Mining Reporting Survey 2016 Key Estimates and Judgments

Mining
Reporting
Survey
kpmg.ca/mining
2016

Mining Reporting Survey 2016
© 2016 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
2
Estimates &
judgments
The following companies were surveyed in compiling our Mining Reporting Survey 2016:
IFRS Companies
–– Agnico Eagle
–– Alamos Gold Inc.
–– Anglo American plc
–– AngloGold Ashanti Limited
–– Barrick Gold Corporation
–– BHP Billiton Limited
–– Cameco Corporation
–– Centerra Gold Inc.
–– Detour Gold Corporation
–– Eldorado Gold Corporation
–– First Quantum Minerals Ltd.
–– Glencore plc
–– Gold Fields Limited
–– Goldcorp Inc.
–– HudBay Minerals Inc.
–– IAMGOLD Corporation
–– Kinross Gold Corporation
–– Lundin Mining Corporation
–– New Gold Inc.
–– Rio Tinto plc
–– Teck Resources Limited
–– Vale S.A.
–– Yamana Gold Inc.
US GAAP companies
–– Freeport-McMoRan Inc.
–– Newmont Mining Corporation
Companiessurveyed

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
3
Estimates &
judgments
© 2016 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent
member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The mining industry has continued to face significant uncertainty, volatility and pressure for cost containment
since our 2014 survey. This unpredictable business environment has given rise to a number of reporting trends
geared towards providing stakeholders and users of the financial statements with a more transparent view of a
company’s position.
This year’s survey focuses on five key sections: Estimates and Judgments, Non-GAAP Measures, Risks, Valuation
and Other Reporting Trends. Disclosures in these areas are becoming increasingly prevalent, as companies try
to provide stakeholders with supplemental information on various risks impacting their businesses, as well as
disclosure of the critical judgments and estimates management is required to make in managing and mitigating
those risks.
One interesting trend that we have seen emerge in this year’s survey was the increase in alternative forms of
financing, such as streaming. Since our 2014 survey we saw a five-fold increase in the number of companies
which disclosed entering into streaming arrangements, as well as continued enhancement of those disclosures by
the companies entering into them.
While we hope this survey will be a useful guide, we encourage you to consult your local KPMG professional for
guidance that is tailored to your circumstance. We look forward to discussing the results of this year’s survey
with you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ricica
Partner, Mining
Editorial team
Lee Hodgkinson—National Industry
Leader, Mining
Daniel Ricica—Partner, Mining
Key contributors
Michael Woeller
Katherine Wetmore
Justin Chartrand
Hendra Beekman
Jessica Budd
Anh Hoang
Laura Sokalsky
Krista Bennatti-Roberts
Laura Brand
Roxanne Gagnon
KPMG’s Mining practice is pleased to present the Mining Reporting
Survey 2016. This document publishes the results of a survey of
reporting by 25 major mining companies from across the globe.
The information presented builds on a quarter century of KPMG’s
previous Mining Reporting Surveys.
Foreword

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
4
Estimates &
judgments
Valuation
Estimates&
judgments
Non-GAAP
measures
Other
reporting
trends
Contents
Risks
Accumsan ac ut in rutrum praesent
velit, sagittis eu litora wisi ridiculus
mauris. Nunc vehicula ultricies sed
pede luctus. Ulamcorper lorem, nostra
et sed metus, ut proin, ipsum sed.
Integer et donec quia platea, ea libero
eros id id metus.ut, tellus nulla iaculis
metus lorem malesuada

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
55
Estimates&
judgments
Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments

Mining Reporting Survey 2016 6
Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
KeymessagesIn preparing financial statements, management is required to exercise
significant judgment and make estimates.While common across all industries,
mining companies are required to make some unique and especially complex
estimates and judgments due to the nature of their operations. Many of these
require management to consider both financial and non-financial information in
determining the amounts to recognize in their financial statements.
Consistent with the results of our 2014 survey, companies disclosed a
wide range of estimates and judgments required in the preparation of their
financial statements.
Only two areas, impairment or reversal of impairment of
non-financial assets and income taxes, were disclosed
by all of the surveyed companies as either an estimate, a
judgment, or both. A further three areas, mineral reserves
and resources (disclosed by 91% of surveyed companies),
reclamation provisions (96%), and depreciation, depletion
and amortization (87%), were disclosed by 20 or more of
the companies surveyed.
In this year’s survey, reflecting the growing importance of this form of financing,
30% of companies disclosed streaming arrangements as an area of judgment.
The estimates and judgments disclosed by companies surveyed vary
significantly in the nature and number of estimates and judgments disclosed,
as well as in the presentation of the financial statement disclosures. In this
year’s survey, we separately analyze disclosure of areas of estimation from
those of management judgments.
Disclosure of estimates and judgments
IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements ( IAS 1) requires an entity to disclose
information about the assumptions it makes concerning the future, as well as
other major sources of estimation uncertainty at the end of the reporting period.
Assumptions requiring disclosure are those that have a significant risk of resulting
in a material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the
next financial year.
IAS 1 also requires an entity to disclose the judgments that have the most
significant effect on the amounts recognized in the financial statements.The
judgments requiring disclosure are intended to be separate from those involving
estimation that management has made in the process of applying the entity’s
accounting policies.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Of the 23 IFRS companies surveyed, 10 disclosed estimates and judgments
separately in their financial statements.The remaining 13 companies disclosed
both estimates and judgments together. However, irrespective of approach
taken for the disclosure of estimates and judgments, most companies surveyed
provided sufficient discussion to allow a reader to distinguish between areas of
estimation and judgment.
Given that estimates and judgments were easily distinguishable for the IFRS
companies surveyed, we have included separate data for the two areas
throughout this section.
Both of the US GAAP companies surveyed disclosed only significant estimates,
which we would expect, given that US GAAP does not explicitly require disclosure
of judgments. Each of the companies disclosed 10 estimates in their financial
statements, and the nature of the estimates were consistent with those most
commonly disclosed by the IFRS companies surveyed; however, the disclosures
include less detail when compared against the disclosures provided by the IFRS
companies surveyed. Since US GAAP companies are not required to disclose
information in respect to judgments, the two companies reporting under US GAAP
are excluded from the analysis throughout the remainder of this section.
Common estimates and judgments
The table on the right outlines the 20 most common estimates and judgments
disclosed by the companies in this year’s survey.The data demonstrates that
certain areas, such as the commencement of commercial production and
streaming arrangements, are consistently disclosed as only requiring judgment,
and other areas, such as the quantity of recoverable metal in inventory, are
consistently disclosed only as estimates. However, most areas are disclosed by
the companies surveyed as having elements of both estimation and judgment.
Area
Estimate
only
Judgment
only
Both Either
Impairment and/or reversal of impairment 13 0 10 23
Income taxes 10 2 11 23
Reclamation and rehabilitation provisions 19 0 3 22
Mineral reserves and resources and/or LOM 11 0 10 21
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 19 0 1 20
Deferred stripping 13 1 1 15
Contingent liabilities 4 3 6 13
Valuation (NRV) of inventory 11 0 1 12
FV of assets acquired in a business combination 5 1 4 10
Capitalization of E&E costs 1 6 2 9
Commencement of production 0 9 0 9
Recoverable metals in inventory 8 0 0 8
Control, joint control, significant influence 0 8 0 8
Streaming arrangements 0 7 0 7
FV of financial instruments 3 1 2 6
Post-retirement benefits 5 0 0 5
Functional currency 0 5 0 5
Share-based payments 4 0 0 4
Asset acquisition vs. business combination 0 3 0 3
Revenue recognition 2 0 0 2
Figure 1.1—Common estimates and judgments

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Nature of quantitative disclosures provided
Number of
companies
Carrying amounts included in the estimates and judgments note 3
Cross-reference to specific notes, when required 5
General cross-reference to other financial statement notes 1
Combination of cross-references to specific notes and carrying amounts included
in the estimates and judgments note
1
No quantification of the carrying amounts or cross-reference 13
Quantitative disclosure
IAS 1 requires disclosure of the nature and carrying amount as of the end of
the reporting period for assets and liabilities affected by significant estimation
uncertainty. Some of the companies surveyed made these quantitative
disclosures in the estimates and judgments note to the financial statements.
Other companies made a direct cross-reference from the estimates and
judgments note to the amounts of the assets and liabilities disclosed elsewhere
in the financial statements.
The standard recognizes that sometimes it is impracticable to disclose the extent
of the possible effects of sources of estimation uncertainty as at the reporting
date. In such cases, an entity is required to disclose that, based on existing
knowledge, it is reasonably possible that outcomes within the next financial year
that are different from the assumption made at the reporting date could require
a material adjustment to the carrying amount of the asset or liability affected.
Entities must, however, disclose the nature and carrying amount of the asset or
liability affected by the assumption.
Figure 1.3—Quantitative disclosures
Figure 1.2—Number of estimates disclosed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Numberofestimatesdisclosed
Number of companies
The number of estimates and judgments disclosed by the companies surveyed
ranged from six to 13.While three of the four companies who disclosed 13
estimates and judgments separated their disclosure of the two topics, there
does not appear to be a relationship between the format of the disclosure and the
number of estimates and judgments disclosed. Exactly half of the companies who
disclosed 10 or more estimates and judgments structured their disclosure of the
two topics separately, and the other half discussed the two topics concurrently.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Example A.1
Source:Teck Resources Ltd., Annual Financial Statements, Pages 18 – 19
Streaming transactions
When we enter into a long-term streaming arrangement linked to production at specific operations,
judgment is required in assessing the appropriate accounting treatment of the transaction on the
closing date and in future periods. We consider the specific terms of each arrangement to determine
whether we have disposed of an interest in the reserves and resources of the respective operation.
This assessment considers what the counterparty is entitled to and the associated risks and rewards
attributable to them over the life of the operation including the contractual terms related to the total
production over the life of the arrangement as compared to the expected production over the life of
the mine, the percentage being sold, the percentage of payable metals produced, the commodity
price referred to in the ongoing payment and any guarantee relating to the upfront payment if
production ceases.
For both of the streaming arrangements entered into during the year (Note 5(b) and (c)), there is no
guarantee associated with the upfront payment and we are effectively disposing of the interest in
the gold and silver mineral interests at each of these operations over the life of the arrangement.
Accordingly, we consider these arrangements a disposition of a mineral interest.
When the ongoing payment is based on future commodity prices at the date deliveries are made, this
may be considered an embedded derivative (Note 27(c)).The valuation of embedded derivatives in
these arrangements is an area of estimation and is determined using discounted cash flow models.
These models require a variety of inputs, including, but not limited to, contractual terms, market
prices, forward curve prices, mine plans and discount rates. Changes in these assumptions could
affect the carrying value of derivative assets or liabilities and the amount of unrealized gains or losses
recognized in other operating income (expense).
Specific estimates and judgments
Streaming arrangements
Since the publication of our 2014 survey, one notable change has been the
increasing prevalence of alternative financing arrangements, including streaming
arrangements.
Of the 23 IFRS companies surveyed, 10 have entered into streaming arrangements,
and seven of these companies have disclosed that significant judgments are
required by management in determining the accounting for these arrangements.
In contrast, in our previous survey, two of the 20 IFRS companies surveyed had
entered into streaming arrangements, only one of which disclosed the judgments
required by management in accounting for the arrangement.
The accounting for streaming arrangements can often be complex.The accounting
treatment is typically determined based on the specific facts and circumstances
of each individual arrangement. In our experience, each streaming arrangement
contains different and sometimes unique terms; therefore, significant judgment
may be required on the part of management in order to determine the appropriate
accounting treatment for streaming arrangements. Most of the companies
surveyed made reference to the specific streaming arrangement entered into
by the company during the reporting period when discussing the nature of the
judgments required.
Each of the surveyed companies who disclosed that judgment was required in
determining the accounting treatment for the streaming arrangement disclosed
at least one specific judgment made on the part of management. Figure 1.4
outlines the nature of the judgments disclosed by the seven companies included
in this year’s survey.
Judgments in accounting for streaming arrangements
Number of
companies
Existence of embedded derivatives within the arrangement 2
Classification of the entire arrangement as a financial instrument 4
Whether the arrangement transfers business risks and rewards to the counterparty 3
Whether the time value or financing component is significant to the arrangement 2
Figure 1.4—Streaming arrangements

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Of the 21 IFRS companies that disclosed reserves and resources as an area of
estimation uncertainty, 18 also specifically disclosed the key accounting estimates
affected by reserves and resources, which included:
–– Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense
–– Capitalization of production phase stripping costs
–– Forecasting the timing of payments related to the environmental rehabilitation
provision
–– Impairment testing for non-financial assets and goodwill
–– Mineral exploration and evaluation, including the determination of technical
feasibility and commercial viability
–– Determination of the fair value of mineral rights acquired in a business
combination
–– Consideration of whether assets acquired meet the definition of a business or
should be accounted for as an asset acquisition
–– Recognition of deferred income tax amounts.
Example A.2
Source: Barrick Gold Corporation, 2015 Annual Financial Statements, Pages 109 – 110
Life of Mine (“LOM”) Plans and Reserves and Resources
Estimates of the quantities of proven and probable mineral reserves and mineral resources form
the basis for our LOM plans, which are used for a number of important business and accounting
purposes, including: the calculation of depreciation expense; the capitalization of production phase
stripping costs; and forecasting the timing of the payments related to the environmental rehabilitation
provision. In addition, the underlying LOM plans are used in the impairment tests for goodwill and
non-current assets. In certain cases, these LOM plans have made assumptions about our ability
to obtain the necessary permits required to complete the planned activities. We estimate our ore
reserves and mineral resources based on information compiled by qualified persons as defined in
accordance with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101 Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects requirements. As at December 31, 2015, we have used a per ounce
gold price of $1,000 short-term and $1,200 long-term to calculate our gold reserves, compared with
$1,100 per ounce short and long-term used as at December 31, 2014. Refer to notes 18 and 20.
Area of estimation or judgment in reserve and resource determination Number of companies
Commodity prices 20
Production cost estimates 18
Foreign exchange rates 14
Interpretation of geological data (size, grade, and/or shape of ore body) 13
Recovery rate 11
Capital cost estimates 8
Engineering and production techniques and technologies 8
Discount rates 6
Commodity demand 4
Ability to receive or renew mining permits/licenses 4
Inflation rates 3
Figure 1.5—Reserves and resources
Reserves and resources
The estimation of reserves and resources forms the basis of a company’s life of
mine plans and is an integral part of a mining company’s operations.This non-
financial estimate impacts a wide range of accounting estimates in a company’s
financial statements.
In this year’s survey, 21 of the 23 IFRS companies surveyed disclosed reserves
and resources as an area of estimation or judgment. Of these companies,
10 disclosed both estimation uncertainty and judgments required in determining
reserves and resources, and 11 disclosed only estimation uncertainty.
All but one of the companies that disclosed reserves and resources as an area
of estimation uncertainty included a discussion of the specific assumptions
resulting in the estimation uncertainty or the judgments management applied
in determining reserves and resources.The accompanying table highlights the
common areas of estimation or judgment involved in reserve and resource
determination.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Example A.3 provides an excerpt from Goldcorp Inc.’s statements on estimated
reclamation and closure costs.
Example A.3
Source: Goldcorp Inc., 2015 Annual Financial Statements, Pages 23 – 26
Estimated reclamation and closure costs
The Company’s provision for reclamation and closure cost obligations represents management’s
best estimate of the present value of the future cash outflows required to settle the liability which
reflects estimates of future costs, inflation, movements in foreign exchange rates, assumptions
of risks associated with the future cash outflows and assumptions of probabilities of alternative
estimates of future cash outflows, and the applicable risk-free interest rates for discounting those
future cash outflows. Significant judgments and estimates are required in forming assumptions of
future activities, future cash outflows and the timing of those cash outflows.These assumptions
are formed based on environmental and regulatory requirements and the Company’s environmental
policies which may give rise to constructive obligations.The Company’s assumptions are reviewed
at the end of each reporting period and adjusted to reflect management’s current best estimate
and changes in any of the above factors can result in a change to the provision recognized by the
Company. At December 31, 2015, the Company’s total provision for reclamation and closure cost
obligations was $702 million (December 31, 2014 – $695 million).The undiscounted value of these
obligations is $1,914 million (December 31, 2014 – $1,827 million).
For the purpose of calculating the present value of the provision for reclamation and closure cost
obligations, the Company discounts the estimated future cash outflows using the risk-free interest
rate applicable to the future cash outflows, which is the appropriate USTreasury risk-free rate which
reflects the reclamation lifecycle estimated for all sites, including operating and inactive mines and
development projects. For those sites with a greater than 100-year reclamation lifecycle, a long-term
risk-free rate is applied.
For the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company applied a 20-year risk-free rate of 2.67% (2014
– 3.0%) to all sites with the exception of those sites with a reclamation lifecycle of greater than 100
years where a 5.0% (2014 – 5.0%) risk-free rate was applied, which resulted in a weighted average
discount rate of 4.1% (2014 – 4.2%).
Changes to reclamation and closure cost obligations are recorded with a corresponding change
to the carrying amounts of the related mining properties (for operating mines and development
projects) and as production costs (for inactive and closed mines) for the period. Adjustments to the
carrying amounts of related mining properties can result in a change to future depletion expense.
Reclamation and rehabilitation provision
As the majority of reclamation work does not occur until the end of the life of a mine,
the reclamation and rehabilitation provision is generally presented as the net present
value of the estimated future cash flows.The provision must also be updated as
disturbances occur and new information becomes available to management over
the life of the mine, such as changes in the nature of required reclamation activities,
revised cost estimates, changes in laws and regulations, and extensions to the life
of the mine.The minimum amount of reclamation work to be undertaken is often
dictated by legal and regulatory authorities governing the jurisdiction where the mining
operations are located.
All but one of the companies surveyed disclosed reclamation and rehabilitation
provisions as an area of management judgment or a source of estimation
uncertainty. Of these companies, three disclosed both estimation uncertainty and
judgments required in determining the reclamation and rehabilitation provision,
and 19 disclosed only estimation uncertainty. The common areas of estimation in
determining reclamation and rehabilitation provisions are outlined in the table below.
Key estimates or assumptions Number of companies
Reclamation costs 17
Discount rate 15
Timing of future cash flows 14
Changes to regulatory requirements 11
Technological changes 11
Magnitude of the disturbance 8
Inflation rate 7
Foreign exchange rates 4
Geological changes 4
Figure 1.6—Reclamation and rehabilitation provision
The three companies who disclosed that judgment was required in accounting for
reclamation and rehabilitation provisions noted the following judgments:
–– Determining whether a present obligation existed at the reporting date
–– Determining the regulatory and constructive requirements applicable
–– Selection of a discount rate
–– Determining the timing and extent of cash flows.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Basis for unit-of-production calculation Number of companies
Reserves 13
May include non-reserve material 8
Not specifically disclosed 2
Figure 1.7—Depreciation
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
Mining is a capital intensive industry, often requiring significant upfront costs
to develop a mine as well as ongoing capital expenditures to maintain or expand
production. Many mining companies have also grown by acquisition, requiring
them to recognize assets acquired at fair value. As a result, the carrying amount
of property, plant and equipment (PP&E) often represents a high proportion of
a mining company’s assets.The determination of the period over which these
assets should be depleted can therefore have a significant impact on the financial
statements.
One of the challenges for mining companies in determining the period over which
to depreciate its PP&E is the fact that while an ore body is a depletable resource,
there is significant uncertainty regarding the total amount of material that will
be extracted over a mine’s life. Factors such as ongoing exploration activities,
variable commodity prices and changing input costs have a significant impact on
the mine plan, and therefore the total material extracted. It is common for a mine’s
life to continue to be extended over time, requiring regular updates to the useful
lives of the related assets; this can lead to significant variation in the amount of
depreciation charged over the life of a mine.
The unit-of-production method is commonly used in the mining industry to
depreciate mineral reserves and property, plant and equipment.This method
typically utilizes proven and probable reserves as its basis; however, some
companies include other non-reserve material such as mineral resources, in excess
of proven and probable reserves, depending on the degree of confidence
in its extraction.The inclusion of non-reserve material requires further management
judgment to determine the quantity to include in the depreciation base.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
Examples of some of the factors disclosed by companies as impacting the
judgment in respect of the commencement of production include:
–– Ability to sustain ongoing production
–– The transfer of operations from development personnel to operational personnel
has been completed
–– Consideration of specific factors such as recoveries, grades, or inventory
build-up
–– The operating effectiveness of the site’s refinery
–– Whether the necessary permits are in place to allow continuous production
–– Whether there is a sustainable level of production inputs available.
Factors considered in assessing commercial production Number of companies
Ability to sustain production 8
Completion of testing of facilities 6
Ability to produce saleable product 4
Consistent operating result at a predetermined capacity 4
Level of capital expenditure compared to budgets 3
Completion of construction 2
Figure 1.8—Factors considered in assessing commercial production
Commencement of production
A key area of estimation and judgment for mining companies, where there is little
standardized guidance available, is the determination of the commencement
of the production stage of a mine. Usually, this is the point at which the mining
company determines a mine is ready to be operated in the manner intended by
management, such that depreciation of the long-lived assets commences.The
assets at a mine are typically intended to extract ore from the mineral deposit and
process it to produce a saleable product. However, the determination of when a
mine has reached this production stage varies due to the unique nature of each
project, and requires careful assessment of the relevant facts and circumstances
for each project in order to appropriately apply management’s accounting policy.
The determination of when a mine is in production and ready for its intended
use can have a pervasive impact on financial statements.Typically, this is the
point when revenue is initially recognized and depreciation of mining assets
commences, whereas costs previously incurred to develop and test the mine
assets and any incidental revenues earned during this period are capitalized. Given
the complex factors which must be assessed when making this determination and
the significant impact it can have on the financial statements, it is no surprise that
several companies disclose this as a significant judgment.
Nine of the 23 IFRS companies surveyed disclosed that commencement of
production is an area of significant management judgment, and provided general
commentary on how the start of the production stage is determined. None of
the surveyed companies disclosed estimation uncertainty associated with the
commencement of production.

Non-GAAP
measures
14
Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
KeymessagesAll companies surveyed reported non-GAAP measures in addition to information
presented in the financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS or US
GAAP. Below is a summary of the most common non-GAAP measures disclosed
by the 25 companies surveyed, in order of frequency.
Figure 2.1—Most commonly disclosed non-GAAP measures
Non-GAAP measures defined
Many companies report certain figures regarding their financial performance in
addition to the financial statements which they may consider to be useful to users
of their financial information. A non-GAAP measure generally can be defined as
a numerical measure of financial performance that does not meet GAAP criteria
for presentation in financial statements. Such measures are typically presented
in Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), press releases, offering
documents and other investor presentations, and are commonly referred to as
non-GAAP, or non-IFRS, measures. Unlike amounts determined in accordance with
GAAP, there is generally no standard definition of non-GAAP measures, and similar
measures may not be comparable between different companies. One of particular
relevance to the mining industry is the AISC for which theWorld Gold Council
(WGC) introduced guidelines for calculating the figure.While this guidance is
widely used, significant judgment is required and there is no requirement to follow
the formula outlined by theWGC.
Securities regulators in various jurisdictions have established rules regarding the
use of non-GAAP measures that require specific supporting disclosures to ensure
that non-GAAP measures are not misleading to an investor, including:
–– All non-GAAP measures should be clearly identified
–– Companies should provide an explanation of the usefulness of each non-GAAP
measure to investors
–– A quantitative reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure in
the financial statements should be disclosed
–– Non-GAAP measures should not be given greater prominence than the
comparable GAAP measure.
Comparable GAAP Measures Number of companies
Cash costs 21
All-in-sustaining costs 14
Adjusted net earnings 13
EBITDA/Adjusted EBITDA 12
Net debt1
11
Adjusted operating cash flow 10
Free cash flow2
6
Adjusted operating earnings/margin 4
Debt-to-equity/net debt-equity 3
1
Compared to 6 companies surveyed in KPMG’s 2014 Financial Reporting Survey
2
Of the companies surveyed, 23 also disclosed a calculation of “average realized
price,” which was generally calculated as the total revenue divided by the units
sold during the year.
All-in-sustaining costs (AISC) were disclosed by all 14 primary gold producers.
Companies surveyed that did not disclose AISC did not produce gold as the
primary metal.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates &
judgments
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently updated its guidance
on non-GAAP measures, and specifically identified prohibited practices3
, which
included misleading financial measures, per share non-GAAP liquidity measures
and inappropriate adjustments for tax expenses4
. SEC Chair Mary JoWhite
reiterated during the Reuter’s Summit in May 2016 that presentation of a GAAP
measure has to be of equal or greater prominence than presentation of a non-GAAP
measure, so as not to be misleading5
.
In its revised guidance, SEC staff provided examples of presentation approaches
that would cause non-GAAP measures to be more prominent than the comparable
GAAP measures, including:
–– Omission of the comparable GAAP measure from an earnings release headline
that includes a non-GAAP measure
–– Presenting a non-GAAP measure so as to emphasize the non-GAAP measure
over the comparable GAAP measure (for instance, using bold, italicized or larger
font compared to the comparable GAAP measure)
–– Placing a non-GAAP measure before the most directly comparable GAAP
measure
–– Providing discussion and analysis of a non-GAAP measure without similar
discussion of the comparable GAAP measure in a location with equal or greater
prominence.
Items specifically relevant to mining companies include Earnings Before Interest
andTax (EBIT) or Earnings Before Interest,Tax and Amortization (EBITA) and
Free Cash Flow, as these are measures that are commonly disclosed by mining
companies based on the results noted above. Of particular interest to the SEC
staff is the reconciliation of EBIT/EBITDA to net income as presented in income
statements as the most comparable GAAP measure. Operating income would
not be considered the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure because
EBIT and EBITDA adjust for items that are not included in operating income.
As noted in Figure 2.1, six of the 25 companies surveyed presented free cash
flow, which is up from three companies surveyed in our 2014 survey. It is
generally understood that to calculate Free Cash Flow, one would deduct capital
expenditures from cash flows from operations as presented in the statement
of cash flows under GAAP. However, as free cash flow does not have a uniform
definition, to avoid presenting a measure that may be misleading, SEC staff
guidance specifically outlines that companies should clearly outline how the
measure is calculated. Furthermore, SEC staff noted that companies should
be cautious in describing the usefulness of the measure so as not to imply that
free cash flow represents something it does not, such as cash available for
discretionary expenditures, for instance, if mandatory debt payments have not
been included.
SEC guidance differentiates between non-GAAP measures that are performance
measures, and non-GAAP measures that are liquidity measures. SEC staff
guidance prohibits the use of non-GAAP liquidity measures presented on a per
share basis. Examples of non-GAAP liquidity measures that are prohibited from
being presented on a per share basis include EBIT/EBITDA and free cash flow.
The assessment of whether per share data is prohibited is dependent on whether
the measure can be used to assess a company’s liquidity, regardless of the use or
presentation of the measure strictly as a performance measure. In other words,
the SEC has stated that it intends to focus on the substance of the measure in its
determination as to whether the non-GAAP measure is appropriately presented on
a per share basis.
3
SEC Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”), Non-GAAP Financial Measures, issued May 17, 2016.
4
KPMG Defining Issues, SEC StaffWarns about Non-GAAP Financial Measures, May 2016, No. 16-2
5
SEC Chair Mary JoWhite was interviewed at the Reuters Financial Regulatory Summit inWashington,
May 17, 2016

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Cash costs
There is no generally accepted definition used in the industry to calculate cash
costs, and significant variance in practice exists; however, cash costs are typically
calculated as cost of sales or production costs, adjusted for non-cash and other
items, and are presented on a per ounce or a per pound/ton basis, depending
on the primary metal being produced.The adjustments to cost of sales typically
include depreciation, reclamation costs and inventory movement, among others.
Twenty6
of the twenty-five companies surveyed disclosed a measure of cash costs
for the most recently completed financial year.Where diversified miners disclosed
the measure, it was disclosed separately for each product.
Of the companies surveyed, most stated that the cash costs measure is intended
to provide investors with additional information to help the company to monitor
its operating performance, and to help investors evaluate the effectiveness,
efficiency, and cash-generating capabilities of its mining operations.
The most comparable GAAP measure, or starting point of the calculation,
was generally cost of sales, as presented in the income statement; however,
companies used a variety of calculation approaches, most of which were variations
of cost of sales, including the following:
The nature of adjustments applied to the most comparable GAAP measure were
based on each company’s specific operations and financial statement disclosures,
and varied by company.
Adjustments applied to comparable GAAP measures Number of companies
Treatment, refining and freight 15
Non-cash inventory adjustments (including NRV) 12
Royalties and volume-based taxes 10
Other non-recurring and abnormal costs 6
Social development and reclamation costs 4
Costs attributable to NCI 4
Share based payment and pension adjustments 3
Regional and corporate GA 3
Hedge and non-hedge derivative gains/losses 3
Pre-production revenue 2
Cash costs presentations Number of companies
Presented net of by-product revenues only 11
Presented on a by-product and co-product basis 5
Not disclosed/determinable 3
Presented on a gross and by-product basis 2
Comparable GAAP measure disclosed Number of companies
Cost of sales 9
Production costs 7
Operating expenses 3
Mining and processing 1
Site production and delivery 1
Figure 2.3—Cash costs:Adjustments
Figure 2.2—Comparable GAAP measures
Figure 2.4—Cash costs: By-product and co-product basis
There is also variation in presentation on a co-product or by-product basis.
Generally, by-products are considered to be secondary products that result from
the process designed to extract the primary product and tend to be smaller in
volume and revenue. Co-products are typically products produced jointly with
another product, and usually have equal economic significance to the company.
Of the 20 companies that presented a measure of cash costs, 17 disclosed
how by-product credits were considered in the calculation. All 17 companies
that disclosed cash costs on a by-product basis did so by adjusting the most
comparable GAAP measures for by-product revenues.
6

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Example B.1 details IAMGOLD Corporation’s reconciliation of total cash costs per
ounce sold to the most comparable GAAP measure, cost of sales.
The following table provides a reconciliation of total cash costs per ounce produced for gold mines to cost of sales, excluding
depreciation expense as per the consolidated financial statements.
Three months ended
December 31,
Years ended
December 31,
($ millions, except where noted) 2015 2014 2015 2014
Continuing operations
Cost of sales1
, excluding depreciation expense $ 219.6 $ 182.5 $ 710.7 $ 687.9
Less: cost of sales for non-gold segments2
, excluding
depreciation expense 0.9 — 2.7 2.0
Cost of sales for gold segments, excluding depreciation expense 218.7 182.5 708.0 685.9
Adjust for: —
By-product credit (excluded from cost of sales) (0.3) (0.6) (1.8) (2.5)
Stock movement (20.4) 2.4 (6.3) (3.8)
Realized non-hedge derivative losses3
10.2 — 31.2 —
Impact of production interruption at Westwood (7.8) — (28.2) —
Other mining costs4
(39.4) (5.7) (42.7) (27.6)
Cost attributed to non-controlling interests5
(11.8) (11.5) (47.2) (45.2)
(69.5) (15.4) (95.0) (79.1)
Total cash costs - owner-operator $ 149.2 $ 167.1 $ 613.0 $ 606.8
Attributable gold production6
- owner-operator (000s oz) 181 218 730 739
Total cash costs7,8
- owner-operator ($/oz) $ 820 $ 766 $ 840 $ 822
Total cash costs - joint ventures $ 15.6 $ 23.5 $ 59.7 $ 100.8
Attributable gold production - joint ventures (000s oz) 18 23 76 95
Total cash costs7,8
- joint ventures ($/oz) $ 877 $ 995 $ 787 $ 1,055
Total cash costs7,8
$ 164.8 $ 190.6 $ 672.7 $ 707.6
Total attributable gold production6
(000s oz) 199 241 806 834
Total cash costs7,8,9
($/oz) $ 825 $ 788 $ 835 $ 848
1
As per note 26 of the Company sconsolidated financial statements.
2
on-gold segments consist of xploration and evaluation and Corporate.
3
xcludes net loss on early termination of derivative contracts.
4
Includes write-down of inventories and other administrative costs.
5
Adjustments for the consolidation of Rosebel (95 ) and ssakane (90 ) to their attributable portion of cost of sales.
6
old commercial production does not include Westwood pre-commercial production for the year ended ecember 31, 2014 of 10,000 ounces.
7
Total cash costs per ounce produced may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.
8
Consists of Rosebel, ssakane, Westwood (commercial production), ouska, Sadiola and atela, on an attributable basis.
9
Includes realized hedge and non-hedge derivative losses for the fourth uarterand year ended ecember 31, 2015 of $58 and $55 per ounce produced, respectively.
Example B.2 details New Gold Inc.’s calculation of total cash costs per ounce sold
on a gross basis, net of by-products and on a co-product basis.
Example B.1
Source: IAMGOLD Corporations, 2015 Annual Financial Statements, Page 35
Example B.2
Source: New Gold Inc., 2015 Annual Financial Statements, Page 86

86 WWW.NEWGOLD.COM TSX:NGD NYSE MKT:NGD
Cash Costs and All-in Sustaining Costs (“AISC”) per Ounce Reconciliation Tables
The following table reconciles these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable IFRS measure on an aggregate
and mine by mine basis.
Three months ended December 31 Year ended December 31
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except where noted) 2015 2014 2015 2014 2013
TOTAL CASH COSTS AND AISC RECONCILIATION
Operating expenses 116.4 123.1 419.6 411.1 435.5
Treatment and refining charges on concentrate sales 8.9 8.8 32.9 34.5 29.4
Adjustments
(1)
(11.1) (8.7) (9.4) (8.1) (13.3)
Total cash costs before by-product revenue 114.2 123.2 443.1 437.5 451.6
By-product copper and silver sales (62.4) (80.0) (253.0) (321.8) (303.8)
Total cash costs net of by-product revenue 51.8 43.2 190.1 115.7 147.8
Gold ounces sold 133,005 104,224 428,852 371,179 391,823
Total cash costs per gold ounce sold ($/ounce) 389 414 443 312 377
Total cash costs per gold ounce sold on a co-product basis
(2)

($/ounce)
580 695 661 675 712
Total cash costs net of by-product revenue 51.8 43.2 190.1 115.7 147.8
Sustaining capital expenditures, excluding capitalized
exploration
(3)

21.0 35.4 119.2 126.0 157.0
Sustaining exploration - expensed and capitalized 1.7 1.5 6.3 10.2 11.6
Corporate GA including share-based compensation
(4)
5.2 6.6 26.7 32.1 34.4
Reclamation expenses 1.8 1.4 4.6 5.4 1.5
Total all-in sustaining costs 81.5 88.1 346.9 289.2 352.4
All-in sustaining costs per gold ounce sold ($/ounce) 613 845 809 779 899
All-in sustaining costs per gold ounce sold on a co-product
basis
(2)
($/ounce)
737 957 903 952 1,042
1. Adjustments include non-cash items related to inventory write-downs.
2. Amounts presented on a co-product basis remove the impact of other metal sales that are produced as a by-product of our gold production and apportions the cash costs
to each metal produced on a percentage of revenue basis.
3. See “Total Sustaining Capital Expenditure Reconciliation” below to reconcile sustaining capital expenditures to mining interests per the statement of cash flows.
4. Includes the sum of corporate administration costs and share-based payment expense per the income statement, net of any non-cash depreciation within those figures.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
All-in-sustaining costs
Traditionally, cash cost reporting focused primarily on mining and processing costs
incurred, ignoring costs related to sustaining capital. In 2013, theWGC, published
a Guidance Note on “all-in sustaining costs” and “all-in costs” metrics.The metrics
were developed in conjunction with a group of member companies assembled by
theWGC to develop additional non-GAAP measures intended to provide further
transparency with regards to gold production costs.
Figure 2.5 is an excerpt from the World Gold Council’s Guidance Note detailing the
items that it believes companies should consider in the calculation of AISC.
Figure 2.5—Guidance note on non-GAAP metrics
Source:World Gold Council, Guidance Note on Non-GAAP Metrics—All-in Sustaining Costs
and All-in Costs
GUIDANCE NOTE ON NON-GAAP METRICS – ALL-IN SUSTAINING
COSTS AND ALL-IN COSTS
US $ / gold ounces sold
On-Site Mining Costs (on a sales basis) Income Statement (a)
On-Site General Administrative costs Income Statement (b)
Royalties Production Taxes Income Statement (c)
Realised Gains/Losses on Hedges due to
operating costs
Income Statement (d)
Community Costs related to current
operations
Income Statement (e)
Permitting Costs related to current
operations
Income Statement (f)
3
rd
party smelting, refining and transport
costs
Income Statement (g)
Non-Cash Remuneration (Site-Based) Income Statement (h)
Stock-piles / product inventory write down Income Statement (i)
Operational Stripping Costs Income Statement (j)
By-Product Credits Income Statement (k) Note: this will be a credit
Sub-Total (Adjusted Operating Costs) (l) = (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)
+ (f) + (g) + (h) + (i) + (j) + (k)
Corporate General Administrative costs
(including share-based remuneration)
Income Statement (m)
Reclamation remediation – accretion
amortisation (operating sites)
Income Statement (n)
Exploration and study costs (sustaining) Income Statement (o)
Capital exploration (sustaining) Cash Flow (p)
Capitalised stripping underground mine
development (sustaining)
Cash Flow (q)
Capital expenditure (sustaining) Cash Flow (r)
All-in Sustaining Costs (s) = (l) + (m) + (n) + (o) + (p)
+ (q) + (r)
Community Costs not related to current
operations
Income Statement (t)
Permitting Costs not related to current
operations
Income Statement (u)
Reclamation and remediation costs not
related to current operations
Income Statement (v)
Exploration and study costs (non-sustaining) Income Statement (w)
Capital exploration (non-sustaining) Cash Flow (x)
Capitalised stripping underground mine
development (non-sustaining)
Cash Flow (y)
Capital expenditure (non-sustaining) Cash Flow (z)
All-in Costs = (s) + (t) + (u) + (v) + (w) +
(x) + (y) + (z)
Notes:
1. All companies using this guidance are encouraged to disclose both their all-in sustaining
costs and all-in costs and reconcile these metrics to their GAAP reporting. It is not
expected that companies will disclose all individual cost items.
The use of the sub-total (adjusted operating costs) may be helpful for certain companies in
providing reconciliation to historical metrics but it is not expected that all companies will
provide disclosure at this level. The sub-total (adjusted operating costs) metric may not be
Notes: All companies using this guidance are encouraged to disclose both their all-in sustaining costs and all-in
costs and reconcile these metrics to their GAAP reporting. It is not expected that companies will disclose all
individual cost items.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Example B.3 is an excerpt taken from Gold Fields Limited’s 2015 MDA, and
provides their definition of sustaining capital expenditure.
Example B.4 is an excerpt taken from New Gold Inc.’s 2015 MDA, and provides
their approach for determining sustaining capital expenditure.
Example B.3
Source: Gold Fields Limited, MDA, 2015, page 9
“Sustaining capital expenditure represents the majority of capital expenditures at existing operations,
including underground mine development costs, ongoing replacement of mine equipment and other
capital facilities and other capital expenditures at existing operations…”
Example B.4
Source: New Gold Inc., MDA, 2015, Pages 62, 66
“To determine sustaining capital expenditures, New Gold uses cash flow related to mining interests
from its statement of cash flows and deducts any expenditures that are non‐sustaining. Capital
expenditures to develop new operations or capital expenditures related to major projects at existing
operations where these projects will materially increase production are classified as non‐sustaining
and are excluded.The table “Sustaining Capital Expenditure Reconciliation” reconciles New Gold’s
sustaining capital to its cash flow statement.The definition of sustaining versus non‐sustaining is
similarly applied to capitalized and expensed exploration costs. Exploration costs to develop new
operations or that relate to major projects at existing operations where these projects are expected to
materially increase production are classified as non‐sustaining and are excluded.”
Sustaining Capital Expenditure Reconciliation Tables
Three months ended December 31 Year ended December 31
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except where noted) 2015 2014 2015 2014 2013
TOTAL SUSTAINING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
Mining interests per statement of cash 169.6 88.7 389.5 279.3 289.3
New growth capital expenditure (1) (0.8) (10.5) (15.4) (31.2) (32.0)
Cerro San Pedro growth capital expenditure(2) - (1.3) - (23.3) (15.8)
Rainy River growth capital expenditure (144.8) (36.2) (245.5) (80.5) (21.2)
Blackwater growth capital expenditure (2.7) (3.0) (7.1) (13.0) (60.8)
Other non-sustaining capital expenditure(3) - (1.4) - (1.4) -
Sustaining capitalized included in mining
interests
(0.3) (0.9) (2.3) (3.8) (2.5)
Total sustaining capital expenditures, excluding capitalized
21.0 35.4 119.2 126.0 157.0
1. Current year and prior year growth capital expenditures at New relate to the mill expansion and scoping study/preliminary economic assessment and
for the C-zone.
2. Growth capital expenditures at Cerro San Pedro related to capitalized stripping costs for Phase 5 in the prior-year period.
3. Other non-sustaining capital expenditures includes costs incurred to replace the Company’s revolving credit facility.
Of the 25 companies surveyed, 16 companies produce gold, although two of
those companies focused on metals other than gold. Of the 14 primary gold
producers, all disclosed a measure identified as ‘all-in sustaining costs’ in their
most recently completed annual disclosures. Nine of the companies disclosed
that they are following theWGC Standards and have applied such requirements
to their disclosure of the AISC metric.The five remaining primary gold producers
disclosed an AISC measure, but did not make specific reference to theWorld Gold
Council definition of the measure. It is worth noting that one non-gold producing
company gave guidance on an AISC measure, but did not disclose its historical
AISC performance.
Of the 14 companies that disclosed an AISC measure, five also disclosed an all-in
cost measure included in theWGC guidance outlined in Figure 2.5.
As the calculation of AISC includes items not readily identifiable from the financial
statements and accompanying notes, it is not possible to conclude whether or not
all companies surveyed have fully applied theWorld Gold Council guidance.
The AISC non-GAAP measure is typically presented on a per ounce sold basis,
consistent with theWGC guidance.Twelve of the surveyed companies presented
the AISC measure on an ounces sold basis.Two companies presented the
measure on an ounces produced basis.
One challenge in determining AISC is defining what is considered to be
“sustaining” expenditure. Non-sustaining costs are defined by theWGC as
those incurred at new operations and related to “major projects” at existing
operations that will materially increase production; all other costs are considered
sustaining.The guidance does not define what is meant by “major projects”
and management must therefore apply judgment to determine which costs are
qualified as sustaining and non-sustaining.
Of the 14 companies that disclosed an all-in sustaining costs measure, eight
provided a specific definition of sustaining capital expenditures, which is an
increase from two of 10 companies included in our 2014 survey. Of the companies
that defined sustaining capital expenditure, definitions tended to focus on capital
expenditures required to maintain existing operations and levels of production,
and execute on the current mine plan. By contrast, non-sustaining capital
expenditures were generally defined as those expenditures incurred to generate
incremental production, were expansionary in nature or related to infrastructure
enhancements.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Example B.6 details Barrick Gold Corporation’s calculation of all-in sustaining costs,
calculated on a per ounce sold basis.
Example B.6
Source: Barrick Gold Corporation, 2015 Annual Financial Statements, Page 80
Barrick Gold Corporation | Financial Report 201580
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Reconciliation of Gold Cost of Sales to Cash Costs per ounce, All-in Sustaining Costs per ounce and All-in Costs per ounce
For the years For the three months
ended Dec. 31 ended Dec. 31
($ millions, except per ounce information in dollars) Reference 2015 2014 2013 2015 2014
Cost of sales A $ 5,897 $ 5,794 $ 6,220 $ 1,573 $ 1,508
Cost of sales applicable to non-controlling interests1
B (620) (514) (387) (174) (132)
Cost of sales applicable to ore purchase arrangement – – (46) – –
Cost of sales applicable to power sales C (32) (72) (15) (6) (17)
Other metal sales D (169) (183) (189) (40) (45)
Realized (gains)/losses on hedge and non-hedge E 128 (8) (20) 51 4
Non-recurring items2
(151) – – (90) –
Treatment and refinement charges F 14 11 6 4 3
Total production costs $ 5,067 $ 5,028 $ 5,569 $ 1,318 $ 1,321
Depreciation G $ (1,441) $ (1,267) $ (1,453) $ (424) $ (332)
Impact of Barrick Energy H – – (57) – –
Cash costs $ 3,626 $ 3,761 $ 4,059 $ 894 $ 989
General administrative costs I 180 299 298 44 81
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization (operating sites) J 132 123 136 23 29
Mine on-site exploration and evaluation costs K 39 20 61 9 6
Mine development expenditures3
L 549 653 1,101 88 141
Sustaining capital expenditures3
L 522 569 904 142 208
All-in sustaining costs $ 5,048 $ 5,425 $ 6,559 $ 1,200 $ 1,454
Community relations costs not related to current operations M 12 29 23 (1) 19
Rehabilitation – accretion and amortization not related
to current operations J 12 11 10 3 3
Exploration and evaluation costs (non-sustaining) K 114 152 117 23 44
Non-sustaining capital expenditures3
Pascua-Lama L (81) 195 1,998 (81) 103
Cortez L 47 19 132 5 5
Goldstrike thiosulfate project L 33 287 223 – 65
Bulyanhulu CIL L (1) 29 83 – 4
Pueblo Viejo L – – 29 – –
Hemlo L 39 – – 1 –
Arturo L 80 14 – 24 –
Other L 16 27 24 2 22
All-in costs $ 5,319 $ 6,188 $ 9,198 $ 1,176 $ 1,719
Ounces sold – consolidated basis (000s ounces) 6,793 6,960 7,604 1,801 1,741
Ounces sold – non-controlling interest (000s ounces)1
(709) (676) (430) (165) (169)
Ounces sold – equity basis (000s ounces) 6,083 6,284 7,174 1,636 1,572
Total production costs per ounce4
$ 833 $ 800 $ 776 $ 806 $ 839
Cash costs per ounce4
$ 596 $ 598 $ 566 $ 547 $ 628
Cash costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)4,5
$ 619 $ 618 $ 589 $ 566 $ 648
All-in sustaining costs per ounce4
$ 831 $ 864 $ 915 $ 733 $ 925
All-in sustaining costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)4,5
$ 854 $ 884 $ 938 $ 752 $ 945
All-in costs per ounce4
$ 876 $ 986 $ 1,282 $ 719 $ 1,094
All-in costs per ounce (on a co-product basis)4,5
$ 899 $ 1,006 $ 1,305 $ 738 $ 1,114
1. Relates to interest in Pueblo Viejo and Acacia held by outside shareholders.
2. Non-recurring items consist of $10 million of severance costs from the closure of our Golden Sunlight mine, $116 million of costs arising from a change in our
supplies inventory obsolescence provision and inventory impairments at Buzwagi, and $24 million in abnormal costs at Pueblo Viejo and at Veladero. These costs
are not indicative of our cost of production and have been excluded from the calculation of cash costs.
3. Amounts represent our share of capital expenditures.
4. Total production costs, cash costs, all-in sustaining costs, and all-in costs per ounce may not calculate based on amounts presented in this table due to rounding.
5. Amounts presented on a co-product basis remove the impact of other metal sales (net of non-controlling interest) from cost per ounce calculations that are
produced as a by-product of our gold production.
Example B.5
Source: Kinross Gold Corporation, MDA, 2015, Page 56
Example B.5 provides an excerpt taken from Kinross Gold Corporation’s MDA,
and provides their definition of sustaining capital costs.
(e) “Other operating expense – sustaining” is calculated as “Other operating expense” as reported
on the consolidated statement of operations, less other operating and reclamation and remediation
expenses related to non-sustaining activities as well as other items not reflective of the underlying
operating performance of our business. Other operating expenses are classified as either sustaining
or nonsustaining based on the type and location of the expenditure incurred.The majority of other
operating expenses that are incurred at existing operations are considered costs necessary to sustain
operations, and are therefore classified as sustaining. Other operating expenses incurred at locations
where there is no current operation or related to other non-sustaining activities are classified as non-
sustaining.
(f) “Reclamation and remediation - sustaining” is calculated as current period accretion related
to reclamation and remediation obligations plus current period amortization of the corresponding
reclamation and remediation assets, and is intended to reflect the periodic cost of reclamation and
remediation for currently operating mines. Reclamation and remediation costs for development
projects or closed mines are excluded from this amount and classified as non-sustaining.
(g) “Exploration and business development – sustaining” is calculated as “Exploration and
business development” expenses as reported on the consolidated statement of operations, less
non-sustaining exploration expenses. Exploration expenses are classified as either sustaining or
non-sustaining based on a determination of the type and location of the exploration expenditure.
Exploration expenditures within the footprint of operating mines are considered costs required to
sustain current operations and so are included in sustaining costs. Exploration expenditures focused
on new ore bodies near existing mines (i.e. brownfield), new exploration projects (i.e. greenfield) or
for other generative exploration activity not linked to existing mining operations are classified as non-
sustaining. Business development expenses are considered sustaining costs as they are required for
general operations.
(h) “Additions to property, plant and equipment – sustaining” represents the majority of capital
expenditures at existing operations including capitalized exploration costs, capitalized stripping
and underground mine development costs, ongoing replacement of mine equipment and other
capital facilities and other capital expenditures and is calculated as total additions to property, plant
and equipment (as reported on the consolidated statements of cash flows) net of proceeds from
the disposal of certain property, plant and equipment, less capitalized interest and non-sustaining
capital. Non-sustaining capital represents capital expenditures for major growth projects as well
as enhancement capital for significant infrastructure improvements at existing operations. Non-
sustaining capital expenditures during the year ended December 31, 2015 relate to projects atTasiast,
Chirano and La Coipa.
(i) “Portion attributable to Chirano non-controlling interest” represents the non-controlling interest
(10%) in the ounces sold from the Chirano mine.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Of the 25 companies surveyed, 139
disclosed some measure of adjusted net
earnings. Several items were adjusted for by almost all companies, including
impairment charges and reversals, foreign exchange-related items, and derivative
gains/losses gains or losses10
.
Several companies also adjust net earnings for revisions to reclamation provisions,
structuring and severance-related costs, impairment of available-for-sale
investments and tax-related adjustments relating to a previous period.
The remaining adjustments are made by only a few companies, and may be more
unique to the specific facts and circumstances of their businesses.
In addition, at least one company surveyed also adjusted net earnings for the
following items:
–– Insurance losses
–– Minority interest share of adjustments
–– Litigation settlement.
Of the 13 companies that disclose adjusted earnings, 10 also disclosed adjusted
earnings on a per share basis, with four choosing to disclose both basic and diluted
adjusted earnings per share.
9
10
Compared to the following commonly adjusted items noted in KPMG’s 2014 Financial Reporting Survey:
impairment of long-lived assets, gains/losses and one-time charges for acquisition and disposal of assets,
and tax-related items
Adjusted net earnings
Adjusted net earnings is commonly disclosed as a non-GAAP measure by
intermediate to senior mining companies.The measure is typically calculated as
net earnings per the income statement adjusted for items management does not
consider reflective of the underlying business.
Figure 2.6—Calculation of adjusted net earnings
7
Includes realized and unrealized gain/loss on derivative instruments and other financial instruments
8
Includes adjustments for impairment of non-financial assets and inventory
Adjusted earnings calculation 2016 Survey 2014 Survey
Applicable Adjusted Applicable Adjusted
Foreign currency gains or losses 13 10 11 7
Unrealized gain or loss on financial instruments 12 9 11 87
Impairment charges and reversals 11 11 15 138
Gain/loss and one-time charges for acquisition /
disposal
10 8 10 10
Impairment on available-for-sale securities 8 8 9 8
Restructuring/severance related costs 7 7 2 2
Revisions in estimates for reclamation and
closure cost obligations
7 6 5 3
Share-based payments 13 1 11 2
Other tax items 11 5 11 11

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Years Ended December 31,
2015 2014 2013
Net income (loss) attributable to Newmont stockholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 220 $ 508 $ (2,534)
Loss (income) from discontinued operations (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27) 40 (61)
Impairment of investments (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 15 92
Impairment of long-lived assets (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11 2,783
Restructuring and other (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 21 36
Acquisition costs (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 — —
Loss (gain) on asset and investment sales (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (69) (54) (246)
Gain on deconsolidation of TMAC (7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (49) — —
Reclamation charges (8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 10 —
Ghana Investment Agreement (9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 — —
Abnormal production costs at Batu Hijau (10)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 28 —
Boddington contingent consideration (gain) loss (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — (12)
TMAC transaction costs (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 30
Tax adjustments (13)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 (34) 535
Adjusted net income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 507 $ 545 $ 623
Net income (loss) per share, basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.43 $ 1.02 $ (5.09)
Loss (income) from discontinued operations, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.05) 0.08 (0.12)
Impairment of investments, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.03 0.18
Impairment of long-lived assets, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 0.02 5.59
Restructuring and other, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.04 0.07
Acquisition costs, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02 — —
Loss (gain) on asset and investment sales, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.13) (0.11) (0.49)
Gain on deconsolidation of TMAC, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.09) — —
Reclamation charges, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.18 0.02 —
Ghana Investment Agreement, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 — —
Abnormal production costs at Batu Hijau, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 0.06 —
Boddington contingent consideration (gain) loss, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . — — (0.02)
TMAC transaction costs, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 0.06
Tax adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.38 (0.07) 1.07
Adjusted net income (loss) per share, basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.98 $ 1.09 $ 1.25
Net income (loss) per share, diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.43 $ 1.02 $ (5.09)
Loss (income) from discontinued operations, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.05) 0.08 (0.12)
Impairment of investments, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.03 0.18
Impairment of long-lived assets, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 0.02 5.59
Restructuring and other, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.04 0.07
Acquisition costs, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02 — —
Loss (gain) on asset and investment sales, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.13) (0.11) (0.49)
Gain on deconsolidation of TMAC, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.09) — —
Reclamation charges, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.18 0.02 —
Ghana Investment Agreement, net of taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 — —
Abnormal production costs at Batu Hijau, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 0.06 —
Boddington contingent consideration (gain) loss, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . — — (0.02)
TMAC transaction costs, net of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 0.06
Tax adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.38 (0.07) 1.07
Adjusted net income (loss) per share, diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.98 $ 1.09 $ 1.25
Weighted average common shares (millions):
Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 499 498
Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 499 498
(1) Loss (income) from discontinued operations is presented net of tax expense (benefit) of $11, $(18) and $28, respectively.
(2)
Impairment of investments is presented net of tax expense (benefit) of $(41), $(6) and $(13), respectively.
(3)
Impairment of long-lived assets is presented net of tax expense (benefit) of $(20), $(6) and $(1,566), respectively and amounts attributed to
noncontrolling interest income (expense) of $(14), $(9) and $(3), respectively.
(4) Restructuring and other is presented net of tax expense (benefit) of $(12), $(13) and $(23), respectively and amounts attributed to noncontrolling
interest income (expense) of $(5), $(6) and $(8), respectively.
(5) Acquisition costs are presented net of tax expense (benefit) of $(7), $- and $-, respectively.
Example B.7 details Newmont Mining Corporation’s reconciliation of net earnings
to adjusted net earnings and adjusted earnings/share (basic and diluted).
Example B.7
Source: Newmont Mining Corporation, Annual Financial Statements, Page 84

Risks
24
Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
KeymessagesRevisiting a quote from our earlier publication, Insights into Mining, Issue Six,
“most industry insiders would describe the past three years as anxious for mining
companies, as commodity prices continued to slide down from record highs
reached earlier in the century”.1
We took a close look at the depth to which these
risks have been described by the 25 global firms surveyed, including examples of
risk definitions, quantification and mitigating strategies.
The risks disclosed within these public filings were summarized into unique
categories; the risks disclosed by at least 75% of the surveyed group are
charted below, representing the most frequently disclosed risk categories.
When compared to the top risks for mining companies in 2015 2
, there is a strong
correlation between the top 10 risks and the most frequently disclosed risks by
our 25 surveyed companies. Particularly so for commodity price, which was
disclosed by all companies surveyed, and remains at the top of the mining
industry’s risk registers.
Commodity price
Community relations, social license risk
Ability to access and replace reserves
Key talent and unionized labour risk
Regulatory non-compliance risk
Environmental risk
Tenement stability risk
Liquidity risk
Legal and litigation risk
Political uncertainty risk
Antibribery and corruption risk
It and cybersecurity risk
Health and safety risk
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 3.1—Most frequently disclosed risks
Figure 3.2—Top 10 surveyed risks vs. top disclosed risks
The balance of this section will look at disclosures around the four most frequently
disclosed risks.
1
KPMG Insights into Mining, Issue #6, 2015.
2
Public disclosures included an inspection of:
– Annual Reports , including Management Discussion and Analysis
– Annual Information Form (for Canadian-listed entities under National Instrument 51-102)
– SEC form 10-K (for U.S. domestic issuers)
– SEC form 20-F (for foreign private issuers listed in the U.S.).
3
KPMG Insights into Mining, Issue #6, 2015.
Top 10 risks in 2015 3
Percentage of companies
disclosing risk in 2015Description 2015 Rank
Commodity price risk 1 100%
Ability to access and replace reserves,
including access to new projects
2 92%
Permitting risk 3 64%
Community relations, social license 4 92%
Liquidity risk 5 80%
Environmental risk 6 84%
Controlling operating costs 7 56%
Capital allocation 8 36%
Controlling capital costs 9 36%
Economic slowdown 10 52%

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Commodity price risks
Commodity price largely drives success and failure in the mining industry, and is
closely tied to other key risks such as access to replace resources and reserves,
and ability to deliver on what was forecasted in the life of mine plan. It is therefore
no surprise that it is the industry’s most commonly disclosed risk, appearing
in at least one public filing for all 25 companies surveyed.The prominence of
commodity price risk in public disclosure is consistent with the feedback provided
during KPMG’s Mining Executive Forum in North America.The results of this
survey identified commodity price risk as the number one perceived risk among
industry executives in 2014 and 2015.
Commodity price risk can be defined as the risk that variability in commodity prices
will result in reduced profitability, asset impairment and balance sheet constraints.
Low commodity prices can impact future operational risks as well, by sterilizing an
ore body that would otherwise be mineable with a small increase in commodity
prices.Variability in commodity prices can result in adjustments to reserve
estimates and life-of-mine plans, and can impact project feasibility. It also impacts
investor confidence and share prices.
Non-financial statement disclosure
All 25 companies surveyed disclosed commodity price risks in one or both of their
AIF or their MDA (or 10-K or 20-F for non-Canadian issuers). Of the 25 surveyed,
14 companies used quantification in their disclosure of commodity price risk to
demonstrate the impact a change in commodity price could have on production;
14 provided illustrative examples in their disclosure and 11 provided commentary
on mitigation policies or procedures.
Financial statement note disclosure
In addition to the non-financial statement disclosures noted above, all 25
companies disclosed commodity price risk in their financial statements. Of these
companies, 13 defined the impact of price variability on the financial statements
and 17 discussed mitigation efforts. Of the 17 companies who discussed
mitigation, 14 cited hedging policies and three referred to operational measures.
The 13 companies who discussed commodity price hedging were either engaged
in commodity price hedging activities at the date of the disclosure or discussed
hedging as an example of a potential strategy.
Example C.1 provides an excerpt from Kinross Gold Corporation’s 2015 MDA
disclosure, which highlights the actual 2015 realized price in order to give context
to the commodity price risk.
Example C.1
Source: Kinross Gold Corporation, MDA, 2015, Page 41
Gold Price and Silver Price
The profitability of Kinross’ operations is significantly affected by changes in the market price
of gold and silver. Gold and silver prices fluctuate on a daily basis and are affected by numerous
factors beyond the control of Kinross.The price of gold and/or silver can be subject to volatile price
movements and future serious price declines could cause continued commercial production to be
impractical. Depending on the prices of gold and silver, cash flow from mining operations may not
be sufficient to cover costs of production and capital expenditures. If, as a result of a decline in gold
and/or silver prices, revenues from metal sales were to fall below cash operating costs, production
may be discontinued.The factors that may affect the price of gold and silver include industry factors
such as: industrial and jewelry demand; the level of demand for the metal as an investment; central
bank lending, sales and purchases of the metal; speculative trading; and costs of and levels of global
production by producers of the metal. Gold and silver prices may also be affected by macroeconomic
factors, including: expectations of the future rate of inflation; the strength of, and confidence in, the US
dollar, the currency in which the price of the metal is generally quoted, and other currencies; interest
rates; and global or regional political or economic uncertainties. In 2015, the Company’s average gold
price realized decreased to $1,159 per ounce from $1,263 per ounce in 2014. If the world market price
of gold and/or silver continued to drop and the prices realized by Kinross on gold and/or silver sales
were to decrease further and remain at such a level for any substantial period, Kinross’ profitability
and cash flow would be negatively affected. In such circumstances, Kinross may determine that it is
not economically feasible to continue commercial production at some or all of its operations or the
development of some or all of its current projects, which could have an adverse impact on Kinross’
financial performance and results of operations. Kinross may curtail or suspend some or all of its
exploration activities, with the result that depleted reserves are not replaced. In addition, the market
value of Kinross’ gold and/or silver inventory may be reduced and existing reserves may be reduced to
the extent that ore cannot be mined and processed economically at the prevailing prices. Furthermore,
certain of Kinross’ mineral projects include copper which is similarly subject to price volatility based on
factors beyond Kinross’ control.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Community relations and social license risk
Mining is often a disruptive process that inevitably impacts the surrounding
community. Due to the size and economic importance of many mineral assets,
they are often the subject of public scrutiny.This public scrutiny has brought
corporate social responsibility initiatives to the forefront of strategic planning.
It has also made community relations and social license risk a topic of public
disclosure, with 23 of the 25 companies surveyed disclosing the risk at least once.
Community relations and social license risk is the potential reputational damage
or lack of constituent support resulting from the perceived or actual impact of
mining or exploration activities on the environs. Examples include a breakdown
in cooperation from traditional land owners (e.g. aboriginal populations), or social
media outcry following an environmental incident. Community relations and social
license encompasses social, economic, environmental, health and safety risks as
they relate to the local people or ecosystem.
Of the companies disclosing community relations or social license risk, 16
provided examples and five discussed mitigation in at least one of their related
disclosures. See the Glencore disclosure below for an example.
Example C.3, taken from Glencore plc’s 2015 Annual Report describes downside
risk; and comments on their risk management strategy.
Example C.3
Source: Glencore plc, Annual Financial Report, 2015, Page 35
Strategic report | Governance | Financial statements | Additional information
Risk Comments
Community relations
The continued success of our existing operations and our
future projects are in part dependent upon broad support and
a healthy relationship with the respective local communities.
A perception that we are not respecting or advancing the
interests of the communities in which we operate, could have a
negative impact on our ‘‘social licence to operate’’, our ability to
secure access to new resources and our financial performance.
The consequences of negative community reaction could also
have a material adverse impact on the cost, profitability, ability
to finance or even the viability of an operation and the safety
and security of our workforce and assets. Such events could
lead to disputes with governments, with local communities or
any other stakeholders, and give rise to reputational damage.
Even in cases where no adverse action is actually taken, the
uncertainty associated with such instability could negatively
impact the perceived value of our assets.
We believe that the best way to manage these vital relationships
is to adhere to the principles of open dialogue and cooperation.
In doing so, we engage with local communities to demonstrate
our operations’ contribution to socio-economic development
and seek to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to
prevent or mitigate possible adverse impacts on the
communities, along with the regular reporting as outlined
on our website at: www.glencore.com/sustainability/our-
approach-to-sustainability/communities/engagement/.
Employees
The maintenance of positive employee and union relations and
the ability to attract and retain skilled workers, including senior
management are key to our success. This can be challenging,
especially in locations experiencing political or civil unrest, or
in which they may be exposed to other hazardous conditions.
Many employees are represented by labour unions under
various collective labour agreements. Their employing
company may not be able to satisfactorily renegotiate its
collective labour agreements when they expire and may face
tougher negotiations or higher wage demands than would be
We understand that one of the key factors in our success
is a good and trustworthy relationship with our people.
This priority is reflected in the principles of our sustainability
programme and related guidance, which require regular,
open, fair and respectful communication, zero tolerance for
human rights violations, fair remuneration and, above all,
a safe working environment, as outlined on our website at:
www.glencore.com/careers/our-people/.
Example C.2 is an excerpt from Hudbay Mineral Inc.’s 2015 MDA disclosure,
which provides a detailed view of their approach to strategic risk management
and mitigation.
Example C.2
Source: Hubay Minerals Inc., MDA, 2015, Page 38
Base Metals Price Strategic Risk Management
Our strategic objective is to provide our investors with exposure to base metals prices, unless a
reason exists to implement a hedging arrangement.We may hedge base metals prices from time to
time to ensure we will have sufficient cash flow to meet our growth objectives, or to maximize debt
capacity (and correspondingly minimize equity dilution) to the extent that third party financing may be
needed to fund growth initiatives. However, we generally prefer to raise financing for attractive growth
opportunities through equity issuance if the only alternative is to engage in a substantial amount of
long term strategic metals price hedging.We may also hedge base metals prices to manage the
risk of putting higher cost operations into production or the risk associated with provisional pricing
terms in concentrate purchase and sales agreements. During 2015, we entered into copper hedging
transactions intended to manage the risk associated with provisional pricing terms in concentrate
sales agreements. As at December 31, 2015, we had copper price fixed for floating swaps in place
on approximately 170 million pounds of copper at an average fixed receivable price of US$2.37/lb
associated with provisional pricing risk in concentrate sales agreements.These swaps settle in January
to April, 2016.To provide a service to customers who purchase zinc from our plants and require known
future prices, we enter into fixed price sales contracts.To ensure that we continue to receive a floating
or unhedged realized zinc price, we enter into forward zinc purchase contracts that effectively offset
the fixed price sales contracts with our customers. From time to time, we enter into gold and silver
forward sales contracts to hedge the commodity price risk associated with the future settlement of
provisionally priced deliveries.We are generally obligated to deliver gold and silver to SilverWheaton
prior to the determination of final settlement prices.These forward sales contracts are entered into
at the time we deliver gold and silver to SilverWheaton, and are intended to mitigate the risk of
subsequent adverse gold and silver price changes. Gains and losses resulting from the settlement of
these derivatives are recorded directly to revenue, as the forward sales contracts do not achieve hedge
accounting, and the associated cash flows are classified in operating activities. Our swap agreements
are with counterparties we believe to be creditworthy and do not require us to provide collateral.

Non-GAAP
measures
RisksHome Valuation
Other
reporting
Estimates
judgments
Example C.4
Source: Barrick Gold Corporation, MDA, 2015, Page 38
Resources and reserves, growth and production outlook
Like any mining company, we face the risk that we are unable to discover or acquire new resources or
that we do not convert resources into production. As we move into 2016 and beyond, our overriding
objective of growing free cash flow per share is underpinned by a strong pipeline of organic projects and
minesite expansion opportunities in our core regions. Uncertainty related to these opportunities exists
(potentially both favorable and unfavorable) due to the speculative nature of mineral exploration and
development as well as the potential for increased costs, delays, suspensions and technical challenges
associated with the construction of capital projects.
Risk modification approach:
–– Exploration activities including minesite exploration and global programs;
–– Strategic business development activities;
–– Enhance project design to stagger capital outlay and optimize timing of cash flows;
–– Identify opportunities to improve project economics;
–– Leverage existing or develop new business partnerships with those who share
a mutual interest in achieving the Company and project objectives;
–– Defer, cancel, or sell projects that cannot achieve desired capital allocation targets.
Example C.4 is an excerpt taken from Barrick Gold Corporation’s 2015 MDA
disclosure, and addresses both the downside and upside risk related to mineral
reserve access, going on to outline the focus on growth strategy.
Figure 3.3—Gold reserve and resource pricing disclosures
Ability to access and replace reserves
The ability to access and replace reserves, including access to new projects, is
defined as the risk that production levels may not be maintained if reserves are not
continually replaced (i.e. to offset depletion, or to sustain growth).The increased
importance of mineral reserves-related risks reflects the declining discovery rate
of new, high quality ore deposits in low-risk jurisdictions. Growth through cost-
effective acquisition is likely to become more difficult and more competitive as
discoveries continue to decline. Resource and reserve replacement is also top
of mind due to decreased exploration and development spending in the industry
during the recent slump in commodity prices.
Of the 25 companies surveyed, 23 disclosed the ability to access and replace
reserves, including access to new projects, as a business risk.This disclosure
tied with community relations/social license risk for the second most commonly
disclosed risk.This is consistent with KPMG’s Mining Executive Forum survey
which ranked the risk second in 2015 (up from 10th in 2014).
The feasibility of mineral extraction is directly related to the commodity price.
Of the 25 companies surveyed, 21 have material gold reserves and therefore
disclosed gold reserves pricing. Gold resource pricing was disclosed by 16
companies. As an example, the average reserve gold pricing disclosure (which
affects reserve versus resource classification) is shown in Figure 3.3.The data
provided is based on the primary price disclosed by each company with material
gold reserves or resources.
Of the companies surveyed, 12 included specific examples of the risk of being
unable to access and replace reserves and resources; nine of these companies
disclosed mitigating factors. Mitigating factors generally focused on strong
development plans and growth strategies. None of the companies surveyed
quantified the impact of this risk.
2015 Minimum
(USD)
Maximum
(USD)
Mean
(USD)
Median
(USD)
Reserves 1,000 1,449 1,168 1,200
Resources 1,100 1,500 1,314 1,314

Mining Reporting Survey 2016 Key Estimates and Judgments

Mining Reporting Survey 2016 Key Estimates and Judgments

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Mining Reporting Survey 2016 Key Estimates and Judgments

Similar to Mining Reporting Survey 2016 Key Estimates and Judgments (20)

Mining Reporting Survey 2016 Key Estimates and Judgments