XML 92 R44.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Contingent Liabilities [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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.

X
- Definition Contingent Liabilities [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | abx_ContingentLiabilitiesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | abx_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The disclosure of contingent liabilities. [Refer: Contingent liabilities [member]] + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Name IAS -Number 37 -IssueDate 2017-01-01 -Paragraph 86 -URI http://eifrs.ifrs.org/eifrs/XBRL?type=IAS&num=37&date=2017-03-01&anchor=para_86&doctype=Standard -URIDate 2017-03-09 + Details
Name: | ifrs-full_DisclosureOfContingentLiabilitiesExplanatory
Namespace Prefix: | ifrs-full_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration