XML 108 R44.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
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. Proposed Canadian Securities Class Actions (Pascua-Lama) Proposed securities class actions have been commenced against the Company and four of its former senior executives (Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver) in Ontario and Quebec. The proceedings pertain to the Company’s public disclosures concerning the Pascua-Lama Project. In the Ontario litigation, the Plaintiffs have alleged that Barrick made false and misleading statements to the investing public during the period from approximately July 2011 to October 2013 relating to capital cost and schedule estimates for Pascua-Lama, environmental compliance matters in Chile, as well as alleged internal control failures and certain accounting-related matters. The claim for damages is stated to be more than $3 billion. In the Quebec litigation, the Plaintiff has alleged that Barrick made misrepresentations during the period from approximately April 2011 to October 2013 concerning environmental compliance matters in Chile. An unspecified amount of damages is being sought. In both Ontario and Quebec, the proposed representative Plaintiffs brought motions seeking: (i) leave of the Court to proceed with statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pursuant to provincial securities legislation; and (ii) orders certifying the actions as class actions, and therefore allowing the proposed representative Plaintiffs to pursue statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims and other claims on behalf of the proposed classes. In the Quebec proceeding, the Superior Court of Quebec denied both motions in March 2020. The proposed representative Plaintiff appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which rendered its decision on December 19, 2022. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It granted leave to proceed as against the Company, Mr. Sokalsky and Mr. Al-Joundi in respect of a statutory secondary market claim pertaining to a statement concerning the water management system in Chile made by the Company in its Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the second quarter of 2012. The Court also granted class certification in respect of that claim. The Court denied the remainder of the appeal. As a result, as matters currently stand, the proposed representative Plaintiff can pursue a single statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who acquired Barrick shares during the period from July 26, 2012 to October 31, 2013. He cannot pursue any of the other statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims he had purported to assert, and can only pursue his claims pursuant to the primary market provisions of the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec on an individual basis rather than on behalf of other shareholders. Barrick is considering whether to seek leave to appeal from the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the Ontario proceeding, the motion for leave to proceed with statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims was originally heard in July 2019. In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed all of those claims except for one. The Court granted leave to proceed as against Barrick, Mr. Sokalsky and Mr. Al-Joundi in respect of a claim pertaining to the same statement in Barrick’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the second quarter of 2012 as is referred to above. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In February 2021, the Court of Appeal allowed the proposed representative plaintiffs’ appeal in part. The Court of Appeal set aside the Superior Court’s decision dismissing statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pertaining to the Company’s capital cost and scheduling estimates as well as to certain accounting and financial reporting issues, and remitted to the Ontario Superior Court the issue of whether leave to proceed should be granted in respect of those claims. The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court’s decision dismissing statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pertaining to certain environmental matters in Chile. On March 22, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision concerning the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed with statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pertaining to Barrick’s capital cost and schedule estimates for the Pascua-Lama project and various accounting and financial reporting matters. In its decision, the Court denied leave to proceed in respect of all but two of those claims. The Court solicited additional submissions from the parties before deciding whether to grant leave to proceed in respect of the two remaining claims. On July 18, 2022, the Court rendered a supplemental decision granting the Plaintiffs leave to proceed with the two claims in question as against Barrick, Mr. Regent and Mr. Sokalsky. The Company filed a motion with the Ontario Divisional Court for leave to appeal from the decision granting the Plaintiffs leave to proceed with those two claims. That motion was dismissed on November 29, 2022. The Plaintiffs have appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from the decision of the Superior Court to deny leave to proceed in respect of their other statutory secondary market claims. The motion for class certification in Ontario has not yet been heard. The Ontario Superior Court has indicated that it does not intend to hear that motion until after the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed has been fully determined. The Company intends to vigorously defend 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 in either Ontario or Quebec. Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions In May 2013, Compañía Minera Nevada (“CMN”), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion of the Project, received a Resolution (the “Original Resolution”) from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”) that requires CMN 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. 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, 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 Original Resolution. The Environmental Court did not annul the portion of the Original Resolution that required CMN 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 with the First Environmental Court of Antofagasta (the “Antofagasta Environmental Court”). On October 12, 2018, the Antofagasta Environmental Court issued an administrative ruling ordering review of the significant sanctions ordered by the SMA. CMN was not a party to this process. In its ruling, the Antofagasta Environmental Court rejected four of the five closure orders contained in the Revised Resolution and remanded the related environmental infringements back to the SMA for further consideration. A new resolution from the SMA with respect to the sanctions for these four infringements could include a range of potential sanctions, including additional fines, as provided in the Chilean legislation. The Antofagasta Environmental Court upheld the SMA’s decision to order the closure of the Chilean side of the Project for the fifth infringement. Following the issuance of the Revised Resolution, the Company reversed the estimated amount previously recorded for any additional proposed administrative fines in this matter. In addition, the Company reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources and recorded a pre-tax impairment of $429 million in the fourth quarter of 2017. No additional amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from the Antofagasta Environmental Court’s October 12, 2018 ruling and subsequent review by the SMA, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses and the SMA has not issued any additional proposed administrative fines. On March 14, 2019, the Chilean Supreme Court annulled the October 12, 2018 administrative decision of the Antofagasta Environmental Court on procedural grounds and remanded the case back to the Environmental Court for review by a different panel of judges. The Chilean Supreme Court did not review the merits of the Revised Resolution, which remains in effect. On September 17, 2020, the Antofagasta Environmental Court issued a ruling in which it upheld the closure order and sanctions imposed on CMN by the SMA in the Revised Resolution from January 2018. As part of its ruling, the Environmental Court also ordered the SMA to reevaluate certain environmental infringements contained in the Revised Resolution which may result in the imposition of additional fines against CMN. The Company confirmed that it will not appeal the Environmental Court’s decision, and the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project will be transitioned to closure in accordance with that ruling. On October 6, 2020, a group of local farmers challenged the Environmental Court’s decision. The challenge, which was brought before the Chilean Supreme Court, claimed that the fines imposed by the SMA were inadequate and seeks to require the SMA to issue additional and more severe sanctions against CMN. On July 12, 2022, the Chilean Supreme Court rejected that appeal and as a result, the SMA will now determine the appropriate administrative fine to be imposed on CMN with respect to two environmental infringements in accordance with the Environmental Court's decision. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the amount of the additional administrative fine to be imposed by the SMA. Veladero – Operational Incidents and Associated Proceedings Minera Andina del Sol SRL (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold SRL) (“MAS”), the joint venture company that operates the Veladero mine, is the subject of various regulatory proceedings related to operational incidents at the Veladero Valley Leach Facility (“VLF”) occurring in March 2017 (the “March 2017 incident”), September 2016 (the “September 2016 incident”) and September 2015 (the “September 2015 incident”), and involving the San Juan Provincial mining authority, the Argentine federal government, and certain residents of Jachal, Argentina. Regulatory authorities were notified following the occurrence of each of these incidents, and remediation and/or monitoring activities were undertaken as appropriate. Although the September 2015 incident resulted in the release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway, environmental monitoring conducted by MAS and an independent third party has demonstrated that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. Monitoring and inspection following the September 2016 incident and remediation and inspection following the March 2017 incidents confirmed that those incidents did not result in any long-term environmental impacts. Regulatory Proceedings and Actions San Juan Provincial Regulatory Proceedings On October 9, 2015, the San Juan Provincial mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAS for alleged violations of the Mining Code relating to the September 2015 incident. MAS was formally notified of the imposition of an administrative fine in connection with the incident on March 15, 2016. MAS sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentine peso to U.S. dollar exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. After the San Juan government rejected MAS’ 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, which is ongoing. MAS is also the subject of a consolidated provincial regulatory proceeding related to the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. MAS received notice of a resolution on December 27, 2017, 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) for both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAS paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration and an appeal with the San Juan Provincial mining authority. MAS was notified in March 2018 that the San Juan Provincial mining authority had rejected the request for reconsideration of the administrative fine. The pending appeal will be heard and decided by the Governor of San Juan. Provincial Amparo Action Following the March 2017 incident, an “amparo” protection action (the “Provincial Amparo Action”) was filed against MAS in the Jachal First Instance Court, San Juan Province (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, San Juan Province, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the mine’s leaching process. 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. The Jachal Court lifted the leaching process suspension in June 2017. The Jachal Court tried to join this proceeding with the Federal Amparo Action (as defined below), triggering a jurisdictional dispute. On December 26, 2019, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the Federal Court in connection with the Federal Amparo Action described below, meaning that the Jachal Court has retained jurisdiction over the Provincial Amparo Action and the two amparo actions were not effectively joined. The Provincial Amparo Action case file has not yet been remitted to the Jachal Court by the Supreme Court (see “Federal Amparo Action” below). Federal Amparo Action On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed an amparo protection action in the Federal Court in connection with the March 2017 incident (the “Federal Amparo Action”) seeking an order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAS 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 suspension orders described in the Provincial Amparo Action above, and challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court as well as the standing of the National Minister of Environment 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 December 26, 2019, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the Federal Court. The Company was notified on October 1, 2020, that the National Ministry of the Environment had petitioned the Federal Court to resume the proceedings following the Supreme Court’s decision that the Federal Court is competent to hear the case. The Federal Court ordered the resumption of the proceedings on February 19, 2021. On October 12, 2022, MAS received notice of the Federal Amparo Action. MAS submitted its response on October 27, 2022. The matter remains pending before the Federal Court. Civil Action On December 15, 2016, MAS was served notice of a civil action filed before the San Juan Provincial Court by certain persons allegedly living in Jachal, San Juan Province, claiming to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the VLF. The plaintiffs requested a court order that MAS cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. These claims were supplemented by new allegations that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 2017 incident. MAS replied to the lawsuit in February 2017 and it also responded to the supplemental claim and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. Criminal Matters Federal Criminal Matters A federal criminal investigation was initiated by a Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) based on the alleged failure of certain current and former federal and provincial government officials and individual directors of MAS to prevent the September 2015 incident (the “Federal Investigation”). 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 officials, ruling that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to investigate the solution release. On April 11, 2018, the federal judge indicted three former federal officials, alleging breach of duty in connection with their actions and omissions related to the failure to maintain adequate environmental controls during 2015 and the case was sent to trial. The proceeding poses no risk of conviction or liability for any of the directors of MAS. Glacier Investigation 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 officials to regulate the Veladero mine under Argentina’s glacier legislation (the “Glacier Investigation”) with regard to the September 2015 incident. On June 16, 2017, MAS submitted a motion to challenge the federal judge’s decision to assign the Glacier Investigation to himself, and to request that it be admitted as a party in order to present evidence supporting MAS. On September 14, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeals ordered the federal judge to consolidate the two investigations and clarified that MAS is not a party to the case and therefore does not have standing to seek the recusal of the federal judge, but nonetheless recognized MAS’ 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 officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s glacier legislation. The Court of Appeals confirmed the indictments and on August 6, 2018, the case was assigned to a federal trial judge. In total, six former federal officials were indicted under the Federal Investigation and the Glacier Investigation and will face trial. In 2019, one of the former federal officials, who was indicted on separate charges under both investigations, passed away and charges against him were dropped. Due to the Argentine response to Covid-19 and a procedural challenge by one of the former federal officials, the oral arguments originally scheduled for April and May 2020 in this matter have been postponed and have not yet been rescheduled. Veladero – Tax Assessment and Criminal Charges On December 26, 2017, MAS received notice of a tax assessment (the “Tax Assessment”) for 2010 and 2011, amounting to ARS 543 million (approximately $3.1 million at the prevailing exchange rate at December 31, 2022), plus interest and fines. The Tax Assessment primarily claims that certain deductions made by MAS were not properly characterized, including that (i) the interest and foreign exchange on loans borrowed between 2002 and 2006 to fund Veladero’s construction should have been classified as equity contributions, and (ii) fees paid for intercompany services were not for services related to the operation of the Veladero mine. On June 21, 2018, the Argentinean Federal Tax Authority (“AFIP”) confirmed the Tax Assessment, which MAS appealed to the Federal Tax Court on July 31, 2018. A hearing for the appeal has not yet been scheduled. The Company filed Mutual Agreement Procedure applications in Canada on December 21, 2018, and in Argentina on March 29, 2019, pursuant to the Canada-Argentina Income Tax Convention Act (the “Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty”) to escalate resolution of the Tax Assessment to the competent authority (as defined in the Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty) in an effort to seek efficient resolution of the matter. In November 2018, MAS received notice that AFIP filed criminal charges against current and former employees serving on its board of directors when the 2010 and 2011 tax returns were filed (the “Criminal Tax Case”). Hearings for the Criminal Tax Case were held between March 25 and March 27, 2019. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, which was granted in part and appealed by the prosecution. On June 2, 2021, the trial court issued a decision dismissing the Criminal Tax Case against the directors. AFIP appealed and on September 24, 2021, the Mendoza Federal Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to either indict the directors or dismiss the case against them, and ordering additional investigation by the trial court. The Criminal Tax Case was remanded to the trial court in accordance with the decision of the Mendoza Federal Court of Appeals, and the trial court has ordered additional evidence to be prepared by the court-appointed expert. On February 4, 2022, the Argentine Minister of Economy, the competent authority in this matter, issued a decision denying the application of the Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty to the Tax Assessment. MAS appealed this decision on February 18, 2022. Separately, on April 12, 2022, the trial court issued a ruling dismissing the criminal charges against the MAS directors in the Criminal Tax Case. AFIP appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals. On November 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the charges. AFIP challenged this decision before the Court of Cassation, Argentina’s highest federal criminal court below the National Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal on December 29, 2022. The matter is currently pending before the Court of Cassation. MAS’s July 2018 appeal of the Tax Assessment remains pending before the Federal Tax Court. The Company believes that the Tax Assessment and the Criminal Tax Case are without merit and intends to defend the proceedings vigorously. 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. Placer Dome Inc., which was acquired by the Company in 2006, had been a minority indirect shareholder of the Marcopper mine. 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. To date, neither the plaintiffs nor the Company have advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings and the matter has been inactive since November 2011. 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 April 2010, the Supreme Court in the Republic of the Philippines adopted new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”). The Environmental Rules purport to create a new special civil action or remedy called a “Writ of Kalikasan” available to persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation. The remedies available under this procedure are in the nature of injunctive orders preventing continued harm to the environment and orders for rehabilitation or remediation of the environment. Damages are not an available remedy under this procedure. On February 25, 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 by Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy against Placer Dome Inc. (“Placer Dome”) and the Company (the “Petition”). The Petition was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome violated the Petitioners' constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, amongst other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam breach, the 1996 Boac river tailings spill and the failure of Marcopper Mining Corporation (“Marcopper”) to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. Placer Dome was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times. The Petitioners have pleaded that Barrick is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome and are seeking orders requiring Barrick to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. On April 4, 2011, the Company filed its Return Ad Cautelam (or defence pleading) seeking the dismissal of the Petition with prejudice. Barrick also filed extensive affidavit evidence as required by the Environmental Rules. Placer Dome adopted the Company’s defence as its own. All appearances by the Company or Placer Dome in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in this matter have been by way of special and limited appearance and without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of either Court. The Company filed a motion in March 2011 challenging the constitutionality of the Environmental Rules and the jurisdiction of the Court. On October 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals decided the motion and rejected the Company’s constitutional objections. The Court also held that it has jurisdiction based on a “tentative” determination that the Company was doing business in the Philippines made exclusively on the basis of unproved allegations made by the Petitioners in the Petition, which “tentative” determination expressly does not foreclose the possibility of a contrary finding on the basis of evidence at a later date. In November 2011, the case was suspended to permit the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement. Settlement discussions ended unsuccessfully in early 2014, but the proceedings were not re-activated until March 2019 when the Court of Appeals granted the Petitioners’ motion and lifted the order suspending the proceedings. In December 2019, depositions of all of the Company’s witnesses were conducted. Petitioners’ counsel did not appear at these depositions or conduct any cross-examination of the Company’s witnesses. These transcripts now form part of the evidence in the Court record for the merits hearing and the Petitioners have foregone the opportunity to cross-examine the Company’s witnesses. Since fall 2019, the Petitioners have taken numerous steps to attempt to file additional evidence and to seek to expand the case beyond the scope of the matters pleaded in the Petition, including to alleged maintenance and structural integrity issues of Marcopper mine infrastructure. On October 27, 2020, the Province of Marinduque (the “Province”) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Petition-in-Intervention (the “Intervention Motion”). On January 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals granted the Province’s Intervention Motion and admitted the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. In the Petition-in-Intervention, the Province seeks to expand the scope of relief sought within the Writ of Kalikasan proceeding to include claims seeking rehabilitation and remediation of alleged maintenance and structural integrity issues of Marcopper mine infrastructure. On June 24, 2021, the Company filed an urgent motion asking the Court of Appeals to clarify whether its granting leave to the Province to intervene in the Petition expands the scope of issues being litigated in the proceeding. This motion is pending and has not yet been decided by the Court. On June 25, 2021, the Company filed a Return Ad Cautelam in response to the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. On November 2, 2021, the Company filed a Motion to Strike and Reply in respect of the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. In the Motion to Strike and Reply, the Company seeks to strike those portions of the Petition-in-Intervention that seek to expand the issues or seek novel and additional relief for alleged wrongdoing that is not pleaded in the Petitioners’ Writ of Kalikasan proceeding. This motion is pending and has not yet been decided by the Court. On February 17, 2021, the Province filed a Motion to Implead asking the Court of Appeals to add Marcopper as a respondent. On June 14, 2021, the Court of Appeals denied the Province’s Motion to add Marcopper as a respondent. On July 2, 2021, the Province of Marinduque filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 14, 2021 decision. This motion is pending and has not yet been decided by the Court. On December 2, 2020, the trial commenced and the trial resumed on January 27, 2021 and again on July 6, 2021, with the Petitioners calling a total of three witnesses over all three trial dates in addition to the two Petitioners (whose affidavits were accepted into evidence on agreement without the requirement to attend in person). On July 26, 2021, the Petitioners filed their Formal Offer of Evidence, which formally concludes the Petitioners’ evidence portion of the trial. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed its Comments and Opposition to the Petitioners’ Formal Offer of Evidence dated July 26, 2021. The Court has not yet resolved the outstanding issues concerning the Petitioners’ Formal Offer of Evidence. No further trial dates have been set for the Company’s evidence portion of the trial or for the hearing of the Province’s Petition-in-Intervention. On June 30, 2022 the Company filed a Motion with the Court seeking court-ordered mediation between the Company and the Province. On October 26, 2022 the Court granted the Motion. Court-annexed mediation attendances took place on November 18, 2022 and January 11, 2023 and a tentative further attendance is scheduled for February 22, 2023. The Court granted an initial 60 day suspension of the proceedings to allow for the mediation and the parties have filed a joint motion to extend the initial 60 day suspension of proceedings for a further 60 days to March 18, 2023. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously. Reko Diq Arbitration In November 2011, Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited (“TCC”), a joint venture company through which the Company and Antofagasta plc (“Antofagasta”) each held a 37.5% interest in the Reko Diq project in Pakistan—filed a request for international arbitration against the Government of Pakistan (“GOP”) with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) and against the Government of Balochistan (“GOB”) with the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). In the ICSID arbitration, TCC asserted breaches of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Australia (where TCC is incorporated) and Pakistan while in the ICC arbitration, TCC asserted breaches of TCC’s joint venture agreement with the GOB. Both arbitrations arose out of the unlawful denial of TCC’s application for a mining lease. In July 2019, the ICSID tribunal found that Pakistan had breached the BIT and awarded $5.84 billion in damages to TCC (the “ICSID Award”). Damages included compensation of $4.087 billion in relation to the fair market value of the Reko Diq project at the time the mining lease was denied, and interest until the date of the ICSID Award of $1.753 billion. Compound interest was to continue to apply at a rate of US Prime +1% per annum until the ICSID Award was paid. That same month, the ICC Tribunal issued a partial award, in which it held that certain findings made by the ICSID Tribunal should have preclusive effect in the ICC proceedings (the “ICC Partial Award”). Pakistan initiated two different proceedings seeking to annul and revise the ICSID Award, respectively. Meanwhile, TCC initiated proceedings in Washington D.C., the British Virgin Islands, Australia, and elsewhere seeking to enforce the ICSID Award. GOB likewise brought a challenge before the United Kingdom High Court seeking to set aside the ICC Partial Award. While these various proceedings progressed, the Company engaged with the GOP and the GOB to discuss a mutually acceptable framework agreement for the potential development of the Reko Diq project. On March 20, 2022, the Company executed an Umbrella Agreement with Antofagasta plc and the two Governments, pursuant to which, if the conditions to closing were satisfied, the project would be reconstituted with Barrick as the operator and with Antofagasta exiting the project. Pursuant to the Umbrella Agreement, a Temporary Standstill Agreement was to be executed once certain conditions related to an escrow account in favor of Antofagasta in the amount of $900 million were satisfied. These conditions were satisfied, and the Temporary Standstill Agreement went into effect on April 5, 2022 and all legal and arbitral proceedings initiated by the parties in relation to the Reko Diq dispute were suspended while the parties worked toward executing definitive agreements. On December 15, 2022, the parties completed the transaction and executed all definitive agreements allowing for the reconstitution of the Reko Diq project. The reconstituted project is held 50% by Barrick and 50% by Pakistani stakeholders, comprising a 10% free-carried, non-contributing share held by the GOB, an additional 15% held by a special purpose company owned by the GOB, and 25% owned by other federal state-owned enterprises. The agreements concluded by the parties included a Comprehensive Resolution Agreement in which Barrick, Antofagasta, TCC, GOP, and GOB, waived and released all claims against each other, including with regard to the ICSID Award and the ICC Partial Award. Pursuant to that agreement, TCC, GOP, and GOB subsequently took steps to terminate all pending legal and arbitration proceedings, including TCC’s actions to enforce the ICSID Award, GOP’s applications to annul and revise the ICSID Award, and GOB’s application to set aside the ICC Partial Award. Porgera Special Mining Lease Porgera's Special Mining Lease (“SML”) terminated on August 16, 2019. The Company applied for a 20-year extension of the SML in June 2017 and has been engaging with the Government of Papua New Guinea on this matter since then. On August 2, 2019, the National Court of Papua New Guinea ruled that the provisions of the country’s 1992 Mining Act applied to the Porgera gold mine, thus allowing it to continue operating while the application to extend its SML was being considered. On April 25, 2020, the Porgera gold mine was put on care and maintenance, after Barrick Niugini Limited (“BNL”), the 95% owner and operator of the Porgera joint venture, received a communication from the Government of Papua New Guinea that its application for the 20-year extension of the SML had been refused. While the Company believed the Government’s decision not to extend the SML was tantamount to nationalization without due process and in violation of the Government’s legal obligations to BNL, it nevertheless engaged in discussions with Prime Minister Marape and his Government to agree on a revised arrangement under which the Porgera mine could be reopened, for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. On April 9, 2021, BNL signed a binding Framework Agreement with the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (“PNG”) and Kumul Minerals Holdings Limited (“Kumul Minerals”), a state-owned mining company, setting out the terms and conditions for the reopening of the Porgera mine. On February 3, 2022, the Framework Agreement was replaced by the more detailed Porgera Project Commencement Agreement (the “Commencement Agreement”). The Commencement Agreement was signed by PNG, Kumul Minerals, BNL and its affiliate Porgera (Jersey) Limited on October 15, 2021, and it became effective on February 3, 2022, following signature by Mineral Resources Enga Limited (“MRE”), the holder of the remaining 5% of the original Porgera joint venture. The Commencement Agreement reflects the commercial terms previously agreed to under the Framework Agreement, namely that PNG stakeholders will receive a 51% equity stake in the Porgera mine, with the remaining 49% to be held by BNL or an affiliate. BNL is jointly owned on a 50/50 basis by Barrick and Zijin Mining Group. Accordingly, following the implementation of the Commencement Agreement, Barrick’s current 47.5% interest in the Porgera mine is expected to be reduced to a 24.5% interest as reflected in Barrick’s reserve and resource estimates for Porgera. BNL will retain operatorship of the mine. The Commencement Agreement also provides that PNG stakeholders and BNL and its affiliates will share the economic benefits derived from the reopened Porgera mine on a 53% and 47% basis over the remaining life of mine, respectively, and that the Government of PNG will retain the option to acquire BNL’s or its affiliate’s 49% equity participation at fair market value after 10 years. On April 21, 2022, the PNG National Parliament passed legislation to provide, among other things, certain agreed tax exemptions and tax stability for the new Porgera joint venture. This legislation was certified on May 30, 2022, and will come into effect following a public notice process under PNG law. On September 13, 2022, the Shareholders’ Agreement for the new Porgera joint venture company was executed by Porgera (Jersey) Limited, which is an affiliate of BNL, the state-owned Kumul Minerals (Porgera) Limited and MRE (a previous version of the Shareholders’ Agreement had been signed by the BNL and Kumul parties in April 2022 but was not signed by MRE and therefore did not take effect). The new Porgera joint venture company was incorporated on September 22, 2022, and this entity will next apply for a new SML, the receipt of which is a condition of the reopening of the Porgera mine under the Commencement Agreement. The provisions of the Commencement Agreement will be fully implemented, and work to recommence full mine operations at Porgera will begin, following the execution of the remaining definitive agreements and satisfaction of a number of conditions. These include an Operatorship Agreement pursuant to which BNL will operate the Porgera mine, as well as a Mine Development Contract to accompany the new SML that the new Porgera joint venture company will apply for. Under the terms of the Commencement Agreement, BNL will remain in possession of the site and maintain the mine on care and maintenance. In the meantime, under standstill arrangements contemplated by the Commencement Agreement, all legal and arbitral proceedings previously initiated by the parties in relation to the Porgera dispute are to be suspended. These proceedings include Judicial Review actions filed by BNL against the Government of Papua New Guinea in April and September 2020, and international arbitration initiated by Barrick (PD) Australia Pty Limited, the Company’s subsidiary and an investor in the Porgera mine, before the World Bank’s ICSID in September 2020. Notwithstanding these arrangements, the PNG courts have ordered some of the proceedings subject to the standstill to return to court for hearing. One such proceeding, a Special Reference brought by the PNG Attorney General to challenge an earlier procedural ruling in BNL’s favor, was heard by the Supreme Court on December 14, 2022. On January 16, 2023, the Supreme Court held that the Special Reference was an abuse of process (as contended by BNL) and declined to answer the questions it posed. Other proceedings subject to the standstill are listed or in the process of being listed for hearing in the coming months. In December 2021, a group of local landowners known as the Justice Foundation for Porgera initiated a proceeding in the PNG Supreme Court in which they seek a declaration that as customary landowners they own and can mine the minerals situated on their customary lands, including at the Porgera mine, and that certain provisions of the Mining Act and related provisions of the PNG Constitution are invalid. On July 7, 2022, the PNG Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on technical grounds. The landowners subsequently filed an application challenging the dismissal of the proceedings, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 25, 2022. BNL had intervened in this matter to protect its rights. On February 10, 2022, the Company was informed that certain directors of a shareholder of MRE have sought standing to challenge the validity of MRE’s signature of the Commencement Agreement and this matter has been referred to mediation to which BNL is not a party. Porgera Tax Audits In April 2020, BNL received a position paper from the Internal Revenue Commission ("IRC") in Papua New Guinea asserting various proposed adjustments and other tax liabilities amounting to $131 million (not including penalties, based on the kina foreign exchange rate as at December 31, 2022) arising from tax audits of BNL conducted for 2006 through 2015. BNL responded to the position paper on June 30, 2020. On October 2, 2020, BNL received amended assessments from the IRC which increased the amount of proposed adjustments and other taxes to $484 million (including penalties, based on the kina foreign exchange rate as at December 31, 2022). The Company has reviewed the amended assessments and concluded that there is no merit to the IRC’s tax audit adjustments, except for certain immaterial items for which a provision had already been made. BNL filed objections to the amended assessments on November 30, 2020 in accordance with the Papua New Guinea Income Tax Act, and t he Company remains in discussions with the IRC with respect to this matter. To date, the IRC has not reached a determination on the amended tax assessments. The resolution of BNL’s objections to the IRC’s amended tax assessments is a condition to the reopening of the Porgera mine under the Commencement Agreement. The Company filed Mutual Agreement Procedure applications in Canada and Papua New Guinea on September 30, 2022, pursuant to the Canada-Papua New Guinea Income Tax Convention Act (the “Canada-PNG Tax Treaty”) to escalate resolution of certain elements of the amended tax assessments to the competent authority (as defined in the Canada-PNG Tax Treaty) in an effort to seek resolution of this matter. The Company intends to defend its position vigorously and has not recorded any additional estimated amounts for the potential liability arising from the amended assessments as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Tanzania – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes On March 3, 2017, the Government of Tanzania (“GoT”) announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (the "Ban") following a directive made by the President to promote the creation of a domestic smelting industry. Following the directive, Acacia Mining plc (“Acacia”) ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate (“concentrate”) including containers previously approved for export prior to the Ban located at the port in Dar es Salaam. During the second quarter of 2017, the GoT initiated investigations which resulted in allegations of historical undeclared revenue and unpaid taxes by Acacia and its predecessor companies. Acacia subsequently received adjusted assessments for the tax years 2000-2017 from the Tanzania Revenue Authority for a total amount of approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. In addition, following the end of the third quarter of 2017, 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. Acacia disputed these assessments through arbitration and the Tanzanian tax appeals process, respectively. 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 GoT introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations. On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the GoT on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the GoT. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the GoT included (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to provide management services to 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 GoT’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 GoT, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the GoT also reviewed the conditions for the lifting of the Ban. Following an investigation conducted by the Mining Commission on July 30 and 31, 2019, the North Mara mine received a letter from the Mining Commission (the “Inspection Findings Letter”) stating that it believes that certain provisions of the Mining Regulations, 2010 were violated and directing the North Mara mine to submit a feasibility study report and current mine plan for its approval by August 16, 2019. The Inspection Findings Letter also authorized the resumption of gold exports from North Mara subject to its adherence to the export procedure. On July 19, 2019, the Acacia Transaction Committee Directors and Barrick published a firm offer announcement pursuant to Rule 2.7 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (“Rule 2.7 Announcement”) announcing that they had reached agreement on the terms of a recommended final offer by Barrick for the ordinary share capital of Acacia that Barrick did not already own, with the belief that the recommended final offer would enable Barrick to finalize the terms of a full, final and comprehensive settlement of all of Acacia’s existing disputes with the GoT. To facilitate this and in anticipation of the Rule 2.7 Announcement, on July 17, 2019, Acacia announced that Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited and Pangea Minerals Limited would immediately seek a stay of their international arbitration proceedings with the GoT. On September 17, 2019, Barrick completed the acquisition of all of the shares of Acacia that the Company did not already own pursuant to a court-ordered scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”). Acacia ceased trading on the London Stock Exchange and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Barrick called Barrick TZ Limited. On October 20, 2019, Barrick announced that it had reached an agreement (the “Framework Agreement”) with the GoT to settle all disputes between the GoT and the mining companies formerly operated by Acacia but now managed by Barrick. The final agreements were submitted to the Tanzanian Attorney General for review and legalization and the Framework Agreement became effective as of January 1, 2020. The terms of the Framework Agreement are consistent with those previously announced, including the payment of $300 million to settle all outstanding tax and other disputes (the “Settlement Payment”); the lifting of the concentrate export ban; the sharing of future economic benefits from the mines on a 50/50 basis; and a dispute resolution mechanism that provides for binding international arbitration. The 50/50 division of economic benefits will be maintained through an annual true-up mechanism, which will not account for the Settlement Payment. Under the Framework Agreement, the Settlement Payment is required to be paid in installments, with an initial payment of $100 million which was paid to the GoT following the resumption of mineral concentrate exports. Five subsequent annual payments of $40 million each are to be made, starting on the first anniversary of the fulfillment of all conditions of the Framework Agreement, subject to certain cash flow conditions. On January 24, 2020, Barrick announced that the Company had ratified the creation of Twiga (“Twiga”) at a signing ceremony with the President of Tanzania, formalizing the establishment of a joint venture between Barrick and the GoT and resolution of all outstanding disputes between Barrick and the GoT, including the lifting of the previous concentrate export ban, effective immediately. The GoT received a free carried shareholding of 16% in each of the Tanzania mines (Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara), a 16% interest in the shareholder loans owed by the operating companies and will receive its half of the economic benefits from taxes, royalties, clearing fees and participation in all cash distributions made by the mines and Twiga, after the recoupment of capital investments. Twiga will provide management services to the mines. In October 2020, Twiga paid a maiden interim cash dividend of $250 million, of which $40 million was paid to the GoT. In March 2022, the Company made a further payment of $40 million, bringing the total amount paid toward the Settlement Amount to date to $140 million. Barrick and the GoT have satisfied their respective obligations under the Framework Agreement and are now working towards fulfilling their post-completion commitments. Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessments The Tanzanian Revenue Authority (“TRA”) issued a number of tax assessments to Acacia related to past taxation years from 2002 onwards. Acacia believed that the majority of these assessments were incorrect and 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 was Acacia’s assessment that the relevant assessments and claims by the TRA were 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 (then African Barrick Gold plc) to its shareholders from 2010 to 2013. Acacia appealed this assessment on the substantive grounds that, as an English incorporated company, it was not resident in Tanzania for taxation purposes. In August 2020, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal found African Barrick Gold plc (now called Barrick TZ Limited) to be tax resident in Tanzania upholding an earlier decision from the Tanzania Revenue Authority, and that as a result, withholding tax was payable on the dividends of $41.3 million, plus accrued interest, previously declared and paid between 2010 to 2013, inclusive. During October 2020, Barrick TZ Limited filed a motion for the Court of Appeal to review this decision with written submissions following in December 2020. No date has been set for the Court of Appeal to review its decision. Further TRA assessments were issued to Acacia in January 2016 in the amount of $500.7 million, based on an allegation that Acacia was resident in Tanzania for corporate and dividend withholding tax purposes. The corporate tax assessments were levied on certain of Acacia’s net profits before tax. Acacia appealed these assessments at the TRA Board level. 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 as described under “Tanzania - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” above. On October 20, 2019, Barrick announced that it had reached a Framework Agreement with the GoT to settle all disputes between the GoT and the mining companies formerly operated by Acacia but now managed by Barrick effective as of January 1, 2020. For details on the terms of the Framework Agreement, see “Tanzania - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” above. All of the tax disputes with the TRA were considered resolved as part of the Framework Agreement with the GoT. In furtherance of this settlement, compromise and release agreements were executed by the parties to each of the tax disputes. These agreements were filed and adopted by the relevant courts in Tanzania for the full and final settlement of the tax disputes. In light of the resolution of all pending disputes, in October 2022 Barrick took steps to formally withdraw from the international arbitration, which had been initiated by the former Acacia in 2017, and bring those proceedings to an end. The arbitration proceedings were formally terminated on November 29, 2022. North Mara – Ontario Litigation On November 23, 2022, an action was commenced against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in respect of alleged security-related incidents in the vicinity of the North Mara Mine in Tanzania. The named plaintiffs purport to have been injured, or to be the dependents of individuals who were allegedly killed, by members of the Tanzanian Police Force. The Statement of Claim asserts that Barrick Gold Corporation is legally responsible for the actions of the Tanzanian Police Force, and that the Company is liable for an unspecified amount of damages. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, including because the Tanzanian Police Force is a sovereign police force that operates under its own chain of command. The Company intends to defend its interests vigorously and is currently considering its options and next steps in the litigation. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Zaldívar Chilean Tax Assessment On August 28, 2019, Barrick's Chilean subsidiary that holds the Company's interest in the Zaldívar mine, Compañía Minera Zaldívar Limitada ("CMZ"), received notice of a tax assessment from the Chilean Internal Revenue Service ("Chilean IRS") amounting to approximately $1 billion in outstanding taxes, including interest and penalties (the "2015 Tax Assessment"). The 2015 Tax Assessment primarily claims that CMZ improperly claimed a deduction relating to a loss on an intercompany transaction prior to recognizing and offsetting a capital gain on the sale of a 50% interest by CMZ in the Zaldívar mine to Antofagasta in 2015. CMZ filed an administrative appeal with the Chilean IRS on October 14, 2019. Following initial meetings with CMZ, the Chilean IRS agreed on certain aspects with CMZ’s position and reduced the Assessment to $678 million (including interest and penalties as at December 31, 2021) which was mainly referring to the deduction related to the intercompany transaction mentioned above. CMZ continued discussions with the Chilean IRS prior to the authority’s final decision. On March 17, 2020, CMZ filed a claim against the Chilean IRS at the Tax Court of Coquimbo (the “Tax Court”) to nullify the 2015 Tax Assessment. The Chilean IRS filed their response to CMZ’s claim on April 13, 2020. In April 2020, the Chilean IRS initiated an audit of CMZ for 2016 relating to the same claims included in the 2015 Tax Assessment. This audit resulted in a new tax assessment against CMZ (the “2016 Tax Assessment”). On September 9, 2020, CMZ filed a claim at the Tax Court to nullify the 2016 Tax Assessment and the Chilean IRS filed its response on October 7, 2020. On September 29, 2020, the Tax Court approved CMZ's request to consolidate its challenges to the 2015 and 2016 Tax Assessments (collectively, the “Zaldívar Tax Assessments”) in a single proceeding. On December 30, 2022, the Tax Court issued its decision, dismissing CMZ’s claims and upholding the Zaldívar Tax Assessments as issued by the Chilean IRS. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2022, CMZ’s exposure, including applicable interest and penalties, amounts to approximately $824 million. On January 20, 2023, CMZ filed an appeal against the Tax Court’s decision, which will be heard by the Court of Appeals of La Serena. The Company continues to believe that the Zaldívar Tax Assessments are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend its position. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from the Zaldívar Tax Assessments as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Kibali Customs Dispute At the end of January and in early February 2022, Kibali Goldmines SA, which owns and operates the Kibali gold mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo, received fifteen claims from the Direction Générale des Douanes et Accises (“Customs Authority”) concerning customs duties. The Customs Authority claims that incorrect import duty tariffs have been applied to the importation of certain consumables and equipment for the Kibali gold mine. In addition, they claim that the exemption available to Kibali Goldmines SA, which was granted in relation to the original mining lease, no longer applies. Finally, the Customs Authority claims that a service fee paid on the exportation of gold was paid to the wrong government body. The claims, including substantial penalties and interest, total $339 million. The Company has examined the Customs Authority claims and, except for certain immaterial items for which a provision has already been made, the Company has concluded that they are without merit, as they seek to challenge established customs practices which have been accepted by the Customs Authority for many years and, where relevant, are in line with ministerial instruction letters. The Company is engaged in discussions with the Customs Authority and Ministry of Finance regarding the customs claims. A formal reassessment notice has not yet been issued by the Customs Authority with respect to these claims. The Company will vigorously defend its position that the Customs Authority claims are unfounded, and no additional amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from these claims as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Zaldívar Water Claims On March 30, 2022, the State Defense Council ("CDE"), an entity that represents the interests of the Chilean state, filed a lawsuit in the Environmental Court of Antofagasta against Compañía Minera Zaldívar SpA (“CMZ SpA”), the joint venture company that operates the Zaldívar mine, and two other companies with mining operations that utilize water from a shared aquifer (Minera Escondida Ltda. and Albermarle Ltda.). The CDE claims that the extraction of groundwater by these companies since 2005 has caused environmental damage to the surrounding area. The CDE’s lawsuit seeks to require the companies to conduct a series of studies and undertake certain actions to protect and repair the alleged environmental damage in the area, and also to cease extracting water from the aquifer. CMZ SpA presented its defense on June 15, 2022. On July 26, 2022, the Court issued an order governing the evidentiary stage of the trial. Following an agreed suspension from July through November 2022, the proceeding resumed. On January 30, 2023, a conciliation hearing was held to address a potential settlement proposal by Albermarle Ltda. As of that hearing date, the proceedings have been stayed for a further 60-day period to allow settlement discussions to continue among the parties. If a definitive settlement is not reached within the stay period, the court is expected to schedule an evidentiary hearing and the case will proceed against the remaining parties. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend its position. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

X
- Definition Contingent liabilities + 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 2022-03-24 -Paragraph 86 -URI https://taxonomy.ifrs.org/xifrs-link?type=IAS&num=37&code=ifrs-tx-2022-en-r&anchor=para_86&doctype=Standard -URIDate 2022-03-24 + Details
Name: | ifrs-full_DisclosureOfContingentLiabilitiesExplanatory
Namespace Prefix: | ifrs-full_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration