plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. PRSUs vest at the end of a three-year period and are settled in cash on the third anniversary of the grant date. Additional PRSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period. Vesting, and therefore the liability, is based on the achievement of performance goals and the target settlement ranges from 0% to 200% of the original grant of units.

The value of a PRSU reflects the value of a Barrick common share and the number of share units issued is adjusted for its relative performance against certain competitors and other internal financial performance measures. Therefore, the fair value of the PRSUs is determined with reference to the closing stock price at each remeasurement date.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense. The fair value is adjusted for the revised estimated forfeiture rate.

Performance Granted Share Units (“PGSU”)

Under our PGSU plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one

Barrick common share. Annual PGSU awards are determined based on a multiple ranging from one to six times base salary (depending on position and level of responsibility) multiplied by a performance factor. The number of PGSUs granted to a plan participant is determined by dividing the dollar value of the award by the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant, or if the grant date occurs during a blackout period, by the greater of (i) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the day prior to the grant date and (ii) the closing price of Barrick common shares on the first day following the expiration of the blackout. Upon vesting, the after-tax value of the award is used to purchase common shares and generally these shares cannot be sold until the employee retires or leaves Barrick. PGSUs vest at the end of the third year from the date of the grant.

The initial fair value of the liability is calculated as of the grant date and is recognized within compensation expense using the straight-line method over the vesting period. Subsequently, at each reporting date and on settlement, the liability is remeasured, with any changes in fair value recorded as compensation expense.

Employee Share Purchase Plan (“ESPP”)

Under our ESPP plan, certain Barrick employees can purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. Each year, employees may contribute 1%-6% of their combined base salary and annual short-term incentive, and Barrick will match 50% of the contribution, up to a maximum of C$5,000 per year.

Both Barrick and the employee make the contributions on a semi-monthly basis with the funds being transferred to a custodian who purchases Barrick Common Shares in the open market. Shares purchased with employee contributions have no vesting requirement; however, shares purchased with Barrick’s contributions vest approximately one year from contribution date. All dividend income is used to purchase additional Barrick shares.

Barrick records an expense equal to its semi-monthly cash contribution. No forfeiture rate is applied to the amounts accrued. Where an employee leaves prior to vesting, any accrual for contributions by Barrick during the year related to that employee is reversed.

Global Employee Share Plan (“GESP”)

Under our GESP plan, Barrick employees are awarded Company Common Shares. These shares vest immediately, but must be held until the employee ceases to be employed by the Company. Barrick recognizes the expense when the award is announced and has no ongoing liability.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 112 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

x)    Post-Retirement Benefits

Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans whereby we contribute up to 6% of the employee’s annual salary. We also have a retirement plan for certain officers of Barrick under which we contribute 15% of the officer’s annual salary and annual short-term incentive. The contributions are recognized as compensation expense as incurred. The Company has no further payment obligations once the contributions have been paid.

Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on employees’ years of service. Our policy is to fund the amounts necessary on an actuarial basis to provide enough assets to meet the benefits payable to plan members. Independent trustees administer assets of the plans, which are invested mainly in fixed-income and equity securities.

As well as the qualified plans, we have non-qualified defined benefit pension plans covering certain employees and former directors of Barrick. No funding is done on these plans and contributions for future years are required to be equal to benefit payments.

Actuarial gains and losses arising from experience adjustments and changes in actuarial assumptions are charged or credited to equity in OCI in the period in which they arise.

Our valuations are carried out using the projected unit credit method. We record the difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the present value of the plan obligations as an asset or liability on the consolidated balance sheets.

Pension Plan Assets and Liabilities

Pension plan assets, which consist primarily of fixed-income and equity securities, are valued using current market quotations. Plan obligations and the annual pension expense are determined on an actuarial basis and are affected by numerous assumptions and estimates including the market value of plan assets, estimates of the expected return on plan assets, discount rates, future wage increases and other assumptions.

The discount rate and life expectancy are the assumptions that generally have the most significant impact on our pension cost and obligation.

Other Post-Retirement Benefits

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees. Actuarial gains and losses resulting from variances between actual results

and economic estimates or actuarial assumptions are recorded in OCI.

y)    New Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Effective

IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers

In May 2014, the IASB issued IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which covers principles that an entity shall apply to report useful information to users of financial statements about the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from a contract with a customer. In September 2015, the IASB deferred the effective date of the standard to annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2018, with earlier application permitted. We have not early adopted IFRS 15. In 2017 we completed our assessment of the impact on our consolidated financial statements. Our assessment is as follows:

· Bullion (gold and silver) sales – these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15.

· Concentrate (gold and copper) and cathode (copper) sales – the recognition of these sales will not be affected by IFRS 15, but we will begin separate presentation of the provisional pricing adjustments within our revenue note disclosure.

· Streaming arrangements – IFRS 15 requires us to treat deferred revenue earned on streaming transactions as variable, which must be adjusted each time there is a change in the underlying production profile. As at January 1, 2018, an insignificant opening balance sheet adjustment will be recorded upon transition to retroactively adjust the historical revenue recognized from our streaming transactions, resulting in an increase to our deferred revenue balance and a decrease in retained earnings. The retroactive adjustment reflects the change in the transaction price per unit due to a change in the life of mine production profile of the mines since the inception of the streaming agreements and the corresponding impact on accretion. Going forward, each time we have an update to the life of mine production profile (typically in the fourth quarter of each year) we will record an adjustment to revenue to retroactively adjust for the new number of ounces expected to be delivered to our streaming counterparty.

· We will use the modified retrospective approach of adoption.

IFRS 16 Leases

In January 2016, the IASB issued IFRS 16 Leases, which requires lessees to recognize assets and liabilities for most leases. Application of the standard is mandatory for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019, with earlier application permitted, provided the new revenue standard, IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers, has been applied or is applied at the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 113 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

same date as IFRS 16. We are not early adopting IFRS 16. We expect that IFRS 16 will result in an increase in assets and liabilities as fewer leases will be expensed as payments are made. We expect an increase in depreciation and accretion expenses and also an increase in cash flow from operating activities as these lease payments will be recorded as financing outflows in our cash flow statement. We have developed a full implementation plan to determine the impact on our financial statements and internal controls. In fourth quarter 2017, we formed an IFRS 16 working group and began the process of compiling all of our existing operating leases and service contracts. In 2018, we will review the relevant agreements and determine which of the operating leases and service contracts are in scope for IFRS 16.

3 > CRITICAL JUDGMENTS, ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

Many of the amounts included in the consolidated balance sheet require management to make judgments and/or estimates. These judgments and estimates are continuously evaluated and are based on management’s experience and knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances. Actual results may differ from the estimates. Information about such judgments and estimates is contained in the description of our accounting policies and/or other notes to the financial statements. The key areas where judgments, estimates and assumptions have been made are summarized below.

Life of Mine (“LOM”) Plans and Reserves and Resources

Estimates of the quantities of proven and probable mineral reserves and mineral resources form the basis for our LOM plans, which are used for a number of important business and accounting purposes, including: the calculation of depreciation expense; the capitalization of production phase stripping costs; and forecasting the timing of the payments related to the environmental rehabilitation provision. In addition, the underlying LOM plans are used in the impairment tests for goodwill and non-current assets. In certain cases, these LOM plans have made assumptions about our ability to obtain the necessary permits required to complete the planned activities. We estimate our ore reserves and mineral resources based on information compiled by qualified persons as defined in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects requirements. To calculate our gold reserves, as at December 31, 2017 we have used a per ounce gold price of $1,200, compared to $1,000 short-term and $1,200 long-term as at December 31, 2016. To calculate our measured, indicated, and inferred gold resources, as at December 31, 2017 we have used a gold price assumption of $1,500 per ounce, consistent with the prior year. Refer to notes 19 and 21.

Inventory

The measurement of inventory including the determination of its net realizable value, especially as it relates to ore in stockpiles, involves the use of estimates. Estimation is required in determining the tonnage, recoverable gold and copper contained therein, and in determining the remaining costs of completion to bring inventory into its saleable form. Judgment also exists in determining whether to recognize a provision for obsolescence on mine operating supplies, and estimates are required to determine salvage or scrap value of supplies.

Estimates of recoverable gold or copper on the leach pads are calculated from the quantities of ore placed on the leach pads (measured tons added to the leach pads), the grade of ore placed on the leach pads (based on assay data) and a recovery percentage (based on ore type).

Impairment and Reversal of Impairment for Non-Current Assets and Impairment of Goodwill

Goodwill and non-current assets are tested for impairment if there is an indicator of impairment or reversal of impairment, and in the case of goodwill annually during the fourth quarter, for all of our operating segments. We consider both external and internal sources of information for indications that non-current assets and/or goodwill are impaired. External sources of information we consider include changes in the market, economic and legal environment in which the CGU operates that are not within its control and affect the recoverable amount of mining interests and goodwill. Internal sources of information we consider include the manner in which mining properties and plant and equipment are being used or are expected to be used and indications of economic performance of the assets. Calculating the FVLCD of CGUs for non-current asset and goodwill impairment tests requires management to make estimates and assumptions with respect to future production levels, operating, capital and closure costs in our LOM plans, future metal prices, foreign exchange rates, Net Asset Value (“NAV”) multiples, value of reserves outside LOM plans in relation to the assumptions related to comparable entities and the market values per ounce and per pound and discount rates. Changes in any of the assumptions or estimates used in determining the fair values could impact the impairment analysis. Refer to notes 2o, 2q and 21 for further information.

Provisions for Environmental Rehabilitation

Management assesses its provision for environmental rehabilitation on an annual basis or when new information becomes available. This assessment includes the estimation of the future rehabilitation costs, the timing of these expenditures, and the impact of changes in discount rates and foreign exchange rates. The actual future expenditures may differ from the amounts currently provided if the estimates made are significantly different than actual results or if there are significant

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 114 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

changes in environmental and/or regulatory requirements in the future. Refer to notes 2u and 27 for further information.

Taxes

Management is required to make estimations regarding the tax basis of assets and liabilities and related deferred income tax assets and liabilities, amounts recorded for uncertain tax positions, the measurement of income tax expense and indirect taxes, and estimates of the timing of repatriation of earnings, which would impact the recognition of withholding taxes and taxes related to the outside basis on subsidiaries/associates. A number of these estimates require management to make estimates of future taxable profit, as well as the recoverability of indirect taxes, and if actual results are significantly different than our estimates, the ability to realize the deferred tax assets and indirect tax receivables recorded on our balance sheet could be impacted. Refer to notes 2j, 12 and 30 for further information.

Contingencies

Contingencies can be either possible assets or possible liabilities arising from past events which, by their nature, will only be resolved when one or more future events not wholly within our control occur or fail to occur. The assessment of such contingencies inherently involves the exercise of significant judgment and estimates of the outcome of future events. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings or regulatory or government actions that may negatively impact our business or operations, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims or actions as well as the perceived merits of the nature and amount of relief sought or expected to be sought, when determining the amount, if any, to recognize as a contingent liability or assessing the impact on the carrying value of assets. Contingent assets are not recognized in the consolidated financial statements. Refer to note 36 for more information.

Pascua-Lama

The Pascua-Lama project received $484 million as at December 31, 2017 ($429 million as at December 31, 2016) in value added tax (“VAT”) refunds in Chile relating to the development of the Chilean side of the project. Under the current arrangement this amount plus interest of $313 million (2016: $236 million) must be repaid if the project does not evidence exports for an amount of $3,538 million within a term that expires on December 31, 2026. The terms of the current VAT arrangement in Chile are applicable to either an open pit or an underground mine design. We have recorded $221 million in VAT recoverable in Argentina as at December 31, 2017 ($255 million as at December 31, 2016) relating to the development of the Argentinean side of the project. These amounts may not be recoverable if the project does not

enter into production and are subject to devaluation risk as the amounts are recoverable in Argentinean pesos.

Streaming Transactions

The upfront cash deposit received from Royal Gold on the gold and silver streaming transaction for production linked to Barrick’s 60% interest in the Pueblo Viejo mine has been accounted for as deferred revenue as we have determined that it is not a derivative as it will be satisfied through the delivery of non-financial items (i.e., gold and silver) rather than cash or financial assets. It is our intention to settle the obligations under the streaming arrangement through our own production and if we were to fail to settle the obligations with Royal Gold through our own production, this would lead to the streaming arrangement becoming a derivative. This would cause a change to the accounting treatment, resulting in the revaluation of the fair value of the agreement through profit and loss on a recurring basis. Refer to note 29 for further details.

Our silver sale agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”) (formerly Silver Wheaton Corp.) requires us to deliver 25% of the life of mine silver production from the Pascua-Lama project once it is constructed and 100% of silver from Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines until March 31, 2018. The completion date for Pascua-Lama was originally December 31, 2015 but was subsequently extended to June 30, 2020. Per the terms of the amended silver purchase agreement, if the requirements of the completion guarantee have not been satisfied by June 30, 2020, the agreement may be terminated by Wheaton, in which case, they will be entitled to the return of the upfront cash consideration paid less credit for silver delivered up to the date of that event. The cash liability at December 31, 2017 is $262 million.

Refer to note 28 for a summary of our key financial risks.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 115 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Other Notes to the Financial Statements

	Note
Acquisitions and Divestitures		4
Segment information		5
Revenue		6
Cost of sales		7
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		8
Other expense (income)		9
Impairment reversals		10
General and administrative expenses		11
Income tax expense		12
Earnings per share		13
Finance costs, net		14
Cash flow - other items		15
Investments		16
Inventories		17
Accounts receivable and other current assets		18
Property, plant and equipment		19
Goodwill and other intangible assets		20
Impairment and reversal of non-current assets		21
Other assets		22
Accounts payable		23
Other current liabilities		24
Financial instruments		25
Fair value measurements		26
Provisions		27
Financial risk management		28
Other non-current liabilities		29
Deferred income taxes		30
Capital stock		31
Non-controlling interests		32
Remuneration of key management personnel		33
Stock-based compensation		34
Post-retirement benefits		35
Contingencies		36

4 > ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gross cash proceeds on divestiture
Veladero		$990		$—
Bald Mountain		—		423
Round Mountain		—		165
		$990		$588

a) Sale of 50% of Veladero

On April 6, 2017, we announced a strategic cooperation agreement with Shandong Gold Group Co., Ltd. (“Shandong”) where Shandong agreed to acquire 50 percent of Barrick’s Veladero mine in Argentina. The transaction closed on June 30, 2017 and we received total cash consideration of $990 million, which includes working capital adjustments of $30 million received in the fourth quarter of 2017. The transaction resulted in a gain of $718 million, partially on the sale of 50 percent to Shandong and partially upon remeasurement of our remaining interest in Veladero. We have accounted for our remaining 50 percent interest as a joint operation and consolidated our proportionate share of the assets and liabilities. We have recognized our share of the revenue and expenses of Veladero starting July 1, 2017.

In accordance with the acquisition method of accounting, the acquisition cost has been allocated to the underlying assets acquired and liabilities assumed. We completed the purchase price allocation in the fourth quarter of 2017 and recognized a deferred tax liability for the difference between the fair values and the tax base of those assets and now have an updated goodwill balance of $154 million, which is not deductible for tax purposes.

b) Sale of 25% of Cerro Casale

On March 28, 2017, we announced an agreement with Goldcorp Inc. (“Goldcorp”) to form a new partnership at the Cerro Casale Project in Chile. The transaction closed on June 9, 2017. Under the terms of the agreement, Goldcorp agreed to purchase a 25 percent interest in Cerro Casale from Barrick. This transaction, coupled with the concurrent purchase by Goldcorp of Kinross Gold Corporation’s (“Kinross”) 25 percent interest in Cerro Casale, resulted in Barrick and Goldcorp each holding a 50 percent interest in the joint operation.

The total consideration received by Barrick and Kinross implies a fair value of $1.2 billion for 100 percent of Cerro Casale, which resulted in a reversal of impairment of $1.12 billion in the first quarter of 2017. Refer to note 21 to the Financial Statements for further details of the impairment reversal. We are accounting for our remaining 50 percent interest as a joint operation and consolidate our proportionate share of the assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses of Cerro Casale. We recognized a gain of $193 million due to the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 116 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

deconsolidation of the non-controlling interest in Cerro Casale in the second quarter of 2017.

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

In addition, Goldcorp also funded Cerro Casale’s acquisition of a 100 percent interest in the adjacent Quebrada Seca property from Kinross upon closing. Upon a construction decision Goldcorp will pay Barrick $40 million in cash and Barrick will receive a 1.25 percent royalty on 25 percent of the gross revenues derived from metal production from both Cerro Casale and Quebrada Seca. The contingent consideration payable to Barrick has been recorded at its estimated fair value in other long-term assets.

Goldcorp entered into a separate agreement for the acquisition of Exeter Resource Corporation, whose sole asset is the Caspiche Project, located approximately 10 kilometers north of Cerro Casale. The acquisition of 100 percent of Exeter was completed in the third quarter and Goldcorp contributed the Caspiche Project into the joint venture at a total acquisition cost of approximately $157 million. The acquisition costs incurred by Goldcorp have been deducted from the $520 million total project investment commitment, but will not count towards the minimum expenditures for the initial two-year period. We have recorded a receivable of $181 million, split $15 million as short-term and $166 million as long-term, in other current assets and other long-term assets, respectively. Moving forward, this joint venture will be referred to as Norte Abierto and includes the Cerro Casale, Caspiche and Luciano deposits.

c) Investment in Reunion Gold

On December 1, 2017, we announced the acquisition of 48 million common shares, representing approximately 15 percent of issued and outstanding common shares of Reunion Gold Corporation in a non-brokered private placement for total consideration of $9 million. Subsequent to acquisition of the shares, we will be accounting for our interest as other investments with changes in fair value recorded in OCI.

d) Acquisition of Robertson Property in Nevada

On June 7, 2017, we completed the acquisition of the Robertson Property in Nevada from Coral Gold Resources (“Coral”). Consideration paid by Barrick consisted of $16 million, the return of 4.15 million shares (approximate value of $1 million) held by Barrick and a sliding scale royalty on any future production from the Robertson Property.

e) Disposition of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain Mines

On January 11, 2016, we closed the sale of our Bald Mountain mine and our 50% interest in the Round Mountain mine. We received net cash consideration of $588 million, which reflected working capital adjustments of $22 million in the second quarter of 2016. The transactions resulted in a loss of $17 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 117 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

5 > SEGMENT INFORMATION

In the first quarter of 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. Barrick’s business is organized into eleven individual minesites, one grouping of two mine sites, one publicly traded company and one project. Barrick’s Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), the President, reviews the operating results, assesses performance and makes capital allocation decisions at the minesite, grouping, Company and/or project level. Therefore, each individual minesite, with the exception of Barrick Nevada, Acacia and the Pascua-Lama project, is an operating segment for financial reporting purposes. Our updated presentation of our reportable operating segments is now four individual gold mines (Pueblo Viejo, Lagunas Norte, Veladero and Turquoise Ridge), Barrick Nevada, Acacia and our Pascua-Lama project. The remaining operating segments, our remaining gold and copper mines, have been grouped into an “other” category and will not be reported on individually. The prior periods have been restated to reflect the change in presentation. Segment performance is evaluated based on a number of measures including operating income before tax, production levels and unit production costs. Certain costs are managed on a consolidated basis and are therefore not reflected in segment income.

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31,  2017	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1			Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,961		$1,076		$793		$24		$16			$1,052
Pueblo Viejo2		1,417		501		229		—		16			671
Lagunas Norte		514		177		68		4		6			259
Veladero		591		291		119		3		5			173
Turquoise Ridge		280		131		28		—		2			119
Acacia2		751		362		107		—		91			191
Pascua-Lama		—		—		8		125		(10	)		(123	)
Other Mines3		1,860		1,086		267		12		31			464
		$8,374		$3,624		$1,619		$168		$157			$2,806

Consolidated Statements of Income Information

			Cost of Sales
For the year ended December 31, 2016	Revenue		Direct mining, royalties and community relations		Depreciation		Exploration, evaluation and project expenses		Other expenses (income)1		Segment income (loss)
Barrick Nevada		$2,703		$1,089		$807		$19		$17		$771
Pueblo Viejo2		1,548		497		147		—		3		901
Lagunas Norte		548		180		96		3		9		260
Veladero		685		346		118		1		—		220
Turquoise Ridge		322		128		27		—		1		166
Acacia2		1,045		553		166		27		—		299
Pascua-Lama		—		—		7		59		1		(67	)
Other Mines3		1,707		958		188		6		52		503
		$8,558		$3,751		$1,556		$115		$83		$3,053

¹ Includes accretion expense, which is included with finance costs in the consolidated statements of income. For the year ended December 31, 2017, accretion expense was $55 million (2016: $41 million). Refer to note 9a for details of other expenses (income).

² Includes non-controlling interest portion of revenues, cost of sales and segment income for the year ended December 31, 2017, for Pueblo Viejo, $567 million, $285 million, $276 million (2016: $623 million, $249 million, $373 million) and Acacia, $271 million, $169 million, $69 million (2016: $377 million, $259 million, $108 million).

³ Includes cost of sales of Pierina for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $174 million (2016: $82 million).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 118 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Reconciliation of Segment Income to Income from Continuing Operations Before Income Taxes

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Segment income	$	2,806			$3,053
Other cost of sales/amortization1		(57	)		(98	)
Exploration, evaluation and project expenses not attributable to segments		(186	)		(122	)
General and administrative expenses		(248	)		(256	)
Other (expense) income not attributable to segments		901			(18	)
Impairment reversals		212			250
Loss on currency translation		(72	)		(199	)
Closed mine rehabilitation		(55	)		(130	)
Income from equity investees		76			20
Finance costs, net (includes non-segment accretion)2		(636	)		(734	)
Gain on non-hedge derivatives3		6			12
Income before income taxes	$	2,747			$1,778

¹ Includes all realized hedge losses of $27 million (2016: $73 million).

² Includes debt extinguishment losses of $127 million (2016: $129 million).

³ Includes unrealized non-hedge gains of $1 million (2016: $32 million).

Geographic Information

	Non-current assets				Revenue1
	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016		2017		2016
United States		$6,641		$6,768		$3,299		$3,081
Dominican Republic		3,480		3,540		1,417		1,548
Argentina		2,217		2,366		591		685
Chile		2,469		1,945		—		—
Tanzania		1,129		1,673		751		1,045
Peru		734		678		676		663
Australia		463		478		456		472
Zambia		787		473		612		466
Papua New Guinea		351		353		322		304
Saudi Arabia		371		346		—		—
Canada		625		503		250		294
Unallocated		1,357		1,267		—		—
Total		$20,624		$20,390		$8,374		$8,558

¹ Presented based on the location from which the product originated.

Capital Expenditures Information

	Segment Capital Expenditures1
	As at December 31, 2017	As at December 31, 2016
Barrick Nevada	$585		$358
Pueblo Viejo	114		101
Lagunas Norte	25		56
Veladero	173		95
Turquoise Ridge	36		32
Acacia	148		191
Pascua-Lama	6		20
Other Mines	259		230
Segment total	$1,346		$1,083
Other items not allocated to segments	36		36
Total	$1,382		$1,119

¹ Segment capital expenditures are presented for internal management reporting purposes on an accrual basis. Capital expenditures in the consolidated statements of cash flow are presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash expenditures were $1,396 million (2016: $1,126 million) and the decrease in accrued expenditures was $14 million (2016: $7 million decrease).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 119 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

6 > REVENUE

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Gold bullion sales1
Spot market sales		$7,566		$7,650
Concentrate sales		65		258
		$7,631		$7,908
Copper concentrate sales1		$608		$466
Other sales2		$135		$184
Total		$8,374		$8,558

¹ Revenues include amounts transferred from OCI to earnings for commodity cash flow hedges (see note 25d). Revenue is presented net of direct sales taxes of $nil (2016: $2 million).

² Revenues include the sale of by-products from our gold and copper mines and energy sales to third parties from the Monte Rio power plant at our Pueblo Viejo mine up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

Principal Products

All of our gold mining operations produce gold in doré form, except Acacia’s gold mines of Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi, which produce both gold doré and gold concentrate. Gold doré is unrefined gold bullion bars usually consisting of 90% gold that is refined to pure gold bullion prior to sale to our customers. Concentrate is a processing product containing the valuable ore mineral from which most of the waste mineral has been eliminated. Our Lumwana and Jabal Sayid mines produce a concentrate that primarily contains copper. Incidental revenues from the sale of by-products, primarily copper, silver and energy at our gold mines, are classified within other sales.

Provisional Copper and Gold Sales

We have provisionally priced sales for which price finalization, referenced to the relevant copper and gold index, is outstanding at the balance sheet date. Our exposure at December 31, 2017 to the impact of movements in market commodity prices for provisionally priced sales is set out in the following table:

	Volumes subject to final pricing Copper (millions) Gold (000s)			Impact on net income before taxation of 10% movement in market price US$
As at December 31		2017	2016		2017	2016
Copper pounds		40	44		$13	$11
Gold ounces		—	13		—	2

For the year ended December 31, 2017, our provisionally priced copper sales included provisional pricing gains of $46 million (2016: $22 million loss) and our provisionally priced gold sales included provisional pricing adjustments of $1 million (2016: $nil).

At December 31, 2017, our provisionally priced copper sales subject to final settlement were recorded at average prices of $3.29/lb (2016: $2.51/lb). At December 31, 2017, there were no provisionally priced gold sales subject to final settlement. At December 31, 2016, our provisionally priced gold sales subject to final settlement were recorded at an average price of $1,152/oz. The sensitivities in the above tables have been determined as the impact of a 10% change in commodity prices at each reporting date, while holding all other variables, including foreign currency exchange rates, constant.

7 > COST OF SALES

	Gold				Copper				Other5				Total
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016		2017		2016
Direct mining cost1,2,3,4		$3,063		$3,215		$274		$228		$28		$77		$3,365		$3,520
Depreciation		1,529		1,504		83		45		35		25		1,647		1,574
Royalty expense		206		224		38		41		—		—		244		265
Community relations		38		37		4		5		2		4		44		46
Total		$4,836		$4,980		$399		$319		$65		$106		$5,300		$5,405

¹ Direct mining cost includes charges to reduce the cost of inventory to net realizable value of $21 million (2016: $68 million).

² Direct mining cost includes the costs of extracting by-products.

³ Includes employee costs of $1,051 million (2016: $1,048 million).

⁴ Cost of sales also includes costs associated with power sales to third parties from our Monte Rio power plant in the Dominican Republic up until its disposition on August 18, 2016.

⁵ Other includes all realized hedge gains and losses and corporate amortization.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 120 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

8 > EXPLORATION, EVALUATION AND PROJECT EXPENSES

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Minesite exploration and evaluation1	$47	$44
Global exploration and evaluation1	126	88
Advanced project costs:
Pascua-Lama	122	59
Other	14	17
Corporate development	13	14
Business improvement and innovation	32	15
Total exploration, evaluation and project expenses	$354	$237

¹ Approximates the impact on operating cash flow.

9 > OTHER EXPENSE (INCOME)

a) Other expense (income)

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Other Expense:
Bank charges	$23	$20
Bulyanhulu reduced operations program costs1	53	—
Litigation	24	—
Miscellaneous write-offs	11	—
Other	43	15
Total other expense	$154	$35
Other Income:
(Gain) loss on sale of long-lived assets2	($911)	$42
Office closure	—	(4)
Other	(42)	(13)
Total other income	($953)	$25
Total	($799)	$60

¹ Primarily consists of severance, contractor, and inventory write-down costs.

² 2017 includes gains of $718 million from the 50% sale of Veladero and $193 million from the 25% sale of Cerro Casale. 2016 includes losses of $17 million from the sale of Bald Mountain and Round Mountain, and $39 million from the sale of Zaldivar.

b) Loss on currency translation

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Currency translation losses released as a result of  the disposal and reorganization of entities	$11	$91
Foreign currency translation losses	61	108
Total	$72	$199

10 > IMPAIRMENT REVERSALS

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Impairment reversals of long-lived assets1	($224)	($250)
Impairment of intangibles1	12	—
Total	($212)	($250)

¹ Refer to note 21 for further details.

11 > GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Corporate administration1	$227	$201
Operating segment administration	21	55
Total2	$248	$256

¹ Includes $3 million (2016: $9 million) related to one-time severance payments.

² Includes employee costs of $98 million (2016: $153 million).

12 > INCOME TAX EXPENSE

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Tax on profit
Current tax
Charge for the year	$1,125	$911
Adjustment in respect of prior years	—	(2)
	$1,125	$909
Deferred tax
Origination and reversal of temporary differences in the current year	$112	$10
Adjustment in respect of prior years	(6)	(2)
	$106	$8
Income tax expense	$1,231	$917
Tax expense related to continuing operations
Current
Canada	$7	$7
International	1,118	902
	$1,125	$909
Deferred
Canada	($97)	($30)
International	203	38
	$106	$8
Income tax expense	$1,231	$917

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 121 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Currency Translation

Deferred tax balances are subject to remeasurement for changes in currency exchange rates each period. The most significant balances are Argentinean deferred tax liabilities. In 2017 and 2016, tax expense of $10 million and $23 million, respectively, primarily arose from translation losses due to the weakening of the Argentinean peso against the US dollar. These losses are included within deferred tax expense/recovery.

Reconciliation to Canadian Statutory Rate
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
At 26.5% statutory rate		$728			$471
Increase (decrease) due to:
Allowances and special tax deductions1		(96	)		(134	)
Impact of foreign tax rates2		215			113
Expenses not tax deductible		24			54
Non-taxable gains on sales of long-lived assets		(241	)		—
Impairment charges not recognized in deferred tax assets		66			—
Net currency translation losses on deferred tax balances		10			23
Tax impact of profits from equity accounted investments		(7	)		(5	)
Current year tax losses not recognized in deferred tax assets		21			35
United States tax reform		(203	)		—
Non-recognition of US AMT credits		—			13
Adjustments in respect of prior years		(6	)		(4	)
Increase to income tax related contingent liabilities		172			70
Impact of tax rate changes		—			(13	)
United States withholding taxes		252			—
Other withholding taxes		18			11
Mining taxes		266			267
Other items		12			16
Income tax expense		$1,231			$917

¹ We are able to claim certain allowances and tax deductions unique to extractive industries that result in a lower effective tax rate.

² We operate in multiple foreign tax jurisdictions that have tax rates different than the Canadian statutory rate.

United States Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017 Tax Reform was enacted in the United States. The significant changes include: (i) a reduction from 35% to 21% in the corporate income tax rate effective January 1, 2018, which resulted in a deferred tax recovery of $343 million on our net deferred tax liability in the US, (ii) a repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) effective January 1, 2018, (iii) the mandatory repatriation of earnings and

profits of specified foreign corporations effective December 31, 2017, which resulted in an estimated one-time 2017 toll charge of $228 million, offset by (iv) the recognition of our previously unrecognized deferred tax asset on AMT credits in the amount of $88 million, which can be used to offset the one-time toll charge. The net one-time 2017 toll charge payable amount of $140 million is payable over 8 years. $129 million of this amount has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (see note 29). The impact of the United States Tax Reform may differ from this estimate due to changes in interpretations and assumptions we have made and guidance that may be issued.

Proposed Framework for Acacia Operations in Tanzania and the Increase to Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities in Tanzania

The terms of the Proposed Framework for Acacia Mining Operations in Tanzania were announced on October 19, 2017. The Proposed Framework indicates that in support of ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the government of Tanzania, on terms to be settled by a working group. A tax provision of $128 million had been recorded prior to December 31, 2016 in respect of tax disputes related to Acacia. Of this amount, $70 million was recorded in 2016. In the third quarter of 2017, an additional amount of $172 million was recorded as current tax expense. See note 36 for further information with respect to these matters.

United States Withholding Taxes

Prior to fourth quarter 2017, we had not previously recorded withholding tax related to the undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries because our intention was to reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries indefinitely. During fourth quarter 2017, we reassessed our intentions regarding those undistributed earnings. As a result of our reassessment, we concluded that it was no longer our intent to indefinitely reinvest our current and future undistributed earnings of our United States subsidiaries, and therefore in fourth quarter 2017, we recognized an increase in our income tax provision in the amount of $252 million, representing withholding tax on the undistributed United States earnings. $150 million was recorded in the tax charge for the year, and $102 million was recorded as deferred tax expense. Of the $150 million, $130 million has been recorded in other non-current liabilities (see note 29).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 122 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

13 > EARNINGS PER SHARE

For the years ended December 31 ($ millions, except shares in millions and per share amounts in dollars)	2017		2016
	Basic	Diluted	Basic	Diluted
Net income	$ 1,516	$ 1,516	$861	$861
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests	(78)	(78)	(206)	(206)
Net income attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$ 1,438	$ 1,438	$655	$655
Weighted average shares outstanding	1,166	1,166	1,165	1,165
Basic and diluted earnings per share data attributable to the equity holders of Barrick Gold Corporation	$ 1.23	$ 1.23	$0.56	$0.56

14 > FINANCE COSTS, NET

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Interest1	$511	$591
Amortization of debt issue costs	5	17
Amortization of discount	1	2
Gain on interest rate hedges	(6)	(1)
Accretion	67	50
Loss on debt extinguishment2	127	129
Finance income	(14)	(13)
Total	$691	$775

¹ Interest in the consolidated statements of cash flow is presented on a cash basis. In 2017, cash interest paid was $425 million (2016: $513 million).

² 2017 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (4.10% notes due 2023, 6.95% notes due 2019, and Pueblo Viejo Project Financing). 2016 loss arose from partial repayment of several notes during the year (2.50% notes due 2018, 4.40% notes due 2021, 4.95% notes due 2020, 6.80% notes due 2018 and 6.95% notes due 2019).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 123 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

15 > CASH FLOW – OTHER ITEMS

Operating Cash Flows - Other Items

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Adjustments for non-cash income statement items:
Gain on non-hedge derivatives (note 25e)		($6	)		($12	)
Stock-based compensation expense		80			82
Income from investment in equity investees (note 16)		(76	)		(20	)
Change in estimate of rehabilitation costs at closed mines		55			130
Net inventory impairment charges (note 17)		21			68
Change in other assets and liabilities		(196	)		(249	)
Settlement of rehabilitation obligations		(59	)		(62	)
Other operating activities		($181	)		($63	)
Cash flow arising from changes in:
Accounts receivable		$8			($5	)
Inventory		(372	)		(190	)
Other current assets		(278	)		(72	)
Accounts payable		(35	)		(190	)
Other current liabilities		(51	)		29
Change in working capital		($728	)		($428	)

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 124 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

16 > INVESTMENTS

Equity Accounting Method Investment Continuity

	Kabanga			Jabal Sayid		Zaldívar			GNX			Total
At January 1, 2016		$30			$178		$990			$1			$1,199
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees		(1	)		2		27			(8	)		20
Funds invested		1			—		—			8			9
Working capital adjustments		—			—		6			—			6
Impairment charges		—			—		(49	)		—			(49	)
At December 31, 2016		$30			$180		$974			$1			$1,185
Equity pick-up (loss) from equity investees		(1	)		26		61			(10	)		76
Funds invested		1			—		—			11			12
Dividend		—			—		(60	)		—			(60	)
At December 31, 2017		$30			$206		$975			$2			$1,213
Publicly traded		No			No		No			No

Summarized Equity Investee Financial Information
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Revenue		$214			$80		$649			$518
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation)		116			65		375			354
Depreciation		33			12		111			87
Finance expense		3			—		1			2
Other expense (income)		2			—		—			(5	)
Income from continuing operations before tax		$60			$3		$162			$80
Income tax expense		(8	)		—		(40	)		(25	)
Income from continuing operations after tax		$52			$3		$122			$55
Total comprehensive income		$52			$3		$122			$55
Summarized Balance Sheet
	Jabal Sayid					Zaldívar
For the years ended December 31	2017			2016		2017			2016
Cash and equivalents		$50			$14		$72			$102
Other current assets1		70			56		563			482
Total current assets		$120			$70		$635			$584
Non-current assets		485			473		1,582			1,603
Total assets		$605			$543		$2,217			$2,187
Current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		$12			$—		$19			$23
Other current liabilities		35			27		110			84
Total current liabilities		$47			$27		$129			$107
Non-current financial liabilities (excluding trade, other payables & provisions)		379			391		20			33
Other non-current liabilities		13			11		99			80
Total non-current liabilities		$392			$402		$119			$113
Total liabilities		$439			$429		$248			$220
Net assets		$166			$114		$1,969			$1,967

¹ Zaldívar other current assets include inventory of $451 million (2016: $429 million).

The information above reflects the amounts presented in the financial information of the joint venture adjusted for differences between IFRS and local GAAP.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 125 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Reconciliation of Summarized Financial Information to Carrying Value
	Jabal Sayid1		Zaldívar
Opening net assets		$114		$1,967
Income for the period		52		122
Dividend		—		(120	)
Closing net assets, December 31		$166		$1,969
Barrick’s share of net assets (50%)		83		985
Equity earnings adjustment		—		(10	)
Goodwill recognition		123		—
Carrying value		$206		$975

¹ A $165 million non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV is presented as part of Other Assets (see note 22).

17 > INVENTORIES

	Gold		Copper
	As at  December 31,  2017	As at  December 31,  2016	As at  December 31,  2017	As at  December 31,  2016
Raw materials
Ore in stockpiles	$2,125	$2,067	$102	$72
Ore on leach pads	405	406	—	—
Mine operating supplies	515	585	79	62
Work in process	174	219	—	—
Finished products	168	50	3	5
	$3,387	$3,327	$184	$139
Non-current ore in stockpiles1	(1,681)	(1,536)	—	—
	$1,706	$1,791	$184	$139

¹ Ore that we do not expect to process in the next 12 months is classified within other long-term assets.

Inventory Impairment Charges

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Barrick Nevada		$—		$57
Golden Sunlight		6		7
Porgera		4		3
Pierina		11		1
Inventory impairment charges1		$21		$68

¹ Impairment charges in 2017 primarily relate to leach pad inventories at Pierina. Impairment charges in 2016 primarily relate to stockpiles at Cortez.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 126 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Ore in Stockpiles

	As at December 31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016
Gold
Barrick Nevada	$1,040	$1,128
Pueblo Viejo	538	475
Porgera	55	77
Kalgoorlie	138	127
Lagunas Norte	147	91
Buzwagi	109	64
North Mara	47	41
Veladero	22	38
Turquoise Ridge	26	22
Other	3	4
Copper
Lumwana	102	72
	$2,227	$2,139
Ore on Leach pads
	As at December 31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016
Gold
Veladero	$145	$172
Nevada	105	109
Lagunas Norte	143	97
Pierina	12	28
	$405	$406

Purchase Commitments

At December 31, 2017, we had purchase obligations for supplies and consumables of approximately $1,147 million (2016: $970 million).

18 > ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS

	As at December 31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016
Accounts receivable
Amounts due from concentrate sales	$110	$110
Receivable from Dominican Republic government1	1	30
Other receivables	128	109
	$239	$249
Other current assets
Derivative assets (note 25f)	$2	$1
Goods and services taxes recoverable2	167	239
Prepaid expenses	68	48
Other	84	18
	$321	$306

¹ Amounts receivable from the Dominican Republic government primarily relate to payments made by Pueblo Viejo on behalf of the government.

² Primarily includes VAT and fuel tax recoverables of $32 million in Tanzania, $49 million in Argentina, $3 million in Chile, $19 million in the Dominican Republic, and $8 million in Peru (Dec. 31, 2016: $124 million, $52 million, $32 million, $10 million and $6 million, respectively).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 127 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

19 > PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

	Buildings,     plant and     equipment			Mining     property costs     subject to     depreciation1,3			Mining     property costs     not subject to     depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2017
Net of accumulated depreciation		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
Additions4		158			219			1,966			2,343
Disposals		(72	)		(32	)		(1,093	)		(1,197	)
Depreciation		(878	)		(819	)		—			(1,697	)
Impairment reversals		(102	)		(359	)		715			254
Transfers5		551			449			(1,000	)		—
At December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
At December 31, 2017
Cost		$14,209			$21,068			$14,507			$49,784
Accumulated depreciation and impairments		(9,996	)		(14,416	)		(11,566	)		(35,978	)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2017		$4,213			$6,652			$2,941			$13,806
	Buildings,     plant and     equipment			Mining property     costs subject to     depreciation1,3			Mining property     costs not subject     to depreciation1,2			Total
At January 1, 2016
Cost		$13,782			$19,968			$14,734			$48,484
Accumulated depreciation and impairments		(9,098	)		(12,668	)		(12,284	)		(34,050	)
Net carrying amount – January 1, 2016		$4,684			$7,300			$2,450			$14,434
Additions4		71			272			933			1,276
Disposals		(80	)		—			(37	)		(117	)
Depreciation		(794	)		(995	)		—			(1,789	)
Impairment charges		217			79			3			299
Transfers5		458			538			(996	)		—
At December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103
At December 31, 2016
Cost		$14,111			$20,778			$14,634			$49,523
Accumulated depreciation and impairments		(9,555	)		(13,584	)		(12,281	)		(35,420	)
Net carrying amount – December 31, 2016		$4,556			$7,194			$2,353			$14,103

¹ Includes capitalized reserve acquisition costs, capitalized development costs and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs other than exploration license costs included in intangible assets.

² Assets not subject to depreciation includes construction-in-progress, projects and acquired mineral resources and exploration potential at operating mine sites and development projects.

³ Assets subject to depreciation includes the following items for production stage properties: acquired mineral reserves and resources, capitalized mine development costs, capitalized stripping and capitalized exploration and evaluation costs.

⁴ Additions include revisions to the capitalized cost of closure and rehabilitation activities.

⁵ Primarily relates to long-lived assets that are transferred to PP&E once they are placed into service.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 128 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

a)     Mineral Property Costs Not Subject to Depreciation

	Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2017		Carrying amount at Dec. 31, 2016
Construction-in-progress1		$640		$466
Acquired mineral resources and exploration potential		24		24
Projects
Pascua-Lama		1,499		1,263
Norte Abierto		612		444
Donlin Gold		166		156
		$2,941		$2,353

¹ Represents assets under construction at our operating mine sites.

b)     Changes in Gold and Copper Mineral Life of Mine Plan

As part of our annual business cycle, we prepare updated estimates of proven and probable gold and copper mineral reserves and the portion of resources considered probable of economic extraction for each mineral

property. This forms the basis for our LOM plans. We prospectively revise calculations of amortization expense for property, plant and equipment amortized using the UOP method, where the denominator is our LOM ounces. The effect of changes in our LOM on amortization expense for 2017 was a $91 million decrease (2016: $67 million decrease).

c)     Capital Commitments and Operating Leases

In addition to entering into various operational commitments in the normal course of business, we had commitments of approximately $118 million at December 31, 2017 (2016: $103 million) for construction activities at our sites and projects.

Operating leases are recognized as an operating cost in the consolidated statements of income on a straight-line basis over the lease term. At December 31, 2017, we have operating lease commitments totaling $68 million, of which $21 million is expected to be paid within a year, $46 million is expected to be paid within two to five years and the remaining amount to be paid beyond five years.

20 > GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS

a) Intangible Assets

	Water rights1			Technology2			Supply     contracts3			Exploration     potential4			Total
Opening balance January 1, 2016		$87			$12			$16			$156			$271
Additions		—			—			—			4			4
Amortization		—			(1	)		(2	)		—			(3	)
Closing balance December 31, 2016		$87			$11			$14			$160			$272
Additions		—			—			—			16			16
Disposals5		(16	)		—			—			—			(16	)
Amortization and impairment losses		—			(2	)		(3	)		(12	)		(17	)
Closing balance December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255
Cost		$71			$17			$39			$298			$425
Accumulated amortization and impairment losses		—			(8	)		(28	)		(134	)		(170	)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017		$71			$9			$11			$164			$255

¹ Relates to water rights in South America, and will be amortized through cost of sales when we begin using these in the future.

² The amount is amortized through cost of sales using the UOP method over LOM ounces of the Pueblo Viejo mine, with no assumed residual value.

³ Relates to a supply agreement with Michelin North America Inc. to secure a supply of tires and is amortized over the effective term of the contract through cost of sales.

⁴ Exploration potential consists of the estimated fair value attributable to exploration licenses acquired as a result of a business combination or asset acquisition. The carrying value of the licenses will be transferred to PP&E when the development of attributable mineral resources commences. See note 21 for details of impairment charges recorded against exploration assets.

⁵ Represents the net disposal as a result of the Cerro Casale sale. Refer to note 4b.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 129 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Goodwill

	Closing balance December 31, 2016		Disposals			Closing balance     December 31, 2017
Barrick Nevada1		$514		$—			$514
Veladero2		195		(41	)		154
Turquoise Ridge		528		—			528
Hemlo		63		—			63
Kalgoorlie		71		—			71
Total		$1,371		($41	)		$1,330

¹ In Q1 2017, we unified the management and the operation of our Cortez and Goldstrike minesites, now referred to as Barrick Nevada. The prior period has been changed to reflect this presentation.

² Represents the net disposal as a result of the partial Veladero sale. Refer to note 4a.

On a total basis, the gross amount and accumulated impairment losses are as follows:

Cost	$8,618
Accumulated impairment losses December 31, 2017	(7,288	)
Net carrying amount December 31, 2017	$1,330

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 130 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

21 > IMPAIRMENT AND REVERSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

Summary of impairments (reversals)

For the year ended December 31, 2017, we recorded net impairment reversals of $212 million (2016: $250 million) for non-current assets, as summarized in the following table:

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Cerro Casale		($1,120	)		$—
Lumwana		(259	)		—
Bulyanhulu		740			—
Veladero		—			(275	)
Lagunas Norte		3			(28	)
Pascua-Lama		407			—
Zaldívar		—			49
Exploration sites		12			—
Other		5			4
Total impairment (reversals) of long-lived assets		($212	)		($250	)

2017 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2017

In the fourth quarter 2017, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note one indicator of potential impairment reversal. Additionally, as a result of events that occurred in the fourth quarter, we identified indicators of impairment at Acacia and Pascua-Lama as discussed below.

Also as a result of an increase in proven and probable reserves, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia that has resulted in a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2014. An impairment reversal in the amount of $259 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2017. The recoverable amount based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $747 million.

Pascua-Lama

As described in note 36, on January 17, 2018 the Pascua-Lama project received a revised notice from the Chilean environmental regulators, which reduced the administrative fine and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the project in addition to certain monitoring activities. Given the impact on our ability to advance the project as an open pit operation and the subsequent reclassification of Pascua- Lama’s open-pit reserves to resources, this was determined to be an indicator of impairment in the fourth quarter of 2017 as it was the resolution of a condition that existed at December 31, 2017. We identified that the

carrying value of Pascua-Lama exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $429 million, based on a FVLCD of $850 million.

Acacia

On March 3, 2017, the Tanzanian Government announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (“Ban”), impacting Acacia’s Bulyanhulu and Buzwagi mines. Subsequently, during the second quarter of 2017 two Presidential Committees reported their findings, following investigations, that Acacia and its predecessor companies have historically under-declared the contents of the exports of concentrate, resulting in a significant under-declaration of taxes. Acacia has refuted the findings of these committees, affirming that it has declared everything of commercial value that it has produced since it started operating in Tanzania and has paid all appropriate royalties and taxes on all of the payable minerals that it has produced.

In July 2017, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017.

At the beginning of September 2017, as a result of the ongoing concentrate export ban, Bulyanhulu commenced a program to reduce operational activity and expenditure in order to preserve the viability of the mine over the long term. This decision was identified by management as a potential indicator of impairment in the third quarter of 2017.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed on a framework with the Government of Tanzania for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the key terms of the proposed framework was reviewed by Acacia management and independent board members. Acacia has not yet been provided with a detailed proposal for a decision around the ongoing discussions between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania.

In the fourth quarter of 2017 Barrick identified several indicators of impairment, including but not limited to, the continued challenges experienced in the operating environment in Tanzania, the announcement of new legislation by the Government of Tanzania in respect of

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 131 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

the natural resources sector and the resulting decision to reduce operations at Bulyanhulu.

As a result of the updated LOM plan, which reflects the targeted outcome for a negotiated resolution in line with the proposed framework, we identified that the carrying value of Bulyanhulu exceeded the FVLCD and we recorded a non-current asset impairment of $740 million, based on a FVLCD of $600 million (100% basis). Refer to note 36 for further details of the proposed framework.

Impairment assessments were also performed in the second and third quarters of 2017 and no impairment charges were recorded.

Cerro Casale - First Quarter 2017

As noted in note 4(b), on March 28, 2017, we announced the sale of a 25% interest in the Cerro Casale Project in Chile, which would result in Barrick retaining a 50% interest in the Project and this was deemed to be an indicator of impairment reversal in the first quarter of 2017. As such, in first quarter 2017, we recognized a partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment recorded in the fourth quarter of 2014 in the amount of $1.12 billion. The recoverable amount, based on the fair value less cost to dispose as implied by the transaction price, was $1.2 billion.

2016 Indicators of Impairment/Reversal

Fourth Quarter 2016

In the fourth quarter 2016, as per our policy, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test. No impairments were identified. Also in the fourth quarter, we reviewed the updated LOM plans for our other operating mine sites for indicators of impairment or reversal. We noted no indicators of impairment, but did note three indicators of potential impairment reversal.

As a result of improvements in the cost structure at our Veladero mine in Argentina, we have expanded the open pit in our LOM plan, increasing our expected production and the number of years in our plan. These changes increased Veladero’s FVLCD which has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in 2013. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount of $275 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2016. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $1.6 billion.

Also as a result of cost improvements, we have observed an increase in the FVLCD of our Lagunas Norte mine in Peru that has resulted in a full reversal of the non-current asset impairment loss recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. After reflecting the amount of depreciation that would have been taken on the impaired assets, an amount

of $28 million was recorded as an impairment reversal in the fourth quarter of 2015. The recoverable amount, based on the mine’s FVLCD, was $630 million.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, our Lumwana copper mine in Zambia completed a new LOM plan incorporating a lower cost structure. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana mine. Based on the level of uncertainty surrounding some of the assumptions in our FVLCD calculation, we determined there existed significant uncertainty as to whether or not a change in FVLCD existed that warranted a reversal in the previously recorded impairment.

Third Quarter 2016

In the third quarter of 2016 we agreed to an adjustment of the purchase price for the 50% interest in our Zaldívar mine. This adjustment resulted in a non-current asset impairment loss of $49 million. This is in addition to the goodwill impairment loss of $427 million we recognized in third quarter 2016, as detailed below. The recoverable amount after the impairment, based on the FVLCD of our 50% equity interest, was $950 million.

Second Quarter 2016

In June 2016, the Zambian government passed legislation to amend the royalty tax for mining operations to a variable rate based on the prevailing copper price effective June 1, 2016. These rates are 4% at copper prices below $2.04 per pound; 5% at copper prices between $2.04 per pound and $2.72 per pound; and 6% at copper prices of $2.72 per pound and above. Legislation was also passed to remove the 15% variable profit tax on income from mining companies. We determined this was an indicator of potential reversal of the 2014 impairments recorded on our Lumwana copper mine and we determined the FVLCD was not in excess of the carrying value and therefore no reversal was recorded.

Key Assumptions

The recoverable amount has been determined based on its estimated FVLCD, which has been determined to be greater than the VIU amounts. The key assumptions and estimates used in determining the FVLCD are related to commodity prices, discount rates, NAV multiples for gold assets, operating costs, exchange rates, capital expenditures, the LOM production profile, continued license to operate, evidence of value from current year disposals and for our projects the expected start of production. In addition, assumptions are related to observable market evaluation metrics, including identification of comparable entities, and associated market values per ounce and per pound of reserves and/or resources, as well as the valuation of resources beyond what is included in LOM plans.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 132 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Gold

For the gold segments where a recoverable amount was required to be determined, FVLCD was determined by calculating the net present value (“NPV”) of the future cash flows expected to be generated by the mines and projects within the segments (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). The estimates of future cash flows were derived from the most recent LOM plans and, where the LOM plans exclude a material portion of total reserves and resources, we assign value to reserves and resources not considered in these models. Based on observable market or publicly available data, including forward prices and equity sell-side analyst forecasts, we make an assumption of future gold and silver prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each gold mine are discounted using a real weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”), which reflects specific market risk factors for each mine. Some gold companies trade at a market capitalization greater than the NPV of their expected cash flows. Market participants describe this as a “NAV multiple”, which represents the multiple applied to the NPV to arrive at the trading price. The NAV multiple is generally understood to take account of a variety of additional value factors such as the exploration potential of the mineral property, namely the ability to find and produce more metal than what is currently included in the LOM plan or reserve and resource estimates, and the benefit of gold price optionality. As a result, we applied a specific NAV multiple to the NPV of each CGU within each gold segment based on the NAV multiples observed in the market in recent periods and that we judged to be appropriate to the CGU.

Pascua-Lama

The FVLCD for Pascua-Lama was determined by considering observable market values for comparable assets expressed as dollar per ounce of measured and indicated resources (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). We used the market approach as the LOM for Pascua-Lama has significant uncertainty with respect to the scope and estimated timeline for the project. The observable market values were adjusted, where appropriate, for country risk if the comparable asset was in a different country.

Copper

For our copper operating segments, the FVLCD for each of the CGUs was determined based on the NPV of future cash flows expected to be generated using the most recent LOM plans (level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). Based on observable market or publicly available data including spot and forward prices and equity sell-side analyst consensus, we make an assumption of future copper prices to estimate future revenues. The future cash flows for each copper mine are discounted using a WACC depending on the location and market risk factors for each mine.

Assumptions

Our gold price assumptions used in our 2017 impairment testing is $1,200 per ounce. Our gold price assumptions used in our 2016 impairment testing were 2017: $1,050 per ounce and 2018+: $1,200 per ounce. The other key assumptions used in our impairment testing, based on the CGUs tested in each year, are summarized in the table below:

	2017		2016
Copper price per lb (long-term)		$2.75		$2.75
WACC - gold (range)		3%-11%		3%-6%
WACC - gold (avg)		6%		4%
WACC - copper		9%		9%
NAV multiple - gold (avg)		1.2		1.2
LOM years - gold (avg)		17		15
Value per ounce of gold		$30 - $55		n/a
Value per ounce of silver		$0.41 - $0.76		n/a

Sensitivities

Should there be a significant increase or decline in commodity prices, we would take actions to assess the implications on our life of mine plans, including the determination of reserves and resources, and the appropriate cost structure for the operating segments. The recoverable amount of the CGUs would be affected by these changes and also be impacted by other market factors such as changes in net asset value multiples and the value per ounce/pound of comparable market entities.

We performed a sensitivity analysis on each CGU that was tested as part of the goodwill impairment test, as well as those CGUs which have had an impairment or impairment reversal in recent years. We flexed the gold and copper prices and the WACC, which are the most significant assumptions that impact the impairment calculations. We first assumed a +/- $100 per ounce change in our gold price assumptions or a +/- $0.25 per pound change in copper price assumptions, while holding all other assumptions constant. We then assumed a +/- 1% change in our WACC, independent from the change in gold or copper prices, while holding all other assumptions constant. These sensitivities help to determine the theoretical impairment losses or impairment reversals that would be recorded with these changes in gold or copper prices and WACC. If the gold price per ounce was decreased by $100, a further non-current asset impairment of $172 million, net of tax, would be recognized for Bulyanhulu, with a similar increase in the gold price per ounce resulting in a reduction in the impairment of $172 million. The partial reversal of the non-current asset impairment reversal recorded for Lumwana would not be recognized if the copper price per ounce was decreased by $0.25 and would result in the recognition of a further impairment reversal of $303 million if the copper price per ounce was increased by $0.25. Lumwana was otherwise not affected by the sensitivity analysis.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 133 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Other results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows:

	(Impairment)/reversal based on
	Gold price	Gold price
Operating Segment	+$100	-$100
Pueblo Viejo	$546	($651)
Lagunas Norte	-	(311)
Veladero	-	(188)

We also performed a sensitivity analysis on our WACC, which is another key input that impacts the impairment calculations. We assumed a +/-1% change on the WACC, while holding all other assumptions constant, to determine the impact on impairment losses recorded, and whether any additional operating segments would be impacted. The results of this analysis are as follows:

A 1% decrease in the WACC would result in a partial reversal of $425 million of the non-current asset impairment recorded in 2015 at Pueblo Viejo. It would also result in the recognition of a further $63 million non-current asset impairment at Bulyanhulu, while a 1% increase in the WACC would result in a reduction of similar value in the impairment recognized at Bulyanhulu.

In addition, for our Pascua-Lama project, we have determined our valuation based on a market approach. The key assumption that impacts the impairment calculations is the value per ounce of gold and per pound of silver based on an analysis of comparable companies. We assumed a negative 10% change for the assumption of gold and silver value per ounce, while holding all other assumptions constant, and based on the results of the impairment testing performed in fourth quarter 2017 for Pascua-Lama, the fair value of the CGU would have been reduced from $850 million to $750 million. We note that this sensitivity identifies the decrease in the value that, in isolation, would cause the carrying value of the CGU to exceed its recoverable amount. For Pascua-Lama, this value decrease is linear to the decrease in value per ounce/pound.

The carrying value of the CGUs that are most sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the FVLCD calculation are:

As at December 31, 2017	Carrying Value
Pueblo Viejo1		$3,077
Veladero2		1,016
Lumwana3		849
Norte Abierto2,4		817
Bulyanhulu3		600
Lagunas Norte5		458
Buzwagi		194
Pascua-Lama3,6,7		$38

¹ This CGU had an impairment loss in 2015. As there have been no indicators of impairment or impairment reversal in 2017, the carrying value would remain sensitive to the key assumptions in the FVLCD model from 2015.

² As a result of partial divestments that occurred in 2017 (refer to notes 4a and 4b) these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes in the key assumptions used in the purchase price allocations.

³ As a result of the impairment/reversal recorded in 2017 these CGUs were remeasured to fair value and are sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁴ Norte Abierto is the new name of our joint venture with Goldcorp, comprised of the Cerro Casale and Caspiche deposits.

⁵ As a result of the reversal recorded in 2016 this CGU was remeasured to fair value and is sensitive to changes, both positive and negative, in the key assumptions used to calculate the FVLCD.

⁶ The carrying value of Pascua-Lama includes the deferred revenue liability relating to the Wheaton Precious Metals stream ($812 million).

⁷ This CGU is most sensitive to changes in the value per ounce of comparable market entities.

22 > OTHER ASSETS

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December  31, 2016
Derivative assets (note 25f)		$1		$1
Goods and services taxes  recoverable1		398		303
Notes receivable2		279		274
Restricted cash3		119		118
Prepayments		42		51
Norte Abierto JV Partner  Receivable		166		—
Other		265		199
		$1,270		$946

¹ Includes VAT and fuel tax receivables of $220 million in Argentina, $132 million in Tanzania and $46 million in Chile (Dec. 31, 2016: $255 million, $8 million and $40 million, respectively). The VAT in Argentina is recoverable once Pascua-Lama enters production.

² Primarily represents the interest bearing promissory note due from NovaGold and the non-interest bearing shareholder loan due from the Jabal Sayid JV as a result of the divestment of 50 percent interest in Jabal Sayid.

³ Represents cash balance at Pueblo Viejo that is contractually restricted to the disbursements for environmental rehabilitation that are expected to occur near the end of Pueblo Viejo’s mine life.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 134 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

23 > ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December  31, 2016
Accounts payable		$760		$749
Accruals		299		335
		$1,059		$1,084

24 > OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES

	As at December 31, 2017		As at  December  31, 2016
Provision for environmental rehabilitation (note 27b)		$152		$67
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)		30		50
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement		85		77
Share-based payments (note 34b)		17		53
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement		7		26
Other		40		36
		$331		$309

25 > FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Financial instruments include cash; evidence of ownership in an entity; or a contract that imposes an obligation on one party and conveys a right to a second entity to deliver/receive cash or another financial instrument. Information on certain types of financial instruments is included elsewhere in these consolidated financial statements as follows: accounts receivable (note 18); restricted share units (note 34b).

a) Cash and Equivalents

Cash and equivalents include cash, term deposits, treasury bills and money market investments with original maturities of less than 90 days.

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Cash deposits		$662		$1,009
Term deposits		427		654
Money market investments		1,145		726
		$2,234		$2,389

Of total cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2017, $305 million (2016: $943 million) was held in subsidiaries which have regulatory regulations, contractual restrictions or operate in countries where exchange controls and other legal restrictions apply and are therefore not available for general use by the Company.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 135 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Debt and Interest¹

	Closing balance December 31, 2016			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization   and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2017
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$1,467			$—		$—			$1			$1,468
3.85%/5.25% notes		1,078			—		—			1			1,079
5.80% notes4,9		395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9		593			—		—			—			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9		1,607			—		(279	)		(2	)		1,326
Project financing		400			—		(423	)		23			—
Capital leases7		114			—		(68	)		—			46
Other debt obligations		609			—		(4	)		(2	)		603
4.10%/5.75% notes8,9		1,569			—		(731	)		4			842
Acacia credit facility10		99			—		(28	)		—			71
		$7,931			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,423
Less: current portion11		(143	)		—		—			—			(59)
		$7,788			$—		($1,533	)		$25			$6,364

	Closing balance December 31, 2015			Proceeds		Repayments			Amortization and other2			Closing balance December 31, 2016
4.4%/5.7% notes3,9		$2,182			$—		($721	)		$6			$1,467
3.85%/5.25% notes		1,077			—		—			1			1,078
5.80% notes4,9		395			—		—			—			395
6.35% notes5,9		592			—		—			1			593
Other fixed rate notes6,9		2,451			—		(848	)		4			1,607
Project financing		646			—		(254	)		8			400
Capital leases7		153			2		(41	)		—			114
Other debt obligations		654			3		(46	)		(2	)		609
2.5%/4.10%/5.75% notes8,9		1,690			—		(123	)		2			1,569
Acacia credit facility10		128			—		(29	)		—			99
		$9,968			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,931
Less: current portion11		(203	)		—		—			—			(143)
		$9,765			$5		($2,062	)		$20			$7,788

¹ The agreements that govern our long-term debt each contain various provisions which are not summarized herein. These provisions allow Barrick, at its option, to redeem indebtedness prior to maturity at specified prices and also may permit redemption of debt by Barrick upon the occurrence of certain specified changes in tax legislation.

² Amortization of debt premium/discount and increases (decreases) in capital leases.

³ Consists of $1.5 billion (2016: $1.5 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick North America Finance LLC (“BNAF”). This consists of $629 million (2016: $629 million) of BNAF notes due 2021 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BNAF notes due 2041.

⁴ Consists of $400 million (2016: $400 million) of 5.80% notes which mature in 2034.

⁵ Consists of $600 million (2016: $600 million) of 6.35% notes which mature in 2036.

⁶ Consists of $1.3 billion (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF and our wholly-owned subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”). This consists of $248 million (2016: $248 million) of BPDAF notes due 2020, $250 million (2016: $250 million) of BNAF notes due 2038 and $850 million (2016: $850 million) of BPDAF notes due 2039.

⁷ Consists primarily of capital leases at Pascua-Lama, $13 million and Lagunas Norte, $27 million (2016: $50 million and $56 million, respectively).

⁸ Consists of $850 million (2016: $1.6 billion) in conjunction with our wholly-owned subsidiary BNAF.

⁹ We provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on all BNAF, BPDAF, Barrick Gold Finance Company (“BGFC”), and Barrick (HMC) Mining (“BHMC”) notes and generally provide such guarantees on all BNAF, BPDAF, BGFC, and BHMC notes issued, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

¹⁰ Consists of an export credit backed term loan facility.

¹¹ The current portion of long-term debt consists of project financing ($nil; 2016: $72 million), other debt obligations ($4 million; 2016: $5 million), capital leases ($27 million; 2016: $38 million) and Acacia credit facility ($28 million; 2016: $28 million).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 136 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1.75%/2.9%/4.4%/5.7% Notes

In June 2011, BNAF issued an aggregate of $4.0 billion in debt securities comprised of: $700 million of 1.75% notes that had an original maturity date in 2014 and $1.1 billion of 2.90% notes that had an original maturity date in 2016 issued by Barrick (collectively, the “Barrick Notes”) as well as $1.35 billion of 4.40% notes that mature in 2021 and $850 million of 5.70% notes that mature in 2041 issued by BNAF (collectively, the “BNAF Notes”). Barrick provides an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of the BNAF Notes. The Barrick Notes and the guarantee in respect of the BNAF Notes will rank equally with Barrick’s other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, the entire balance ($700 million) of the 1.75% notes was repaid along with $871 million of the $1.1 billion of 2.9% notes. During 2015, the remainder ($229 million) of the $1.1 billion of 2.9% notes was repaid. During 2016, $721 million of the $1.35 billion of the 4.4% notes was repaid.

3.85% and 5.25% Notes

On April 3, 2012, we issued an aggregate of $2 billion in debt securities comprised of $1.25 billion of 3.85% notes that mature in 2022 and $750 million of 5.25% notes that mature in 2042. During 2015, $913 million of the 3.85% notes was repaid.

Other Fixed Rate Notes

On October 16, 2009, we issued two tranches of debentures totaling $1.25 billion through our wholly-owned indirect subsidiary Barrick (PD) Australia Finance Pty Ltd. (“BPDAF”) consisting of $850 million of 30-year notes with a coupon rate of 5.95%, and $400 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 4.95%. We also provide an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of these payments, which rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations. During 2016, $152 million of the $400 million of the 4.95% notes was repaid.

On March 19, 2009, we issued an aggregate of $750 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.95% for general corporate purposes. The notes are unsecured, unsubordinated obligations and rank equally with our other unsecured, unsubordinated obligations. During 2015, $275 million was repaid. During 2016, an additional $196 million was repaid. During 2017, the remaining $279 million was repaid.

In September 2008, we issued an aggregate of $1.25 billion of notes through our wholly-owned indirect subsidiaries Barrick North America Finance LLC and Barrick Gold Financeco LLC (collectively, the “LLCs”) consisting of $500 million of 5-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.125%, $500 million of 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.8%, and $250 million of 30-year notes with a coupon rate of 7.5%. We also provide an

unconditional and irrevocable guarantee of these payments, which rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

During 2013, the entire balance ($500 million) of the 5-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.125% that was due in September 2013 was repaid. During 2016, the entire balance ($500 million) of the 10-year notes with a coupon rate of 6.8% was repaid.

Pueblo Viejo Project Financing Agreement

In April 2010, Barrick and Goldcorp finalized terms for $1.035 billion (100% basis) in project financing for Pueblo Viejo. The project financing was non-recourse subject to guarantees provided by Barrick and Goldcorp for their proportionate share which would terminate upon Pueblo Viejo meeting certain operating completion tests and are subject to an exclusion for certain political risk events. On February 17, 2015, we received notification that the completion tests had been met, resulting in termination of the guarantees. The lending syndicate was comprised of international financial institutions including export development agencies and commercial banks.

We had drawn the entire $1.035 billion. During 2017, the remaining principal balance of the Pueblo Viejo Financing Agreement was fully repaid.

Refinancing of the Credit Facility

In January 2012, we finalized a credit and guarantee agreement (the “Credit Facility”, previously referred to as the “2012 Credit Facility”) with certain Lenders, which requires such Lenders to make available to us a credit facility of $4.0 billion or the equivalent amount in Canadian dollars. The Credit Facility, which is unsecured, currently has an interest rate of London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus 2.00% on drawn amounts, and a commitment rate of 0.35% on undrawn amounts. In November 2017, $3.977 billion of the $4 billion credit facility was agreed to be extended from January 2022 to January 2023. The remaining $23 million currently terminates in January 2020. The Credit Facility is undrawn as at December 31, 2017.

2.50%/4.10%/5.75% Notes

On May 2, 2013, we issued an aggregate of $3 billion in notes through Barrick and our wholly-owned indirect subsidiary BNAF consisting of $650 million of 2.50% notes that mature in 2018, $1.5 billion of 4.10% notes that mature in 2023 and $850 million of 5.75% notes issued by BNAF that mature in 2043. $2 billion of the net proceeds from this offering were used to repay existing indebtedness under our $4 billion revolving credit facility. We provided an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee on the $850 million of 5.75% notes issued by BNAF, which will rank equally with our other unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 137 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

During 2013, $398 million of the $650 million 2.50% notes were repaid. During 2015, $769 million of 4.10% notes and $129 million of 2.5% notes were repaid. During 2016, the remainder ($123 million) of the $650 million of the 2.50% notes was repaid. During 2017, the remaining $731 million of the 4.10% notes was repaid.

Acacia Credit Facility

In January 2013, Acacia concluded negotiations with a group of commercial banks for the provision of an export credit backed term loan facility (the “Facility”) for the amount of US $142 million. The Facility was put in place to fund a substantial portion of the construction costs of

the CIL circuit at the process plant at the Bulyanhulu Project. The Facility is collateralized by the Bulyanhulu Project, has a term of seven years and, when drawn, the spread over LIBOR will be 250 basis points. The Facility is repayable in equal installments over the term of the Facility, after a two-year repayment holiday period. The interest rate has been fixed at an effective rate of 3.6% through the use of an interest rate swap. At December 31, 2014, the full value of the Facility was drawn. During 2015, $14 million was repaid. During 2016, $29 million was repaid. During 2017, $28 million was repaid.

	2017			2016
For the years ended December 31	Interest cost		Effective rate1	Interest cost		Effective rate1
4.4%/5.7% notes		$77	5.23%		$104	5.09%
3.85%/5.25% notes		53	4.87%		53	4.87%
5.80% notes		23	5.85%		23	5.85%
6.35% notes		38	6.41%		38	6.41%
Other fixed rate notes		93	6.38%		128	6.75%
Project financing		14	7.04%		33	6.23%
Capital leases		3	3.60%		5	4.02%
Other debt obligations		31	6.55%		36	6.09%
4.10%/5.75% notes		72	5.12%		82	4.98%
Acacia credit facility		6	3.59%		7	3.59%
Deposits on Pascua-Lama silver sale agreement (note 29)		66	8.37%		63	8.37%
Deposits on Pueblo Viejo gold and silver streaming agreement (note 29)		35	6.14%		37	6.34%
		$511			$609

¹ The effective rate includes the stated interest rate under the debt agreement, amortization of debt issue costs and debt discount/premium and the impact of interest rate contracts designated in a hedging relationship with debt.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 138 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Scheduled Debt Repayments¹

	Issuer		Maturity Year		2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		2023 and thereafter		Total
4.95% notes3		BPDAF		2020		$—		$—		$248		$—		$—		$—		$248
7.31% notes2		BGC		2021		—		—		—		7		—		—		7
4.40% notes		BNAF		2021		—		—		—		629		—		—		629
3.85% notes		BGC		2022		—		—		—		—		337		—		337
7.73% notes2		BGC		2025		—		—		—		—		—		7		7
7.70% notes2		BGC		2025		—		—		—		—		—		5		5
7.37% notes2		BGC		2026		—		—		—		—		—		32		32
8.05% notes2		BGC		2026		—		—		—		—		—		15		15
6.38% notes2		BGC		2033		—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes		BGC		2034		—		—		—		—		—		200		200
5.80% notes		BGFC		2034		—		—		—		—		—		200		200
6.45% notes2		BGC		2035		—		—		—		—		—		300		300
6.35% notes		BHMC		2036		—		—		—		—		—		600		600
7.50% notes3		BNAF		2038		—		—		—		—		—		250		250
5.95% notes3		BPDAF		2039		—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.70% notes		BNAF		2041		—		—		—		—		—		850		850
5.25% notes		BGC		2042		—		—		—		—		—		750		750
5.75% notes		BNAF		2043		—		—		—		—		—		850		850
Other debt obligations2						4		5		—		—		—		—		9
Acacia credit facility						28		28		15		—		—		—		71
						$32		$33		$263		$636		$337		$5,109		$6,410
Minimum annual payments under capital leases						$27		$11		$4		$1		$1		$2		$46

¹ This table illustrates the contractual undiscounted cash flows, and may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the consolidated balance sheet.

² Included in Other debt obligations in the Long-Term Debt table.

³ Included in Other fixed rate notes in the Long-Term Debt table.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 139 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

c)    Derivative Instruments (“Derivatives”)

In the normal course of business, our assets, liabilities and forecasted transactions, as reported in US dollars, are impacted by various market risks including, but not limited to:

Item	Impacted by
●    Sales	●    Prices of gold, silver and copper
o    By-product credits	o    Prices of silver, copper and gold
●    Cost of sales
o    Consumption of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity	o    Prices of diesel fuel, propane, natural gas, and electricity
o    Non-US dollar expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    General and administration, exploration and evaluation costs	●    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, GBP, PGK, TZS, ZAR, and ZMW
●    Capital expenditures
o    Non-US dollar capital expenditures	o    Currency exchange rates - US dollar versus A$, ARS, C$, CLP, DOP, EUR, GBP, PGK, and ZAR
o    Consumption of steel	o    Price of steel
●    Interest earned on cash and equivalents	●    US dollar interest rates
●    Interest paid on fixed-rate borrowings	●    US dollar interest rates

The time frame and manner in which we manage those risks varies for each item based upon our assessment of the risk and available alternatives for mitigating risk. For these particular risks, we believe that derivatives are an appropriate way of managing the risk.

We use derivatives as part of our risk management program to mitigate variability associated with changing market values related to the hedged item. Many of the derivatives we use meet the hedge effectiveness criteria and are designated in a hedge accounting relationship.

Certain derivatives are designated as either hedges of the fair value of recognized assets or liabilities or of firm commitments (“fair value hedges”) or hedges of highly probable forecasted transactions (“cash flow hedges”), collectively known as “accounting hedges”. Hedges that are expected to be highly effective in achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows are assessed on an ongoing basis to determine that they actually have been highly effective throughout the financial reporting periods for which they were designated. Some of the derivatives we use are effective in achieving our risk management objectives, but they do not meet the strict hedge accounting criteria. These derivatives are considered to be “non-hedge derivatives”.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 140 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

d)    Summary of Derivatives at December 31, 2017

	Notional Amount by Term to Maturity								Accounting Classification by Notional Amount
	Within 1 year		2 to 3 years		4 to 5 years		Total		Cash flow hedge		Non-Hedge		Fair value (USD)
US dollar interest rate contracts (US$ millions)
Total receive - float swap positions		$28		$43		$—		$71		$71		$—		$1
Currency contracts
A$:US$ contracts (A$ millions)		21		—		—		21		—		21		—
C$:US$ contracts (C$ millions)		8		—		—		8		—		8		—
PGK:US$ contracts (PGK millions)		32		—		—		32		—		32		—
Commodity contracts
Gold collar sell contracts (thousands of ounces)		105		—		—		105		—		105		2
Copper bought floor contracts (millions of pounds)		60		—		—		60		60		—		(8	)
Fuel contracts (thousands of barrels)1		1,244		42		—		1,286		840		446		(24	)

¹ Fuel contracts represent a combination of WTI swaps and Brent options. These derivatives hedge physical supply contracts based on the price of fuel across our operating mine sites plus a spread. WTI represents West Texas Intermediate and Brent represents Brent Crude Oil.

Fair Values of Derivative Instruments

	Asset Derivatives						Liability Derivatives
	Balance Sheet Classification		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2016		Balance Sheet Classification		Fair Value as at Dec. 31, 2017		Fair Value as at   Dec. 31, 2016
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments
US dollar interest rate contracts		Other assets		$1		$1		Other liabilities		$—		$—
Commodity contracts		Other assets		—		—		Other liabilities		25		71
Total derivatives classified as hedging instruments				$1		$1				$25		$71
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
Commodity contracts		Other assets		$2		$1		Other liabilities		$7		$7
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments				$2		$1				$7		$7
Total derivatives				$3		$2				$32		$78

As of December 31, 2017, we had 18 counterparties to our derivative positions. We proactively manage our exposure to individual counterparties in order to mitigate both credit and liquidity risks. We have six counterparties with which we hold a net asset position of $2 million, and 12 counterparties with which we are in a net liability position, for a total net liability of $31 million. On an ongoing basis, we monitor our exposures and ensure that none of the counterparties with which we hold outstanding contracts has declared insolvency.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 141 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

US Dollar Interest Rate Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

At December 31, 2017, Acacia has $71 million of pay-fixed receive-float interest rate swaps to hedge the floating rate debt associated with the Bulyanhulu plant expansion. These contracts, designated as cash flow hedges, convert the floating rate debt as it is drawn against the financing agreement.

Currency Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

During the year, no currency contracts have been designated against forecasted non-US dollar denominated expenditures. As at December 31, 2017, there are no outstanding currency contracts designated as cash flow hedges of our anticipated operating, administrative and sustaining capital spend.

During 2013, we sold back and effectively closed out approximately A $990 million of our Australian dollar forward contracts as a loss mitigation strategy. No cash settlement occurred and payments will net at maturity (2014-2016). During 2016, losses of $14 million were recognized in the consolidated statement of income based on the original hedge contract maturity dates. No losses remain crystallized in OCI at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017.

Commodity Contracts

Diesel/Propane/Electricity/Natural Gas

Cash Flow Hedges

During 2015, 8,040 thousand barrels of WTI contracts designated against forecasted fuel consumption at our mines were designated as hedging instruments as a result of adopting IFRS 9 and did not qualify for hedge accounting prior to January 1, 2015. As at December 31, 2017, we have 840 thousand barrels of WTI designated as cash flow hedges at an average rate of $79 per barrel of our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases at our mines.

Non-hedge Derivatives

During the year, Acacia entered into a contract to purchase 79 thousand barrels of Brent to economically hedge our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases for expected consumption at our mines. In total, on a combined basis Acacia has 206 thousand barrels of Brent swaps outstanding that economically hedge our exposure to forecasted fuel purchases at our mines.

Metals Contracts

Cash Flow Hedges

During 2017, we purchased 115 million pounds of copper collars, of which 60 million pounds remain outstanding at December 31, 2017. The outstanding positions will mature evenly throughout the first half of 2018. These contracts contained purchased put and sold call options with weighted average strike prices of $2.83/lb and $3.25/lb, respectively. These contracts are designated as cash flow hedges, with the effective portion and the changes in time value of the hedge recognized in OCI and the ineffective portion recognized in non-hedge derivative gains (losses).

During 2014, we early terminated 65 million ounces of silver hedges. We realized net cash proceeds of approximately $190 million with $2 million remaining crystallized in OCI at December 31, 2017, to be recognized in revenue as the exposure occurs. Any unrealized changes and realized gains/losses on ineffective amounts or time value have been recognized in the consolidated statements of income as gains on non-hedge derivatives.

Non-hedge Derivatives

We enter into purchased and written contracts with the primary objective of increasing the realized price on some of our gold and copper sales. During the year, Acacia purchased gold put options of 210 thousand ounces. As a result of these activities, we recorded approximately $4 million in the consolidated statement of income as gains on non-hedge derivatives. There are 105 thousand ounces of gold positions outstanding at December 31, 2017.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 142 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”)

	Commodity price hedges									Currency hedges							Interest rate hedges
	Gold/Silver			Copper			Fuel			Operating costs			General and administrative costs		Capital expenditures		Long-term debt			Total
At January 1, 2016		$14			$—			($102	)		($30	)		$—		$—		($22	)		($140	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		—			—			23			2			—		—		—			25
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1		(5	)		—			47			28			—		—		2			72
At December 31, 2016		$9			$—			($32	)		$—			$—		$—		($20	)		($43	)
Effective portion of change in fair value of hedging instruments		—			(11	)		(8	)		—			—		—		—			(19	)
Transfers to earnings:
On recording hedged items in earnings/PP&E1		(7	)		4			27			—			—		—		3			27
Hedge ineffectiveness due to changes in original forecasted transaction		—			—			5			—			—		—		—			5
At December 31, 2017		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($17	)		($30	)
Hedge gains/losses classified within		Gold/Silver sales			Copper sales			Cost of sales			Cost of sales			General and administrative costs		Property, plant, and equipment		Interest expense			Total
Portion of hedge gain (loss) expected to affect 2018 earnings2		$2			($7	)		($8	)		$—			$—		$—		($1	)		($14	)

¹ Realized gains (losses) on qualifying currency hedges of capital expenditures are transferred from OCI to PP&E on settlement.

² Based on the fair value of hedge contracts at December 31, 2017.

Cash Flow Hedge Gains (Losses) at December 31

Derivatives in cash       flow hedging       relationships	Amount of gain (loss) recognized in OCI					Location of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income/PP&E (effective portion)	Amount of gain (loss) transferred from OCI into income (effective portion)						Location of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded from effectiveness testing)		Amount of gain (loss) recognized in income (ineffective portion and amount excluded  from effectiveness testing)
	2017			2016			2017			2016					2017			2016
Interest rate contracts		($1	)		$—	Finance income/ finance costs		($3	)		($2	)		Gain (loss) on non-  hedge derivatives		$—			$—
Foreign exchange contracts		—			2	Cost of sales/general and administrative costs/PP&E		—			(28	)		Gain (loss) on non-  hedge derivatives		—			—
Commodity contracts		(18	)		23	Revenue/cost of sales		(24	)		(42	)		Gain (loss) on non-  hedge derivatives		(5	)		—
Total		($19	)		$25			($27	)		($72	)				($5	)		$—

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 143 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e)    Gains (Losses) on Non-hedge Derivatives

For the years ended December 31	2017			2016
Commodity contracts
Gold		$4			$2
Silver1		7			6
Copper		(1	)		—
Fuel		—			5
Currency Contracts		1			(1	)
		$11			$12
Hedge ineffectiveness		(5	)		—
		$6			$12

¹ Relates to the amortization of crystallized OCI.

f)    Derivative Assets and Liabilities

	2017			2016
At January 1		($76	)		($263	)
Derivatives cash (inflow) outflow
Operating activities		62			156
Change in fair value of:
Non-hedge derivatives		4			6
Cash flow hedges:
Effective portion		(19	)		25
Ineffective portion		5			—
Excluded from effectiveness changes		(5	)		—
At December 31		($29	)		($76	)
Classification:
Other current assets		$2			$1
Other long-term assets		1			1
Other current liabilities		(30	)		(50	)
Other long-term obligations		(2	)		(28	)
		($29	)		($76	)

26 > FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The fair value hierarchy establishes three levels to classify the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs are quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (for example, interest rate and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, forward pricing curves used to value currency and commodity contracts and volatility measurements used to value option contracts), or inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data or other means. Level 3 inputs are unobservable (supported by little or no market activity). The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 inputs and the lowest priority to Level 3 inputs.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 144 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

a)    Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

Fair Value Measurements

At December 31, 2017	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)			Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Aggregate Fair Value
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—			$—		$2,234
Other investments		33		—			—		33
Derivatives		—		(29	)		—		(29	)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales		—		110			—		110
		$2,267		$81			$—		$2,348
Fair Value Measurements
At December 31, 2016	Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)			Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)		Aggregate Fair Value
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—			$—		$2,389
Other investments		18		—			—		18
Derivatives		—		(76	)		—		(76	)
Receivables from provisional copper and gold sales		—		110			—		110
		$2,407		$34			$—		$2,441

b)    Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

	At December 31, 2017				At December 31, 2016
	Carrying amount		Estimated fair value		Carrying amount		Estimated fair value
Financial assets
Other assets1		$572		$572		$399		$399
Other investments2		33		33		18		18
Derivative assets		3		3		2		2
		$608		$608		$419		$419
Financial liabilities
Debt3		$6,423		$7,715		$7,931		$8,279
Derivative liabilities		32		32		78		78
Other liabilities		252		252		216		216
		$6,707		$7,999		$8,225		$8,573

¹ Includes restricted cash and amounts due from our partners.

² Recorded at fair value. Quoted market prices are used to determine fair value.

³ Debt is generally recorded at amortized cost except for obligations that are designated in a fair-value hedge relationship, in which case the carrying amount is adjusted for changes in fair value of the hedging instrument in periods when a hedge relationship exists. The fair value of debt is primarily determined using quoted market prices. Balance includes both current and long-term portions of debt.

We do not offset financial assets with financial liabilities.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 145 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

c)    Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Non-Recurring Basis

	Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1)		Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)		Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)		Aggregate fair value
Other assets1		$—		$—		$45		$45
Property, plant and equipment2		—		—		6,105		6,105
Intangible assets3		—		—		34		34

¹ Other assets were written down by $30 million, which was included in earnings in this period.

² Property, plant and equipment were written up by $254 million, which was included in earnings in this period, reflecting the historical impairment loss taken on these assets.

³ Intangibles were written down by $12 million, which was included in earnings in this period, to their fair value less costs of disposal of $34 million.

Valuation Techniques

Cash Equivalents

The fair value of our cash equivalents is classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices in active markets. Our cash equivalents are comprised of U.S. Treasury bills and money market securities that are invested primarily in U.S. Treasury bills.

Other Investments

The fair value of other investments is determined based on the closing price of each security at the balance sheet date. The closing price is a quoted market price obtained from the exchange that is the principal active market for the particular security, and therefore other investments are classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

Derivative Instruments

The fair value of derivative instruments is determined using either present value techniques or option pricing models that utilize a variety of inputs that are a combination of quoted prices and market-corroborated inputs. The fair value of all our derivative contracts includes an adjustment for credit risk. For counterparties in a net asset position, credit risk is based upon the observed credit default swap spread for each particular counterparty, as appropriate. For counterparties in a net liability position, credit risk is based upon Barrick’s observed credit default swap spread. The fair value of US dollar interest rate and currency swap contracts is determined by discounting contracted cash flows using a discount rate derived from observed LIBOR and swap rate curves and Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) rates. In the case of currency contracts, we convert non-US dollar cash flows into US dollars using an exchange rate derived from currency swap curves and CDS rates. The fair value of commodity forward contracts is determined by discounting contractual cash flows using a discount rate derived from observed LIBOR and swap rate curves and CDS rates. Contractual cash flows are calculated using a forward pricing curve derived from observed forward prices for each commodity. Derivative instruments are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Receivables from Provisional Copper and Gold Sales

The fair value of receivables arising from copper and gold sales contracts that contain provisional pricing mechanisms is determined using the appropriate quoted forward price from the exchange that is the principal active market for the particular metal. As such, these receivables, which meet the definition of an embedded derivative, are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Other Long-Term Assets

The fair value of property, plant and equipment, goodwill, intangibles and other assets is determined primarily using an income approach based on unobservable cash flows and a market multiples approach where applicable, and as a result is classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Refer to note 21 for disclosure of inputs used to develop these measures.

27 > PROVISIONS

a) Provisions

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Environmental rehabilitation (“PER”)		$2,944		$2,179
Post-retirement benefits		48		72
Share-based payments		37		34
Other employee benefits		27		45
Other		85		33
		$3,141		$2,363

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 146 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Environmental Rehabilitation

	2017			2016
At January 1	$	2,246		$	1,982
PERs divested during the year		(31	)		—
Closed Sites
Impact of revisions to expected cash flows recorded in earnings		46			146
Settlements
Cash payments		(41	)		(28	)
Settlement gains		(1	)		(1	)
Accretion		12			10
Operating Sites
PERs arising in the year		836			134
Settlements
Cash payments		(18	)		(34	)
Settlement gains		(1	)		(3	)
Accretion		48			40
At December 31	$	3,096		$	2,246
Current portion (note 24)		(152	)		(67	)
	$	2,944		$	2,179

The eventual settlement of substantially all PERs is expected to take place between 2018 and 2058.

The PER has increased in the fourth quarter of 2017 by $864 million primarily due to changes in cost estimates at our Pascua-Lama, Lagunas Norte and Veladero properties, partially offset by changes in discount rates. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our PER balance increased by $850 million as a result of various impacts at our mine sites including new requirements related to water treatment, expanded footprints of our operations and updated estimates for reclamation activities. A 1% increase in the discount rate would result in a decrease in PER by $385 million and a 1% decrease in the discount rate would result in an increase in PER by $257 million, while holding the other assumptions constant.

28 > FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT

Our financial instruments are comprised of financial liabilities and financial assets. Our principal financial liabilities, other than derivatives, comprise accounts payable and debt. The main purpose of these financial instruments is to manage short-term cash flow and raise funds for our capital expenditure program. Our principal financial assets, other than derivative instruments, are cash and equivalents and accounts receivable, which arise directly from our operations. In the normal course of business, we use derivative instruments to mitigate exposure to various financial risks.

We manage our exposure to key financial risks in accordance with our financial risk management policy. The objective of the policy is to support the delivery of our financial targets while protecting future financial security.

The main risks that could adversely affect our financial assets, liabilities or future cash flows are as follows:

a. Market risk, including commodity price risk, foreign currency and interest rate risk;

b. Credit risk;

c. Liquidity risk; and

d. Capital risk management.

Management designs strategies for managing each of these risks, which are summarized below. Our senior management oversees the management of financial risks. Our senior management ensures that our financial risk-taking activities are governed by policies and procedures and that financial risks are identified, measured and managed in accordance with our policies and our risk appetite. All derivative activities for risk management purposes are carried out by the appropriate personnel.

a) Market Risk

Market risk is the risk that changes in market factors, such as commodity prices, foreign exchange rates or interest rates, will affect the value of our financial instruments. We manage market risk by either accepting it or mitigating it through the use of derivatives and other economic hedging strategies.

Commodity Price Risk

Gold and Copper

We sell our gold and copper production in the world market. The market prices of gold and copper are the primary drivers of our profitability and ability to generate both operating and free cash flow. Our corporate treasury group implements hedging strategies on an opportunistic basis to protect us from downside price risk on our gold and copper production. We have 60 million pounds of copper positions outstanding at December 31, 2017. Acacia has 105 thousand ounces of gold positions outstanding at December 31, 2017 and purchased an additional 120 thousand ounces of gold put options subsequent to year end. Our remaining gold and copper production is subject to market prices.

Fuel

On average we consume approximately 4 million barrels of diesel fuel annually across all our mines. Diesel fuel is refined from crude oil and is therefore subject to the same price volatility affecting crude oil prices. Therefore, volatility in crude oil prices has a significant direct and indirect impact on our production costs. To mitigate this volatility, we employ a strategy of using financial contracts to hedge our exposure to oil prices.

Foreign Currency Risk

The functional and reporting currency for all of our operating segments is the US dollar and we report our results using the US dollar. The majority of our operating and capital expenditures are denominated and settled in US dollars. We have exposure to the Australian dollar and

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 147 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Canadian dollar through a combination of mine operating costs and general and administrative costs; and to the Papua New Guinea kina, Peruvian sol, Chilean peso, Argentinean peso, Dominican Republic peso and Zambian kwacha through mine operating costs. Consequently, fluctuations in the US dollar exchange rate against these currencies increase the volatility of cost of sales, general and administrative costs and overall net earnings, when translated into US dollars.

Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk refers to the risk that the value of a financial instrument or cash flows associated with the instruments will fluctuate due to changes in market interest rates. Currently, our interest rate exposure mainly relates to interest receipts on our cash balances ($2.2 billion at the end of the year); the mark-to-market value of derivative instruments; the fair value and ongoing payments under US dollar interest-rate swaps; and to the interest payments on our variable-rate debt ($0.1 billion at December 31, 2017).

The effect on net earnings and equity of a 1% change in the interest rate of our financial assets and liabilities as at December 31, is approximately $10 million (2016: $13 million).

b) Credit Risk

Credit risk is the risk that a third party might fail to fulfill its performance obligations under the terms of a financial instrument. Credit risk arises from cash and equivalents, trade and other receivables as well as derivative assets. For cash and equivalents and trade and other receivables, credit risk exposure equals the carrying amount on the balance sheet, net of any overdraft positions. To mitigate our inherent exposure to credit risk we maintain policies to limit the concentration of credit risk, review counterparty creditworthiness on a monthly basis, and ensure liquidity of available funds. We also invest our cash and equivalents in highly rated financial institutions, primarily within the United States and other investment grade countries, which are countries rated BBB- or higher by S&P and include Canada, Chile, Australia and Peru. Furthermore, we sell our gold and copper production into the world market and to private customers with strong credit ratings. Historically customer defaults have not had a significant impact on our operating results or financial position.

For derivatives with a positive fair value, we are exposed to credit risk equal to the carrying value. When the fair value of a derivative is negative, we assume no credit risk. We mitigate credit risk on derivatives by:

· Entering into derivatives with high credit-quality counterparties;

· Limiting the amount of net exposure with each counterparty; and

· Monitoring the financial condition of counterparties on a regular basis.

The Company’s maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date is the carrying value of each of the financial assets disclosed as follows:

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December  31, 2016
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$2,389
Accounts receivable		239		249
Net derivative assets by counterparty		2		1
		$2,475		$2,639

c) Liquidity Risk

Liquidity risk is the risk of loss from not having access to sufficient funds to meet both expected and unexpected cash demands. We manage our exposure to liquidity risk by maintaining cash reserves, access to undrawn credit facilities and access to public debt markets, by staggering the maturities of outstanding debt instruments to mitigate refinancing risk and by monitoring of forecasted and actual cash flows. Details of the undrawn credit facility are included in note 25.

Our capital structure comprises a mix of debt and shareholders’ equity. As at December 31, 2017, our total debt was $6.4 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $4.2 billion) compared to total debt as at December 31, 2016 of $7.9 billion (debt net of cash and equivalents was $5.5 billion).

As part of our capital allocation strategy, we are constantly evaluating our capital expenditures and making reductions where the risk-adjusted returns do not justify the investment. Our primary source of liquidity is our operating cash flow. Other options to enhance liquidity include drawing the $4.0 billion available under our Credit Facility (subject to compliance with covenants and the making of certain representations and warranties, this facility is available for drawdown as a source of financing), further asset sales and issuances of debt or equity securities in the public markets or to private investors, which could be undertaken for liquidity enhancement and/or in connection with establishing a strategic partnership. Many factors, including, but not limited to, general market conditions and then prevailing metals prices could impact our ability to issue securities on acceptable terms, as could our credit ratings. Moody’s and S&P rate our long-term debt Baa3 and BBB-, respectively. Changes in our ratings could affect the trading prices of our securities and our cost of capital. If we were to borrow under our Credit Facility, the applicable interest rate on the amounts borrowed would be based, in part, on our credit ratings at the time. The key financial covenant, which was amended in the fourth quarter 2015, in the Credit Facility (undrawn as at December 31, 2017) requires Barrick to maintain a net debt to total capitalization ratio, as defined in the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 148 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

agreement, of 0.60:1 or lower (Barrick’s net debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.27:1 as at December 31, 2017).

The following table outlines the expected maturity of our significant financial assets and liabilities into relevant maturity groupings based on the remaining period from

the balance sheet date to the contractual maturity date. As the amounts presented in the table are the contractual undiscounted cash flows, these balances may not agree with the amounts disclosed in the balance sheet.

As at December 31, 2017  (in $ millions)	Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,234		$—		$—		$—		$2,234
Accounts receivable		239		—		—		—		239
Derivative assets		2		1		—		—		3
Trade and other payables		1,059		—		—		—		1,059
Debt		59		311		975		5,111		6,456
Derivative liabilities		30		2		—		—		32
Other liabilities		30		231		64		186		511
As at December 31, 2016  (in $ millions)		Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Cash and equivalents		$2,389		$—		$—		$—		$2,389
Accounts receivable		249		—		—		—		249
Derivative assets		1		1		—		—		2
Trade and other payables		1,084		—		—		—		1,084
Debt		143		533		997		6,316		7,989
Derivative liabilities		51		27		—		—		78
Other liabilities		42		51		3		120		216

d) Capital Risk Management

Our objective when managing capital is to provide value for shareholders by maintaining an optimal short-term and long-term capital structure in order to reduce the overall cost of capital while preserving our ability to continue as a going concern. Our capital management objectives are to safeguard our ability to support our operating requirements on an ongoing basis, continue the development and exploration of our mineral properties and support any expansion plans. Our objectives are also to ensure that we maintain a strong balance sheet and optimize the use of debt and equity to support our business and provide financial flexibility in order to maximize shareholder value. We define capital as total debt less cash and equivalents and it is managed by management subject to approved policies and limits by the Board of Directors. We have no significant financial covenants or capital requirements with our lenders or other parties other than what is discussed under liquidity risk in note 28.

29 > OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

	As at  December 31, 2017		As at December 31, 2016
Deposit on Pascua-Lama silver  sale agreement		$805		$749
Deposit on Pueblo Viejo gold and  silver streaming agreement		459		499
Long-term income tax payable		259		—
Derivative liabilities (note 25f)		2		28
Provision for offsite remediation		45		48
Other		174		137
		$1,744		$1,461

Silver Sale Agreement

Our silver sale agreement with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (“Wheaton”) (formerly Silver Wheaton Corp.) requires us to deliver 25 percent of the life of mine silver production from the Pascua-Lama project and 100 percent of silver production from the Lagunas Norte, Pierina and Veladero mines (“South American mines”) until March 31, 2018. In return, we were entitled to an upfront cash payment of $625 million payable over three years from the date of the agreement, as well as ongoing payments in cash of the lesser of $3.90 (subject to an annual inflation adjustment of 1 percent starting three years after project completion at Pascua-Lama) and the prevailing market price for each ounce of silver delivered under the agreement. An imputed interest expense is being recorded on the liability at the rate implicit in the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 149 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

agreement. The liability plus imputed interest will be amortized based on the difference between the effective contract price for silver and the amount of the ongoing cash payment per ounce of silver delivered under the agreement.

Gold and Silver Streaming Agreement

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

Under the terms of the agreement, Barrick will sell gold and silver to Royal Gold equivalent to:

· 7.5 percent of Barrick’s interest in the gold produced at Pueblo Viejo until 990,000 ounces of gold have been delivered, and 3.75 percent thereafter.

· 75 percent of Barrick’s interest in the silver produced at Pueblo Viejo until 50 million ounces have been delivered, and 37.5 percent thereafter. Silver will be delivered based on a fixed recovery rate of 70 percent. Silver above this recovery rate is not subject to the stream.

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

30 > DEFERRED INCOME TAXES

Recognition and Measurement

We record deferred income tax assets and liabilities where temporary differences exist between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities in our balance sheet and their tax bases. The measurement and recognition of deferred income tax assets and liabilities takes into account: substantively enacted rates that will apply when temporary differences reverse; interpretations of relevant tax legislation; estimates of the tax bases of assets and liabilities; and the deductibility of expenditures for income

tax purposes. In addition, the measurement and recognition of deferred tax assets takes into account tax planning strategies. We recognize the effect of changes in our assessment of these estimates and factors when they occur. Changes in deferred income tax assets and liabilities are allocated between net income, other comprehensive income, and goodwill based on the source of the change.

Current income taxes of $239 million and deferred income taxes of $155 million have been provided on the undistributed earnings of certain foreign subsidiaries. Deferred income taxes have not been provided on the undistributed earnings of all other foreign subsidiaries for which we are able to control the timing of the remittance, and it is probable that there will be no remittance in the foreseeable future. These undistributed earnings amounted to $3,916 million as at December 31, 2017.

Sources of Deferred Income Tax Assets and Liabilities

	As at December 31, 2017			As at  December  31, 2016
Deferred tax assets
Tax loss carry forwards		$926		$735
Environmental rehabilitation		594		639
Property, plant and equipment		175		273
Post-retirement benefit obligations  and other employee benefits		49		47
Accrued interest payable		40		75
Other working capital		23		54
Derivative instruments		74		89
Other		21		41
		$1,902		$1,953
Deferred tax liabilities
Property, plant and equipment		(1,571	)	(1,963)
Inventory		(507	)	(533)
		($176	)	($543)
Classification:
Non-current assets		$1,069		$977
Non-current liabilities		(1,245	)	(1,520)
		($176	)	($543)

The deferred tax asset of $1,069 million includes $1,064 million expected to be realized in more than one year. The deferred tax liability of $1,245 million includes $1,228 million expected to be realized in more than one year.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 150 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Expiry Dates of Tax Losses

	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022+		No expiry date		Total
Non-capital tax losses1
Canada		$—		$—		$—		$—		$2,093		$—		$2,093
Argentina		—		—		—		271		—		—		271
Barbados		4,727		922		217		13		735		—		6,614
Chile		—		—		—		—		—		1,052		1,052
Tanzania		—		—		—		—		—		1,756		1,756
Zambia		115		—		—		12		404		—		531
Other		7		—		—		—		—		568		575
		$4,849		$922		$217		$296		$3,232		$3,376		$12,892

¹ Represents the gross amount of tax loss carry forwards translated at closing exchange rates at December 31, 2017.

The non-capital tax losses include $9,153 million of losses which are not recognized in deferred tax assets. Of these, $4,843 million expire in 2018, $922 million expire in 2019, $217 million expire in 2020, $296 million expire in 2021, $1,009 million expire in 2022 or later, and $1,866 million have no expiry date.

Recognition of Deferred Tax Assets

We recognize deferred tax assets taking into account the effects of local tax law. Deferred tax assets are fully recognized when we conclude that sufficient positive evidence exists to demonstrate that it is probable that a deferred tax asset will be realized. The main factors considered are:

· Historic and expected future levels of taxable income;

· Tax plans that affect whether tax assets can be realized; and

· The nature, amount and expected timing of reversal of taxable temporary differences.

Levels of future income are mainly affected by: market gold, copper and silver prices; forecasted future costs and expenses to produce gold and copper reserves; quantities of proven and probable gold and copper reserves; market interest rates; and foreign currency exchange rates. If these factors or other circumstances change, we record an adjustment to the recognition of deferred tax assets to reflect our latest assessment of the amount of deferred tax assets that is probable will be realized.

A deferred income tax asset totaling $661 million (December 31, 2016: $569 million) has been recorded in Canada. This deferred tax asset primarily arose from derivative realized losses, finance costs, and general and administrative expenses. A deferred tax asset totaling $98 million (December 31, 2016: $126 million) has been recorded in a foreign subsidiary. This deferred tax asset primarily arose from a realized loss on internal restructuring of subsidiary corporations. Projections of various sources of income support the conclusion that the realizability of these deferred tax assets is probable and

consequently, we have fully recognized these deferred tax assets.

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized

	As at December 31, 2017		As at December   31, 2016
Australia		$158	$162
Canada		388	377
United States		—	115
Chile		993	890
Argentina		515	599
Barbados		66	66
Tanzania		209	183
Zambia		50	151
Saudi Arabia		70	70
		$2,449	$2,613

Deferred Tax Assets Not Recognized relate to: non-capital loss carry forwards of $690 million (2016: $638 million), capital loss carry forwards with no expiry date of $452 million (2016: $440 million), US AMT credits of $nil (2016: $113 million) and other deductible temporary differences with no expiry date of $1,307 million (2016: $1,422 million).

Source of Changes in Deferred Tax Balances
For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Temporary differences
Property, plant and equipment		$295	($297)
Environmental rehabilitation		(45)	79
Tax loss carry forwards		191	259
Inventory		26	(94)
Derivatives		(16)	(16)
Other		(84)	39
		$367	($30)
Intraperiod allocation to:
Income from continuing operations before income taxes		($106)	($8)
Cerro Casale disposition		469	—
Veladero disposition		16	—
OCI		(12)	(22)
		$367	($30)
Income Tax Related Contingent Liabilities
	2017		2016
At January 1		$128	$61
Net additions based on uncertain tax positions related to prior years		178	70
Reductions for tax positions of prior years		—	(3)
At December 311		$306	$128

¹ If reversed, the total amount of $306 million would be recognized as a benefit to income taxes on the income statement, and therefore would impact the reported effective tax rate.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 151 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Tax Years Still Under Examination
Canada	2015-2017
United States	2017
Dominican Republic	2013-2017
Peru	2009, 2011-2017
Chile	2013-2017
Argentina	2011-2017
Australia	2013-2017
Papua New Guinea	2006-2017
Saudi Arabia	2007-2017
Tanzania	All years open
Zambia	2010-2017

31 > CAPITAL STOCK

Authorized Capital Stock

Our authorized capital stock includes an unlimited number of common shares (issued 1,166,577,478 common shares); an unlimited number of first preferred shares issuable in series (the first series is designated

the “First Preferred Shares, Series A” and consists of 10,000,000 first preferred shares (issued nil); the second series is designated as the “First Preferred Shares, Series B” and consists of 10,000,000 first preferred shares (issued nil); and the third series is designated as the “First Preferred Shares, Series C Special Voting Share” and consists of 1 Special Voting Share (issued nil)); and an unlimited number of second preferred shares issuable in series (the first series is designated as the “Second Preferred Shares, Series A” and consists of 15,000,000 second preferred shares (issued nil)). Our common shares have no par value.

Dividends

In 2017, we declared and paid dividends in US dollars totaling $125 million (2016: $86 million).

The Company’s dividend reinvestment plan resulted in $16 million (2016: $8 million) reinvested into the Company.

32 > NON-CONTROLLING INTERESTS

a) Non-Controlling Interests Continuity

	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia			Cerro Casale			Other			Total
NCI in subsidiary at December 31, 2017		40%		36.1	%		25	%		Various
At January 1, 2016		$1,232		$677			$318			$50			$2,277
Share of income (loss)		174		34			(1	)		(1	)		206
Cash contributed		—		—			2			68			70
Disbursements		(95)		(7	)		—			(73	)		(175	)
At December 31, 2016		$1,311		$704			$319			$44			$2,378
Share of income (loss)		118		(211	)		173			(2	)		78
Cash contributed		—		—			1			12			13
Decrease in non-controlling interest		—		—			(493	)		—			(493	)
Disbursements		(139)		(13	)		—			(43	)		(195	)
At December 31, 2017		$1,290		$480			$—			$11			$1,781

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 152 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

b) Summarized Financial Information on Subsidiaries with Material Non-Controlling Interests

Summarized Balance Sheets

	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia
	As at December   31, 2017	As at December   31, 2016	As at December   31, 2017	As at December  31, 2016
Current assets	$488	$833	$464	$673
Non-current assets	3,489	3,703	1,333	1,725
Total assets	$3,977	$4,536	$1,797	$2,398
Current liabilities	907	1,357	212	71
Non-current liabilities	248	603	280	381
Total liabilities	$1,155	$1,960	$492	$452
Summarized Statements of Income
	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017	2016	2017	2016
Revenue	$1,417	$1,548	$751	$1,045
Income (loss) from continuing operations after tax	293	810	(630)	81
Other comprehensive income (loss)	—	—	—	—
Total comprehensive income (loss)	$293	$810	($630)	$81
Dividends paid to NCI	$—	$—	$13	$7
Summarized Statements of Cash Flows
	Pueblo Viejo		Acacia
For the years ended December 31	2017	2016	2017	2016
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	$283	$602	($15)	$324
Net cash used in investing activities	(112)	(54)	(160)	(190)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(539)	(350)	(62)	(49)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	($368)	$198	($237)	$85

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 153 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

33 > REMUNERATION OF KEY MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL

Key management personnel include the members of the Board of Directors and the executive leadership team. Compensation for key management personnel (including Directors) was as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Salaries and short-term employee benefits1		$20		$19
Post-employment benefits2		3		2
Share-based payments and other3		12		17
		$35		$38

¹ Includes annual salary and annual short-term incentives/other bonuses earned in the year.

² Represents Company contributions to retirement savings plans.

³ Relates to stock option, RSU, PGSU and PRSU grants and other compensation.

34 > STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

a)    Global Employee Share Plan (GESP)

In 2016, Barrick launched a Global Employee Share Plan. This is a plan awarded to all eligible employees. During 2017, Barrick contributed and expensed $9 million to this plan.

b)    Restricted Share Units (RSUs) and Deferred Share Units (DSUs)

Under our RSU plan, selected employees are granted RSUs where each RSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. RSUs generally vest from two-and-a-half years to three years and are settled in cash upon vesting. Additional RSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares over the vesting period.

Compensation expense for RSUs incorporates an expected forfeiture rate. The expected forfeiture rate is estimated based on historical forfeiture rates and expectations of future forfeiture rates. We make adjustments if the actual forfeiture rate differs from the expected rate. At December 31, 2017, the weighted average remaining contractual life of RSUs was 1.19 years (2016: 1.09 ).

Compensation expense for RSUs was a $42 million charge to earnings in 2017 (2016: $60 million) and is presented as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration, consistent with the classification of other elements of compensation expense for those employees who had RSUs.

Under our DSU plan, Directors must receive a specified portion of their basic annual retainer in the form of DSUs, with the option to elect to receive 100% of such retainer in DSUs. Officers may also elect to receive a portion or all of their incentive compensation in the form of DSUs. Each DSU has the same value as one Barrick common share. DSUs must be retained until the Director or officer leaves the Board or Barrick, at which time the cash value of the DSUs will be paid out. Additional DSUs are credited to reflect dividends paid on Barrick common shares. DSUs are recorded at fair value on the grant date and are

adjusted for changes in fair value. The fair value of amounts granted each period together with changes in fair value are expensed.

DSU and RSU Activity

	DSUs			Fair value			RSUs			Fair value
At January 1, 2016		465			$3.5			6,627			$24.6
Settled for cash		(26	)		(0.4	)		(1,102	)		(22.7	)
Forfeited		—			—			(2,952	)		(46.3	)
Granted		134			2.2			3,836			55.0
Credits for dividends		—			—			43			0.7
Change in value		—			3.8			—			47.3
At December 31, 2016		573			$9.2			6,452			$58.6
Settled for cash		—			—			(3,610	)		(62.5	)
Forfeited		—			—			(121	)		(2.3	)
Granted		152			2.5			1,760			32.7
Credits for dividends		—			—			56			0.9
Change in value		—			(0.1	)		—			10.3
At December 31, 2017		725			$11.6			4,537			$37.7

At December 31, 2017, Acacia Mining plc had $nil of DSUs outstanding (2016: $1 million) and $2 million of RSUs outstanding (2016: $3 million).

c)    Performance Restricted Share Units (PRSUs)

In 2008, Barrick launched a PRSU plan. Under this plan, selected employees are granted PRSUs, where each PRSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. At December 31, 2017, no units were outstanding (2016: 489 thousand units, fair value $6 million).

At December 31, 2017, Acacia Mining plc had $nil of PRSUs outstanding (2016: $8 million).

d)    Performance Granted Share Units (PGSUs)

In 2014, Barrick launched a PGSU plan. Under this plan, selected employees are granted PGSUs, where each PGSU has a value equal to one Barrick common share. At December 31, 2017, 2,174 thousand units had been granted at a fair value of $14 million (2016: 1,536 thousand units at a value of $11 million).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 154 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

e)    Employee Share Purchase Plan (ESPP)

In 2008, Barrick launched an Employee Share Purchase Plan. This plan enables Barrick employees to purchase Company shares through payroll deduction. During 2017, Barrick contributed and expensed $0.4 million to this plan (2016: $0.3 million).

f)    Stock Options

Under Barrick’s stock option plan, certain officers and key employees of the Corporation may purchase common shares at an exercise price that is equal to the closing share price on the day before the grant of the option. The grant date is the date when the details of the award, including the number of options granted by individual and the exercise price, are approved. Stock options vest evenly over four years, beginning in the year after granting. Options are exercisable over seven years. At

December 31, 2017, 1.0 million (2016: 2.1 million) stock options were outstanding.

Compensation expense for stock options was $nil in 2017 (2016: $nil ), and is presented as a component of corporate administration and operating segment administration, consistent with the classification of other elements of compensation expense for those employees who had stock options. The recognition of compensation expense for stock options had no impact on earnings per share for 2017 and 2016.

Total intrinsic value relating to options exercised in 2017 was $nil (2016: $nil).

Employee Stock Option Activity (Number of Shares in Millions)

	2017					2016
	Shares			Average Price		Shares			Average Price
C$ options
At January 1		0.3			$13		0.3			$13
Granted		—			—		—			—
Cancelled/expired		—			—		—			—
At December 31		0.3			$13		0.3			$13
US$ options
At January 1		1.8			$42		2.6			$42
Forfeited		(0.7	)		40		(0.4	)		45
Cancelled/expired		(0.4	)		45		(0.4	)		39
At December 31		0.7			$40		1.8			$42

Stock Options Outstanding (Number of Shares in Millions)

	Outstanding								Exercisable
Range of exercise prices	Shares		Average price		Average life (years)		Intrinsic value1 ($ millions)		Shares		Average price		Intrinsic value1 ($ millions)
C$ options
$  9 - $ 17		0.2		$10		4.6		$2		0.1		$10		$1
$  18 - $ 21		0.1		18		2.6		—		0.1		18		—
		0.3		$13		3.9		$2		0.2		$14		$1
US$ options
$  32 - $ 41		0.4		$32		2.0		$—		0.4		$33		$—
$  42 - $ 55		0.3		49		1.0		—		0.3		49		—
		0.7		$40		1.5		$—		0.7		$40		$—

1 Based on the closing market share price on December 31, 2017 of C $18.18 and US $14.47.

As at December 31, 2017, there was $nil (2016: $0.1 million) of total unrecognized compensation cost relating to unvested stock options. We expect to recognize this cost over a weighted average period of 1 year (2016: 1 year).

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 155 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

35 > POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Barrick operates various post-employment plans, including both defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans and other post-retirement plans. The table below outlines where the Company’s post-employment amounts and activity are included in the financial statements:

For the years ended December 31	2017		2016
Balance sheet obligations for:
Defined pension benefits	$	42	$	66
Other post-retirement benefits		6		6
Liability in the balance sheet	$	48	$	72
Income statement charge included  income statement for:
Defined pension benefits	$	1	$	4
Other post-retirement benefits		—		—
	$	1	$	4
Measurements for:
Defined pension benefits	$	23	$	11
Other post-retirement benefits		—		—
	$	23	$	11

The amounts recognized in the balance sheet are determined as follows:

For the years ended December 31	2017	2016
Present value of funded obligations	$122	$198
Fair value of plan assets	(134)	(191)
(Surplus) deficit of funded plans	($12)	$7
Present value of unfunded obligations	54	59
Total deficit of defined benefit pension  plans	$42	$66
Impact of minimum funding requirement/  asset ceiling	—	—
Liability in the balance sheet	$42	$66

a)    Defined Benefit Pension Plans

We have qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover certain of our former United States and Canadian employees and provide benefits based on an employee’s years of service. The plans operate under similar regulatory frameworks and generally face similar risks. The majority of benefit payments are from trustee-administered funds; however, there are also a number of unfunded plans where the Company meets the benefit payment obligation as it falls due. Plan assets held in trust are governed by local regulations and practice in each country. Responsibility for governance of the plans - overseeing all aspects of the plans including investment decisions and contribution schedules - lies with the Company. We have set up pension committees to assist in the management of the plans and have also appointed experienced independent professional experts such as actuaries, custodians and trustees.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 156 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The significant actuarial assumptions were as follows:

As at December 31	Pension Plans 2017		Other Post- Retirement Benefits 2017		Pension Plans 2016		Other Post- Retirement Benefits 2016
Discount rate		2.90-3.95%		3.75%		2.10-3.90%		3.70%

b)    Other Post-Retirement Benefits

We provide post-retirement medical, dental, and life insurance benefits to certain employees in the US. All of these plans are unfunded. The weighted average duration of the defined benefit obligation is 10 years (2016: 10 years).

	Less than a year		Between 1-2 years		Between 2-5 years		Over 5 years		Total
Pension benefits		$18		$19		$54		$313		$404
Other post-retirement benefits		1		1		2		6		10
At December 31, 2016		$19		$20		$56		$319		$414
Pension benefits		14		14		39		200		267
Other post-retirement benefits		1		1		2		5		9
At December 31, 2017		$15		$15		$41		$205		$276

c)    Defined Contribution Pension Plans

Certain employees take part in defined contribution employee benefit plans and we also have a retirement plan for certain officers of the Company. Our share of contributions to these plans, which is expensed in the year it is earned by the employee, was $33 million in 2017 (2016: $32 million).

36 > CONTINGENCIES

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued that may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The impact of any resulting loss from such matters affecting these financial statements and noted below may be material.

Litigation and Claims

In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel, evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

U.S. Shareholder Class Action

On May 10, 2017, Shepard Broadfoot, a purported shareholder of Barrick Gold Corporation, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against the Company, Kelvin Dushnisky, Catherine Raw, Richard Williams and Jorge Palmes. The complaint asserted claims against the defendants arising from allegedly false and misleading statements concerning production estimates and environmental risks at the Veladero mine, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2017, a second and substantially identical purported class action complaint was filed in the SDNY. On October 4, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A briefing schedule has been set by the Court, and the plaintiffs’ amended

consolidated complaint was filed on December 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 2, 2018. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Proposed Canadian Securities Class Actions

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

The first Ontario and Alberta actions were commenced by Statement of Claim on April 15 and 17, 2014, respectively. The same law firm acts for the plaintiffs in these two proceedings, and the Statements of Claim were largely identical. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky and Ammar Al-Joundi were also named as defendants in the two actions. Both actions purported to be on behalf of anyone who, during the period from May 7, 2009 to May 23, 2013, purchased Barrick securities in Canada. Both actions sought $4.3 billion in general damages and $350

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 157 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

million in special damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The first Ontario action was subsequently consolidated with the fourth Ontario action, as discussed below. The first Alberta action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on June 26, 2015.

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

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

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

The Saskatchewan action was commenced by Statement of Claim on May 26, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver were also named as defendants. This action purported to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013, and sought $6 billion in damages for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The action was discontinued by plaintiffs’ counsel on December 19, 2016.

The fourth Ontario action was commenced on September 5, 2014. Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver are also named as defendants. This action purports to be on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7,

2009 to November 1, 2013 in Canada, and seeks $3 billion in damages plus an unspecified amount for alleged misrepresentations in the Company’s public disclosure. The Statement of Claim was amended on October 20, 2014, to include two additional law firms, one of which was acting as counsel in the first Ontario action referred to above and the other of which no longer exists. In January 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel delivered a consolidated statement of claim in this action.

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

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

The Company intends to vigorously defend all of the proposed Canadian securities class actions. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from any of the proposed class actions, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions

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

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 158 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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

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

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

On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against CMN into a single

proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the Original Resolution in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the Project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.

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

In light of the SMA’s decision, the Company has reversed the estimated amount previously recorded for any additional proposed administrative fines in this matter. In addition, the Company has reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources and recorded a pre-tax impairment of $429 million. See note 21 of these Financial Statements for information related to impairment losses arising from this matter.

Pascua-Lama – Constitutional Protection Action

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

On December 4, 2015, a constitutional protection action was filed in the Court of Appeals of Santiago, Chile by a group of local farmers and other individuals against CMN and Sernageomin in order to challenge the Temporary Closure Plan and the resolution that approved it. The plaintiffs asserted that the Temporary Closure Plan cannot be approved until the water management system for the Project has been completed in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit. On August 12, 2016, the court ruled in favor of CMN and Sernageomin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Temporary Closure Plan for the Pascua-Lama project. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the Chilean Supreme Court and on March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court vacated the Temporary Closure Plan, ruling that additional information regarding the SMA regulatory sanction process was required from the environmental regulator, and ordering Sernageomin to issue a new resolution on

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 159 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

the Temporary Closure Plan after receiving such information. On August 29, 2017, Sernageomin issued a new resolution in which it reapproved the Temporary Closure Plan as originally issued. This approval is valid through September 2019.

Pascua-Lama – Water Quality Review

CMN initiated a review of the baseline water quality of the Rio Estrecho in August 2013 as required by a July 15, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals of Copiapo, Chile. The purpose of the review was to establish whether the water quality baseline has changed since the Pascua-Lama project received its environmental approval in February 2006 and, if so, to require CMN to adopt the appropriate corrective measures. As a result of that study, CMN requested certain modifications to its environmental permit water quality requirements. On June 6, 2016, the responsible agency approved a partial amendment of the environmental permit to better reflect the water quality baseline from 2009. That approval was appealed by certain water users and indigenous residents of the Huasco Valley. On October 19, 2016, the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over claims of this nature, voted to uphold the permit amendments. On January 27, 2017, the Environmental Court agreed to consider an appeal of the Chilean Committee’s decision brought by CMN and the water users and indigenous residents. A hearing took place on July 25, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the water users withdrew their appeal. The Environmental Court dismissed that appeal on January 5, 2018. A decision of the Environmental Court on the remaining appeals is still pending. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution

San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction Proceeding

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

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

On March 11, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority announced its intention to impose an administrative fine against MAG in connection with the solution release. MAG was formally notified of this decision on March 15, 2016. On April 6, 2016, MAG sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but did not challenge the amount of the administrative fine. On April 14, 2016, in accordance with local requirements, MAG paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentinean peso/$ exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On December 29, 2016, the request for reconsideration was rejected by the Provincial mining authority. On July 11, 2017, the San Juan government rejected MAG’s final administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts. MAG has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident as required by the San Juan mining authority.

Criminal Matters

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

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

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 160 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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

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

On November 27, 2017, the federal judge indicted four former federal government officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s national glacier legislation including the methodology used to complete the national inventory of glaciers, a portion of which was published on October 3, 2016, and also requiring the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development to determine if there has been any environmental damage to glaciers since the glacier law went into effect in light of his decision. On December 12, 2017, the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to audit environmental damage to glaciers, as this is the responsibility of the Provincial authorities.

No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from these matters, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

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

Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding

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

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

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

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

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 161 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Veladero Cyanide Leaching Process – Civil Action

On December 15, 2016, MAG was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the valley leach facility (“VLF”). In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAG cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAG implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAG replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution incident described below (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution”). The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Veladero - March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution

Regulatory Infringement Proceeding and Temporary Suspension of Addition of Cyanide

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

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

On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAG as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. The Company filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding

into a single proceeding against MAG encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAG of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.

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

Provincial Amparo Action

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

The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution - Federal Amparo Action” below). No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Federal Amparo Action

On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident. The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 162 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

activities at the Veladero mine. MAG submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAG also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial Court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court and a decision on the matter is pending. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Argentine Glacier Legislation and Constitutional Litigation

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

The constitutionality of the federal glacier law is the subject of a challenge before the National Supreme Court of Argentina, which has not yet ruled on the issue. On October 27, 2014, the Company submitted its response to a motion by the federal government to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the federal glacier law on

standing grounds. A decision on the motion is pending. If the federal government’s arguments with respect to standing are accepted, then the case will be dismissed. If they are not accepted, then the National Supreme Court of Argentina will proceed to hear evidence on the merits. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome and in any event the provincial audit concluded that the Company’s activities do not impact glaciers or peri-glaciers.

Pueblo Viejo – Amparo Action

In October 2014, Pueblo Viejo Dominicana Corporation (“PVDC”) received a copy of an action filed in an administrative court (the “Administrative Court”) in the Dominican Republic by Rafael Guillen Beltre (the “Petitioner”), who claims to be affiliated with the Dominican Christian Peace Organization. The action alleges that environmental contamination in the vicinity of the Pueblo Viejo mine has caused illness and affected water quality in violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Dominican Constitution and other laws. The primary relief sought in the action, which is styled as an “amparo” remedy, is the suspension of operations at the Pueblo Viejo mine as well as other mining projects in the area until an investigation into the alleged environmental contamination has been completed by the relevant governmental authorities. On November 21, 2014, the Administrative Court granted PVDC’s motion to remand the matter to a trial court in the Municipality of Cotuí (the “Trial Court”) on procedural grounds. On June 25, 2015, the Trial Court rejected the Petitioner’s amparo action, finding that the Petitioner failed to produce evidence to support his allegations. The Petitioner appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Constitutional Court on July 21, 2015. On July 28, 2015, PVDC filed a motion to challenge the timeliness of this appeal as it was submitted after the expiration of the applicable filing deadline. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Perilla Complaint

In 2009, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. were purportedly served in Ontario with a complaint filed in November 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Boac (the “Court”), on the Philippine island of Marinduque, on behalf of two named individuals and purportedly on behalf of the approximately 200,000 residents of Marinduque. The complaint alleges injury to the economy and the ecology of Marinduque as a result of the discharge of mine tailings from the Marcopper mine into Calancan Bay, the Boac River, and the Mogpog River. The plaintiffs are claiming for abatement of a public nuisance allegedly caused by the tailings discharge and for nominal damages for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In June 2010,

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 163 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. filed a motion to have the Court resolve their unresolved motions to dismiss before considering the plaintiffs’ motion to admit an amended complaint and also filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to admit on the same basis. By Order dated November 9, 2011 the Court granted a motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs. It is not known when these motions or the outstanding motions to dismiss will be decided by the Court. To date neither the plaintiffs nor the Company has advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this complaint, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Writ of Kalikasan

In February 2011, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (the “Supreme Court”) in Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy versus Placer Dome Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation (the “Petitioners”). In March 2011, the Supreme Court issued an En Banc Resolution and Writ of Kalikasan, directed service of summons on Placer Dome Inc. and the Company, ordered Placer Dome Inc. and the Company to make a verified return of the Writ with ten (10) days of service and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for hearing. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome Inc. violated the petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, among other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam break, the 1996 Boac River tailings spill and failure of Marcopper to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. The petitioners have pleaded that the Company is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome Inc., which was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times, and is seeking orders requiring the Company to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. The petitioners purported to serve the Company in March 2011, following which the Company filed an Urgent Motion For Ruling on Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”) pursuant to which the Petition was filed, as well as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the Company. By resolution dated October 12, 2011 the Court of Appeals granted the Petitioners’ October 4, 2011 motion to suspend proceedings to permit the Petitioners to explore the possibility of a settlement. The proceedings are suspended pending further notice from the Petitioners. In November 2011, two local governments, or “baranguays” (Baranguay San Antonio and Baranguay Lobo) filed a motion with the Supreme Court seeking intervenor status with the intention of seeking a dismissal of the proceedings. No decision has

as yet been issued with respect to the Urgent Motion for Ruling on Jurisdiction, the motion for intervention, or certain other matters before the Supreme Court. The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously.

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

No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Cerro Casale

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

The Cerro Casale environmental permit was challenged in 2013 by local and indigenous community members for alleged procedural deficiencies in the community consultation process and other aspects of the evaluation of the project by the Chilean environmental authority. The challenge was brought before the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment, which has jurisdiction over procedural claims of this nature. On January 19, 2015, the Committee of Ministers for the

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 164 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Environment rejected the majority of claims made against the Cerro Casale environmental permit while also imposing new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the project may extract for mining operations. The Company appealed this decision to the Environmental Court, which held a hearing on August 27, 2015. On June 12, 2017, the Environmental Court ordered the Chilean Committee of Ministers for the Environment to review its January 9, 2015 decision to impose new limitations on the volume of groundwater that the Cerro Casale project may extract for mining operations. The Company and the Chilean environmental authority appealed this decision to the Chilean Supreme Court.

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

Acacia Mining plc - Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessments

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

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

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

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

See note 12 of these Financial Statements for information related to income tax expenses recorded with respect to these matters.

Acacia Mining plc - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes

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

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

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

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

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 165 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

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

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

Acacia has been looking to address all issues in respect of the Ban along with other ongoing disputes through dialogue with the Tanzanian Government. Acacia remains of the view that a negotiated resolution is the preferable outcome to the current disputes and Acacia will continue to work to achieve this. During the third

quarter of 2017, Barrick and the Government of Tanzania engaged in discussions for the potential resolution of the disputes. Acacia did not participate directly in these discussions as the Government of Tanzania had informed Barrick that it wished to continue dialogue solely with Barrick.

On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the Government of Tanzania on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania also agreed to form a working group that will focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the Government of Tanzania include (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to manage Acacia’s Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara mines and all future operations in the country with key officers located in Tanzania and Tanzanian representation on the board of directors; (ii) maximization of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the Government’s share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the Government of Tanzania, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the Government of Tanzania are also reviewing the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Negotiations concerning the proposed framework remain ongoing and the definitive terms of any final proposal for the implementation of the framework remain outstanding. Such terms would be subject to review and approval by Acacia.

See note 12 of these Financial Statements for information related to income tax expenses recorded with respect to these matters and note 21 of these Financial Statements for impairment losses arising from these matters.

BARRICK YEAR-END 2017 166 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

HEAD OFFICE

Barrick Gold Corporation

Brookfield Place

TD Canada Trust Tower

161 Bay Street, Suite 3700

Toronto, Ontario M5J 2S1

Telephone: +1 416 861-9911

Toll-free: 1-800-720-7415

Fax: +1 416 861-2492

Email: investor@barrick.com

Website: www.barrick.com

SHARES LISTED

ABX        The New York Stock Exchange

                The Toronto Stock Exchange

INVESTOR CONTACT

Daniel Oh

Senior Vice President

Investor Engagement and Governance

Telephone: +1 416 307-7474

Email: doh@barrick.com

TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS

AST Trust Company (Canada)

P.O. Box 700, Postal Station B

Montreal, Quebec H3B 3K3

or

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC

6201 – 15 Avenue

Brooklyn, New York 11219

Telephone: 1-800-387-0825

Fax: 1-888-249-6189

Email: inquiries@astfinancial.com

Website: www.astfinancial.com

MEDIA CONTACT

Andy Lloyd

Senior Vice President

Communications

Telephone: +1 416 307-7414

Email: alloyd@barrick.com

Cautionary Statement on Forward-Looking Information

Certain information contained or incorporated by reference in this press release, including any information as to our strategy, projects, plans, or future financial or operating performance, constitutes “forward-looking statements”. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “target”, “plan”, “objective”, “assume”, “aspire”, “intend”, “project”, “pursue”, “goal”, “continue”, “budget”, “estimate”, “potential”, “may”, “will”, “can”, “should”, “could”, “would” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. In particular, this press release contains forward-looking statements including, without limitation, with respect to: (i) Barrick’s forward-looking production guidance; (ii) estimates of future cost of sales per ounce for gold and per pound for copper, all-in-sustaining costs per ounce/pound, cash costs per ounce, and C1 cash costs per pound; (iii) cash flow forecasts; (iv) projected capital, operating, and exploration expenditures; (v) Barrick’s expectations regarding the potential benefits resulting from a new partnership between Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”) and the Government of Tanzania; (vi) targeted debt and cost reductions; (vii) mine life and production rates; (viii) potential mineralization and metal or mineral recoveries; (ix) savings from our improved capital management program; (x) Barrick’s Best-in-Class program (including potential improvements to financial and operating performance that may result from certain Best-in-Class initiatives); (xi) the timing and results of the prefeasibility study at Pascua-Lama; (xii) the potential to identify new reserves and resources; (xiii) our pipeline of high confidence projects at or near existing operations; (xiv) the extension of mine life at Lagunas Norte; (xv) the benefits of unifying the Cortez and Goldstrike operations; (xvi) the potential impact and benefits of removing current constraints on processing at Turquoise Ridge; (xvii) the potential impact and benefits of Barrick’s ongoing digital transformation; (xviii) our ability to convert resources into reserves; (xix) asset sales, joint ventures, and partnerships; and (xx) expectations regarding future price assumptions, financial performance, and other outlook or guidance.

Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions including material estimates and assumptions related to the factors set forth below that, while considered reasonable by the Company as at the date of this press release in light of management’s experience and perception of current conditions and expected developments, are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Known and unknown factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements and information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, copper, or certain other commodities (such as silver, diesel fuel, natural gas, and electricity); the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; changes in mineral production performance, exploitation, and exploration successes; risks associated with the fact that certain Best-in-Class initiatives are still in the early stages of evaluation, and additional engineering and other analysis is required to fully assess their impact; risks associated with the ongoing implementation of Barrick’s digital transformation initiative, and the ability of the projects under this initiative to meet the Company’s capital allocation objectives; the duration of the Tanzanian ban on mineral concentrate exports; the ultimate terms of any definitive agreement between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania to resolve a dispute relating to the imposition of the concentrate export ban and allegations by the Government of Tanzania that Acacia under-declared the metal content of concentrate exports from Tanzania; the status of certain tax re-assessments by the Tanzanian government; the manner in which amendments to the 2010 Mining Act (Tanzania) increasing the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), the new Finance Act (Tanzania) imposing a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017 and the new Mining Regulations announced by Government of Tanzania in January 2018 will be implemented and the impact of these and other legislative changes on Acacia; whether Acacia will approve the terms of any final agreement reached between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania with respect to the dispute between Acacia and the Government of Tanzania; the benefits expected from recent transactions being realized; diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges associated with the construction of capital projects; operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities, including geotechnical challenges and disruptions in the maintenance or provision of required infrastructure and information technology systems; failure to comply with environmental and health and safety laws and regulations; timing of receipt of, or failure to comply with, necessary permits and approvals; uncertainty whether some or all of the Best-in-Class initiatives, targeted investments and projects will meet the Company’s capital allocation objectives and internal hurdle rate; the impact of global liquidity and credit availability on the timing of cash flows and the values of assets and liabilities based on projected future cash flows; adverse changes in our credit ratings; the impact of inflation; fluctuations in the currency markets; changes in U.S. dollar interest rates; risks arising from holding derivative instruments; changes in national and local government legislation, taxation, controls or regulations and/

or changes in the administration of laws, policies and practices, expropriation or nationalization of property and political or economic developments in Canada, the United States, and other jurisdictions in which the Company or its affiliates do or may carry on business in the future; lack of certainty with respect to foreign legal systems, corruption and other factors that are inconsistent with the rule of law; the outcome of the appeal of the decision of Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente; damage to the Company’s reputation due to the actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, including negative publicity with respect to the Company’s handling of environmental matters or dealings with community groups, whether true or not; the possibility that future exploration results will not be consistent with the Company’s expectations; risks that exploration data may be incomplete and considerable additional work may be required to complete further evaluation, including but not limited to drilling, engineering and socioeconomic studies and investment; risk of loss due to acts of war, terrorism, sabotage and civil disturbances; litigation; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties, or over access to water, power and other required infrastructure; business opportunities that may be presented to, or pursued by, the Company; risks associated with the fact that certain of the initiatives described in this press release are still in the early stages and may not materialize; our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions or complete divestitures; risks associated with working with partners in jointly controlled assets; employee relations including loss of key employees; increased costs and physical risks, including extreme weather events and resource shortages, related to climate change; availability and increased costs associated with mining inputs and labor; and the organization of our previously held African gold operations and properties under a separate listed Company. In addition, there are risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins, flooding and gold bullion, copper cathode or gold or copper concentrate losses (and the risk of inadequate insurance, or inability to obtain insurance, to cover these risks).

Many of these uncertainties and contingencies can affect our actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, us. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. All of the forward-looking statements made in this press release are qualified by these cautionary statements. Specific reference is made to the most recent Form 40- F/Annual Information Form on file with the SEC and Canadian provincial securities regulatory authorities for a more detailed discussion of some of the factors underlying forward-looking statements and the risks that may affect Barrick’s ability to achieve the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.

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