##### 



EXHIBIT 3

Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial
and Operating Results

|                                       |                              |       |       |                                 |                                |       |               |  |       |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ----- | ------------- |  | ----- |  |  |  | 
|Contents                               |                              |       |       |                                 |                                |       |               |  |       |  |  | 
|                                       |                              |       |       |                                 |                                |       |               |  |       |  |  | 
|Business Overview                      |                              | pg.22 |       | Cash Flow Statement             |                                | pg.41
|Financial Results Overview             |                              | pg.25 |       | Liquidity and Capital Resources |                                | pg.41
|Factors that May Affect Future Results |                              | pg.27 |       | Operating Activities            |                                | pg.43
|Income Statement                       |                              | pg.30 |       | Investing Activities            |                                | pg.43
|                                       | Gold Production and Sales    |       | pg.30 |                                 | Financing Activities           |       | pg.44        
|                                       | Cost of Sales and            |       |       |                                 | Balance Sheet                  |       | pg.44        
|                                       | Other Operating Expenses     |       | pg.31 |                                 | Canadian Supplement            |       | pg.44        
|                                       | Amortization                 |       | pg.38 |                                 | Critical Accounting Policies   |       |               |  |      
|                                       | Exploration, Development and |       |       |                                 |                                |       | and Estimates |  | pg.45
|                                       | Business Development         |       | pg.38 |                                 | Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements |       | pg.51        
|                                       | Administration               |       | pg.39 |                                 | Forward Gold Sales Contracts   |       | pg.51        
|                                       | Interest Expense             |       | pg.39 |                                 | Contractual Obligations and    |       |               |  |      
|                                       | Other Income/Expense         |       | pg.39 |                                 | Commitments                    |       | pg.55        
|                                       | Non-Hedge Derivative Gains   |       | pg.39 |                                 | Quarterly Information          |       | pg.57        
|                                       | Income Taxes                 |       | pg.40 |                                 | Non-GAAP Performance Measures  |       | pg.58        
|Statement of Comprehensive Income      |                              | pg.41 |       | Outstanding Share Data          |                                | pg.61

This portion of our Annual Report provides a discussion and analysis of our
financial condition and results of operations to enable a reader to assess
material changes in financial condition and results of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2003, compared to those of the preceding year. This
Managements Discussion and Analysis has been prepared as of March 4, 2004. The
consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with US generally
accepted accounting principles (US GAAP) are on pages 64 to 67. This
Managements Discussion and Analysis is intended to supplement and complement
our
financial statements and notes thereto for the year ended December 31, 2003
(collectively, our Financial Statements), which are included in this Annual
Report. You are encouraged to review our Financial Statements in conjunction
with your review of this Managements Discussion and Analysis. Certain notes
to our financial statements are specifically referred to in this Managements
Discussion and Analysis and such notes are incorporated by reference herein.
All dollar amounts in this Managements Discussion and Analysis are in millions
of US dollars, unless otherwise specified.

21

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Business Overview

Company Overview
Barrick Gold Corporation is among the worlds largest gold producers in terms
of market capitalization, gold production and reserves. Our operating mines and
development projects are concentrated in three primary regions: North America,
Australia/Africa, and South America. In 2003, 59% of our gold production came
from North America. As our development projects commence production over the
next several years, we expect that our South American region will make up an
increasing proportion of our annual gold production.

We earn the majority of our revenue and generate cash flow from the production
and sale of gold in both dore and concentrate form. Certain of our mines, in
particular, Pierina and Eskay Creek, produce significant quantities of silver
as a by-product, the revenue from which is deducted from operating costs, and
therefore affects our cash operating costs per ounce. This will also be the
case with two of our development projects  Pascua-Lama and Veladero.

Key Performance Drivers
The key drivers of financial performance in our business, include realized
gold sales prices, gold production volumes and production costs per ounce. We
focus on optimizing these performance drivers to maximize the profit
contribution and operating cash flow generated by our mines. Because we
operate in a capital-intensive industry, we invest significant amounts each
year at our operating mines to maintain our productive capacity (referred to
as sustaining capital); and also for mine expansion and to build new mines.
Consequently, amortization expense forms a large component of our costs to
produce gold.

Producing Mines
Our existing portfolio of operating mines mainly includes mature properties
with stable production volumes. Most of the mines are currently processing ore
at or near the average reserve grade. The mines produce at relatively low total
cash costs per ounce1 compared to other senior gold producers, and they are
presently generating substantial amounts of operating cash flow, which is
available to fund our development projects and other growth opportunities that
may arise. We closed five mines in 2002, on depletion of their reserves, which
had the effect of lowering our annual gold production by about 0.3 million
ounces in 2003. Overall, our total gold production decreased by 0.2 million
ounces to 5.51 million ounces as our other mines produced 0.1 million more
ounces of gold in 2003 compared with 2002. Due to the effect of mine sequencing
over the last few years, the ore processed at Goldstrike, our largest mine, has
been above the average reserve grade. However, as ore grades at Goldstrike have
trended towards average reserve grades, we have experienced higher operating
costs per ounce and lower annual production volumes. To some extent, we have
been successful in mitigating the effects of these trends through cost
management initiatives. In 2004, a continuation of the trend of declining
grades at Goldstrike, together with Pierina production moving into lower grade
areas, will lead to a further decline in production and increase in total cash
costs per ounce1. We expect that in 2004, our total production will fall by
about 0.5 to 0.6 million ounces and our average total cash costs will increase
by about $15 to $25 per ounce1.

1.     For an explanation of our use of non-GAAP performance measures, refer to pages 58 to 61.

22

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Exploration and Mine Development
We also focus on finding new gold reserves. To the extent we can add gold
reserves at our existing operations, we extend the lives of our mines and
generate additional cash flow, increasing the rate of return on the capital we
have invested. Prior to the recent gold price rally, the industry experienced
an extended period of low gold prices. In contrast to many producers we have
made a sustained investment in our exploration program. This program resulted
in a major new gold discovery  Alto Chicama in Peru. By the end of 2003, our
work at Alto Chicama allowed us to add 7.2 million ounces to reserves (for
Canadian reporting purposes). At the end of 2003, we had proven and probable
reserves of 86 million ounces of gold, based on a $325 gold price, after
producing 5.51 million ounces in 2003 (6.5 million contained ounces), compared
to reserves (for Canadian reporting purposes) of 86.9 million ounces in 2002
based on a $300 gold price. Several of our deposits contain a significant
amount of silver within our reported gold mineral reserves, which is or will be
produced as a by-product of the gold reserves. For example, Pascua-Lama
contains 584 million ounces of silver.

We have a mine development program that we expect to contribute to production,
earnings and cash flow, beginning with Veladero and Alto Chicama in 2005. By
2007, we expect this development pipeline to contribute a significant amount
of gold production annually to our portfolio.

Commodity Price Risk
Our revenues are significantly impacted by the market price of gold, and to a
lesser extent the market price of silver. We have historically used an
extensive gold hedging program to manage our exposure to market gold prices.
This program has provided substantial benefits to us in the form of
realized gold sales prices in excess of market prices. The flexibility of our
program has also allowed us to participate in a gold price rally, as we saw in
2003, when there was a substantial upward shift in market gold prices. Our 2003
earnings benefited from rising gold prices, with an average realized price of
$366 per ounce, compared to an average spot gold price of $363 per ounce, an 8%
increase from 2002. During first quarter 2004, spot gold prices were in the
$400 per ounce range and many industry observers expect this gold price rally
to be sustained, with the outlook for market gold prices generally positive.

In recognition of these market realities, we announced a No-Hedge policy on
gold in fourth quarter 2003, under which we will not add any new gold hedge
contracts and we expect to reduce our gold hedge position to zero over time.
The unique flexibility in our gold hedge contracts enables us to deliver gold
whenever we choose over the primarily ten-year terms of the contracts,
allowing us to exploit gold market volatility in reducing the gold hedge
position. In 2003, we reduced our gold hedge position by 14% or 2.6 million
ounces. At the end of 2003, our gold hedge position represented 18% of our
gold reserves (for Canadian reporting purposes), which means that 82% of our
gold reserves are unhedged and exposed to changes in gold prices. One of our
goals is a further reduction in the size of our gold hedge position; to that
end, we have targeted a minimum 1.5 million ounce reduction in the position
during 2004. The actual reduction may be higher than the target, depending on
market conditions. By choosing to deliver a portion of our gold production
into our gold hedge position to achieve our target, we may realize less than
the market price of gold for this portion of our production, depending on
market conditions.

23

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

We also consume other commodities at our operations in the process of
producing gold. These commodities include diesel fuel, electricity, propane
and consumables such as acid and lime. Changes in the cost of these
commodities impact our costs to produce gold. To the extent any such changes
had a significant impact on our cash costs in 2003 compared to 2002, the
changes are highlighted in this Managements Discussion and Analysis.

We use forward silver sales contracts to sell a portion of our annual silver
production. These contracts act as an economic hedge of our exposure to
changes in market silver prices.

Currency Risk
Although we operate on four continents, all our revenues and approximately 70%
of our cash expenditures are denominated in US dollars. Nearly half of our
production comes from our United States mines, while most of our Peruvian and
Tanzanian operating and capital expenditures  such as diesel fuel, reagents
and equipment  are denominated in United States dollars.

Our main foreign currency exposures relate to cash expenditures at our Canadian
and Australian mines that are denominated in local currencies. Like many other
gold producers, our operations in Australia and Canada are affected by the
performance of the Australian and Canadian dollar against the US dollar as our
functional currency is the US dollar and a portion of our cash operating costs
are denominated in the local currencies. Over the last two years, the
Australian dollar has strengthened by 48% and the Canadian dollar by 23%. In
2003, our local currency costs were hedged at rates better than current market
rates and we recorded hedge gains in our cash operating costs totaling $65
million. If we had not hedged our exposure to a weakening US dollar, our total
cash costs would have been $12 per
ounce higher in 2003. Our currency hedge positions provide a significant level
of protection for our Australian and Canadian dollar costs for the equivalent
of about three years.

At the end of 2003, we had approximately C$1.0 billion of our Canadian dollar
exposures hedged at $0.68 (88% of expected total local capital and operating
costs over the next three years) and approximately A$1.4 billion of our
Australian dollar exposures hedged at $0.57 (73% of expected total local
capital and operating costs over the next three years). Included in other
comprehensive income at December 31, 2003 were unrealized pre-tax gains on
currency hedge contracts totaling $280 million that will be matched with our
operating costs over primarily the next three years to offset the impact of
the strengthening Australian and Canadian dollar. We may add to our currency
hedge position during 2004, subject to market conditions and depending upon
the outlook for the US dollar.

Interest Rate Risk
Our interest rate exposure mainly relates to the mark-to-market value of
derivative instruments, the fair value and ongoing payments under gold lease
rate and US dollar interest-rate swaps, and interest receipts on our cash
balances. In general, we are adversely affected by declining interest rates
because we earn interest on our cash balances at market rates. Through our
interest rate hedge program, we have been able to mitigate the impact of
falling US dollar interest rates on these cash balances. On $650 million of our
cash balances, we have fixed the interest return we are earning through
2006-2007 at 3.4%, with the remaining cash balances generating interest income
at variable US dollar interest rates. Low interest rates also limit the growth
in prices that we can expect to receive for any gold delivered under existing
forward sales contracts in our hedging program.

24

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A large portion of our $760 million of long-term debt obligations are at fixed
interest rates and are therefore not affected by changes in market interest
rates. The exceptions are $350 million of our
debentures where we have converted the interest rate from fixed to floating
rates, and our $80 million of variable-rate bonds.

Financial Results Overview

|                                                                 |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |  |  |   |       | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- |  |  | - | ----- | 
|For the years ended December 31                                  |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |  |  |   |       | 
|(in millions of US dollars, except per share and per ounce data) |  | 2003 |       | 2002 |  | 2001
|                                                                 |  |      |      
|Gold sales                                                       |  | $    | 2,035 |      |  | $    | 1,967 |  |  | $ | 1,989 | 
|Average spot gold price per ounce                                |  |      | 363   |      |  |      | 310   |  |  |   | 271   | 
|Average realized gold price per ounce                            |  |      | 366   |      |  |      | 339   |  |  |   | 317   | 
|Net income                                                       |  |      | 200   |      |  |      | 193   |  |  |   | 96    | 
|Net income per share  basic and diluted                         |  |      | 0.37  |      |  |      | 0.36  |  |  |   | 0.18  | 
|Operating cash flow                                              |  |      | 521   |      |  |      | 589   |  |  |   | 588   | 
|Operating
cash flow excluding Inmet settlement1                  |  |      | 607   |      |  |      | 589   |  |  |   | 588   | 
|Total assets                                                     |  |      | 5,362 |      |  |      | 5,261 |  |  |   | 5,202 | 
|Total long-term debt                                             |  |      | 760   |      |  |      | 781   |  |  |   | 802   | 
|Cash dividends per common share                                  |  |      | 0.22  |      |  |      | 0.22  |  |  |   | 0.22  | 
|                                                                 |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |  |  |   |       | 

1.     For an explanation of our use of non-GAAP performance measures, refer to pages 58 to 61.

Income Statement

Earnings in 2003 were slightly higher than the prior year. We benefited from
higher spot gold prices, which enabled us to realize a $27 per ounce higher
selling price for our gold production (an increase in revenue of $150 million
in comparison to 2002). However, in a higher spot gold price environment, we
pay higher royalties, production taxes and income taxes. Royalties and
production taxes increased by $5 per ounce, or $23 million, over the prior
year, and our underlying effective income tax rate increased from 3% in 2002 to
20% in 2003, an increase of $38 million.

As a result of the closure of five mines in 2002 on depletion of their
reserves, we produced and sold 3% fewer ounces in 2003 compared to the prior
year. These five closed mines generated a profit contribution, before tax, of
$42 million in 2002. At our current mines, cash operating costs per ounce excluding royalties and
production taxes were $7 per ounce higher in 2003, mainly due to higher costs
at Meikle and Bulyanhulu, which added $39 million to our cash operating costs.

We continued to invest heavily in exploration, mine development and business
development in 2003, with a $33 million increase in costs over the prior year.
Under US GAAP, development costs are expensed until mineralization is
classified as proven and probable reserves for US reporting purposes. In 2003,
we expensed $54 million of development costs, mainly at Veladero and Alto
Chicama, compared with $52 million in 2002. The $24 million increase in
exploration costs to $62 million, accounts for most of the increase in
exploration, development and business development expense year over year.

25

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Earnings in both years included various items that significantly impacted the
comparability of our results year on year. In 2003, the major items included
gains of $71 million on non-hedge derivatives and gains totaling $39 million on
the sale of various assets, offset by a $36 million higher charge for
reclamation and closure costs following a change in accounting policy for these
types of costs. We also recorded tax credits of $62 million in 2003. We
released valuation allowances totaling $15 million in Argentina following the
decision to begin construction at Veladero and the classification of
mineralization there as a proven and probable reserve, $16 million in Australia due to higher
levels of taxable income in a higher gold price environment, and $21 million in
North America following a corporate reorganization. In 2002, we recorded a
credit of $22 million due to the outcome of various tax uncertainties. These
credits were offset by valuation allowances against unrecognized tax losses.
The material items are explained in this Managements Discussion and Analysis.
We have summarized these items below to assist a reader in understanding the
effect of the items on earnings.

Effect on earnings increase
(decrease) ($ millions)

|                                                  |  |         |     |          |  |         |     |          |  |         |     |          |  |   |     |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------- | --- | -------- |  | ------- | --- | -------- |  | ------- | --- | -------- |  | - | --- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | -
|For the years ended December 31                   |  | 2003    |     | 2002     |  | 2001   
|                                                  |  |         |     |          |  |        
|                                                  |  | Pre-tax |     | Post-tax |  | Pre-tax |     | Post-tax |  | Pre-tax |     | Post-tax
|                                                  |  |         |     |          |  |         |     |          |  |         |     |         
|Non-hedge derivative gains (losses)               |  | $       | 71  |          |  | $       | 60  |          |  | $       | (6  | )        |  | $ | 6   |   |  | $ | 33   |   |  | $ | 21   |  
|Inmet litigation costs                            |  |         | (16 | )        |  |         | (11 | )        |  |         |    |          |  |   |    |   |  |   | (59  | ) |  |   | (41  | )
|Gains on asset sales                              |  |         | 39  |          |  |         | 31  |          |  |         | 8   |          |  |   | 5   |   |  |   | 9    |   |  |   | 6    |  
|Gains (losses) on investments                     |  |         | (12 | )        |  |         | (12 | )        |  |         | (4  | )        |  |   | (4  | ) |  |   | 2    |   |  |   | 2    |  
|Changes in asset retirement
obligation estimates  |  |         | (10 | )        |  |         | (10 | )        |  |         |    |          |  |   |    |   |  |   |     |   |  |   |     |  
|Severance costs                                   |  |         | (9  | )        |  |         | (6  | )        |  |         |    |          |  |   |    |   |  |   |     |   |  |   |     |  
|Cumulative effect of accounting changes           |  |         | (17 | )        |  |         | (17 | )        |  |         |    |          |  |   |    |   |  |   | (1   | ) |  |   | (1   | )
|Merger and related costs                          |  |         |    |          |  |         |    |          |  |         | 2   |          |  |   | 2   |   |  |   | (117 | ) |  |   | (117 | )
|Tax credits                                       |  |         | 62  |          |  |         | 62  |          |  |         | 22  |          |  |   | 22  |   |  |   |     |   |  |   |     |  
|Tax losses not recognized                         |  |         | (23 | )        |  |         | (23 | )        |  |         | (43 | )        |  |   | (43 | ) |  |   | (45  | ) |  |   | (45  | )
|Impact of accounting change
for reclamation costs |  |         | (36 | )        |  |         | (25 | )        |  |         |    |          |  |   |    |   |  |   |     |   |  |   |     |  
|                                                  |  |         |     |          |  |         |     |          |  |         |     |          |  |   |     |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  

Cash Flow Statement

We generated $68 million less operating cash flow in 2003 compared to the prior
year. Excluding the $86 million settlement of the Inmet litigation, our
operating cash flow would have been $18 million higher in 2003. Higher realized
gold selling prices in 2003 were partly offset by higher total cash costs and
higher payments of income taxes. Both our cash expenditures for investing and financing activities increased in
2003. In part, this was as a result of increased capital spending with the
construction start up at Veladero and $154 million spent on our share buy-back
program.

26

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Factors that May Affect Future Results

There are numerous factors, outside our control, that could cause results to
differ significantly from our expectations. Some of these factors are
described below. Derivative instrument risks, including credit, market, and
liquidity risks, are described in note 11 (g) to our consolidated financial
statements.

By their very nature, and as noted under Forward-looking statements on the
inside back cover of this Annual Report, forward-looking statements involve
inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and risks that
predictions, forecasts, and projections and other forward-looking statements
will not be achieved. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on such
statements in this Managements Discussion and Analysis as a number of
important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the
plans, objectives, goals, targets, expectations, estimates and intentions
expressed in such forward-looking statements.

Industry and non-company
factors

As a gold mining company conducting business
in the United States, Canada, Australia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Tanzania and
other countries, our revenues and earnings are affected by the condition of the
economic and business environments specific to the geographic regions in which
we operate. Factors such as commodity prices (gold and silver), interest rates,
inflation and exchange rates impact the business and economic environment and
ultimately the performance of our business in each region.

Our business is affected by the world market price of gold and other
commodities as described on page 23. Gold prices are subject to volatile price
movements over short periods of time and are affected by numerous factors, all
of which are
beyond our control. These include industry factors such as: industrial and
jewelry demand; the level of demand for gold as an investment; central bank
lending, sales and purchases of gold; speculative trading; and costs of and
levels of global gold production by producers of gold. Gold 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 gold is generally quoted, and other currencies; interest
rates; and global or regional, political or economic uncertainties. Our
business is also affected by the market prices of other commodities produced
as by-products at our mines, such as silver and copper, as well as commodities
which are consumed or otherwise used in connection with our operations, such
as diesel fuel and electricity. Prices of such commodities are also subject to
volatile price movements over short periods of time and are affected by
factors that are beyond our control.

We have some protection from falling market gold prices under our gold hedge
position, but if the world market price of gold were to drop and the prices
realized by us on gold sales were to decrease significantly and remain at such
a level for any substantial period, or proceeds from the sale of by-products
were to decrease significantly, or the cost of other commodities consumed were
to increase significantly, our profitability and cash flow would be negatively
affected. In such circumstances, we may determine that it is not economically
feasible to continue commercial production at some or all of our operations or
develop some or all of our projects, which could have an adverse impact on our
financial performance and results of operations.

27

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

We conduct mining and development activities in many countries. Mining
investments are subject to the risks normally associated with any conduct of
business in foreign countries including: uncertain political and economic
environments; war and civil disturbances; changes in laws or policies of
particular countries; foreign taxation; delays in obtaining or the inability
to obtain necessary governmental permits; limitations on the repatriation of
earnings; and increased financing costs. These risks may limit or disrupt
projects, restrict the movement of funds or result in the deprivation of
contract rights or the taking of property by nationalization or expropriation
without fair compensation.

Our earnings are affected by the monetary policies of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. Bond and money market
expectations about inflation and central bank monetary policy decisions have
an impact on the level of interest rates, and gold lease rates, which can have
an impact on earnings.

Our business is affected by the levels of market interest rates and gold lease
rates, as described on page 24. A significant, prolonged decrease in interest
rates could have a material adverse impact on the interest earned on our cash
balances. A significant prolonged decrease in interest rates and/or increase
in gold lease rates could have a material adverse impact on the difference
between the forward gold price over the current spot price (contango), and
ultimately, the realized price under our fixed-price forward gold sales
contracts.

Changes in the statutes, regulations and regulatory policies that govern our
business activities in the geographic regions where we operate could impact our
results.

Our domestic and foreign mining operations and exploration activities are
subject to extensive laws
and regulations governing the protection of the environment, waste disposal,
worker safety, mine development and protection of endangered and protected
species. We have made, and expect to make in the future, significant
expenditures to comply with such laws and regulations. Future changes in
applicable laws, regulations and permits or changes in their enforcement or
regulatory interpretation could have an adverse impact on the costs of
compliance and therefore adversely impact our financial condition or results
of operations. The costs and delays associated with compliance with these laws
and regulations could stop us from proceeding with the development of a
project or the operation or further development of a mine or increase the
costs of development of a project.

Although we take what we believe to be reasonable measures designed to ensure
compliance with governing statutes, laws, regulations and regulatory policies
in the jurisdictions in which we conduct business, there is no assurance that
we will always be in compliance or deemed to be in compliance. Accordingly, it
is possible that we could receive a judicial or regulatory judgment or
decision that results in fines, damages and other costs that would have a
negative impact on our earnings.

Company-specific factors 
Our financial performance will be influenced by our
ability to execute the development of our new mines and also the success of our
exploration program.

Our ability to sustain or increase our present levels of gold production is
dependent in part on the successful development of new ore bodies and/or
expansion of existing mining operations. The economic feasibility of
development projects is based upon many factors, including: the accuracy of
reserve estimates; estimated metallurgical recoveries; estimated capital and
operating costs of such

28

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

projects; foreign currency exchange rates; and future gold and silver prices.
Development projects are also subject to the successful completion of
feasibility studies, issuance of necessary governmental permits, acquisition
of satisfactory surface or other land rights and availability of adequate
financing.

Development projects have no operating history upon which to base estimates of
future cash flow. It is possible that actual costs and economic returns may
differ materially from our estimates or that we could fail to obtain the
governmental approvals necessary for the operation of a project. It is not
unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations to experience
unexpected problems during the start-up phase and to require more capital than
anticipated.

Gold exploration is highly speculative in nature. Our exploration projects
involve many risks and are frequently unsuccessful. Once a site with gold
mineralization is discovered, it may take several years from the initial
phases of drilling until production is possible. Substantial expenditures are
required to establish proven and probable reserves and to construct mining and
processing facilities. As a result of these uncertainties, there is no
assurance that current or future exploration programs will be successful and
result in the expansion or replacement of current production with new
reserves.

Our financial performance will be influenced by our ability to achieve
production and operating cost targets.

We prepare estimates of future production and total cash costs of production
for our operations. No assurance can be given that such estimates will be
achieved. Failure to achieve production or total cash cost estimates could
have an adverse impact on our future cash flows, earnings, and financial
condition.

Our actual production may vary from estimates for a variety of reasons,
including: actual ore mined varying from estimates of grade, tonnage, dilution
and metallurgical and other characteristics; short-term operating factors
relating to ore reserves, such as the need for sequential development of ore
bodies and the processing of new and different ore grades; risks and hazards
associated with mining; natural phenomena, such as inclement weather
conditions, floods, and earthquakes; and unexpected labour shortages or
strikes. Cash costs of production may be affected by a variety of factors,
including: changing waste-to-ore ratios, ore grade, metallurgy, labour costs,
the cost of supplies and services, and foreign currency exchange rates.

The accounting policies and methods
we utilize determine how we report our
financial condition and results of operations, and they may require management
to make estimates or rely on assumptions about matters that are inherently
uncertain.

Our financial condition and results of operations are reported using accounting
policies and methods prescribed by US GAAP. In certain cases, US GAAP allows
accounting policies and methods to be selected from two or more alternatives,
any of which might be reasonable yet result in our reporting materially
different amounts. Management exercises judgment in selecting and applying our
accounting policies and methods to ensure that, while US GAAP compliant, they
reflect our best judgment of the most appropriate manner in which to record and
report our financial condition and results of operations.

As detailed on pages 45 to 51, certain accounting policies and estimates have
been identified as being critical to the presentation of our financial
condition and results of operations as they

29

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

(1)  require management to make particularly subjective and/or complex
judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and (2) carry the
likelihood that materially different amounts could be reported under different
conditions or using different assumptions and estimates. The most critical
estimate that affects our reporting of financial performance is the quantity
of gold mineral reserves at our mineral properties.

Mineral reserves and mineral resources are estimates, and no assurance can be
given that the indicated content of gold will be produced. Fluctuations in the
price of gold or by-product minerals, such as silver and copper, may render
mineral reserves containing relatively low grades of gold mineralization
uneconomic. Moreover, short-term operating factors relating to the mineral
reserves, such as the need for orderly development of ore bodies or the
processing of new or different ore grades, may cause mineral reserves to be
reduced or for us to be unprofitable in any particular accounting period.

Estimated reserves may have to be recalculated based on actual production
experience. Market price fluctuations of gold and silver, as well as increased
production costs or reduced recovery rates, may render the present proven and
probable reserves unprofitable to develop at a particular site or sites for periods of
time. This could cause us to reduce our reserves, which could have a negative
impact on our financial results. Failure to obtain necessary permits or
government approvals could also cause us to reduce our reserves. There is no
assurance that we will obtain indicated levels of recovery of gold or the
prices assumed in determining gold reserves.

Other factors
Other factors that may affect future results include changes in tax laws,
technological changes, employee relations, the validity of mining claims and
the title to our properties and competition with other mining companies.

We caution that the foregoing discussion of factors that may affect future
results is not exhaustive. When relying on forward-looking statements to make
decisions with respect to Barrick, investors and others should carefully
consider the foregoing factors, other uncertainties and potential events, and
other external and company-specific factors that may adversely affect future
results and the market valuation placed on our common shares. We do not
undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether written or oral,
that may be made from time to time by us, or on our behalf.

Income Statement

Gold Production and Sales

In 2003, we produced 0.2 million fewer ounces of gold than in 2002 following the closure
of five mines in 2002 on depletion of their reserves. We expect gold production to decline
again in 2004 by about 0.5 to 0.6 million ounces, before starting
a rising trend again in 2005 as our development projects begin production.
Beginning in 2005 and through 2007, as our development projects commence operations,
we are targeting a rise in our production profile to between 6.8 and 7.0 million ounces by 2007.

30

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS In 2003, market gold prices rose to their highest level since 1997, averaging
$363 per ounce, compared to 2002, when spot gold averaged $310 per ounce.
Through selling a large portion of our gold production at spot gold prices,
combined with the delivery of a portion of our production into our forward
sales program, we realized an average price of $366 per ounce. This compares to
an average realized price of $339 per ounce in 2002, when gold prices were
lower and most of our gold production was sold under our higher priced forward
sales contracts. When spot gold prices are higher than the price under our forward sales
contracts, as occurred in 2003, we can choose to sell all of our gold
production into the spot market at the higher price and deliver into our
forward sales contracts at a future date. We expect to deliver a component of
our gold production into our fixed-price forward sales contracts in 2004 at
prices below recent spot market prices to achieve our targeted reduction
of 1.5 million ounces in our gold hedge position, with the ultimate price
realized depending upon market conditions and the actual contracts into which
we deliver. As spot gold prices increase, the value of our gold mineral reserves and amount
of operating cash flows rises. The unrealized mark-to-market loss on our
fixed-price forward gold sales contracts also rises. The unrealized
mark-to-market value changed from an unrealized loss of $639 million at the end
of 2002 to an unrealized loss of $1,725 million at the end of 2003, primarily
due to increasing spot gold prices (year end spot gold prices, 2003
 $415
compared to 2002 $347). Mark-to-market value represents the replacement value
of these contracts based on current market levels, and does not represent an
economic obligation for payment. For additional detail see Off-Balance Sheet
Arrangements  Key Contract Terms and Conditions  Significance of
mark-to-market gains and losses on page 54. Cost of Sales and Other Operating Expenses For the years ended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002Total cash
production costs  per US GAAP
    
    $
    1,065
    
    
    $
    1,065Accretion expense and reclamation costs at our operating mines
    
    
    (14
    )
    
    
    (37
    )Total cash
production costs  per Gold Institute Production
Cost Standard1
    
    $
    1,051
    
    
    $
    1,028Ounces sold (thousands)
    
    
    5,554
    
    
    
    5,805Total cash
costs per ounce sold  per US GAAP (dollars)
    
    $
    192
    
    
    $
    183Total cash
costs per ounce sold  per
Gold Institute Production Cost Standard1(dollars)
    
    $
    189
    
    
    $
    177
 31 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Total Cash Costs per Gold Institute Production Cost Standard1($/oz) For the years ended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002Cost of sales at market foreign exchange rates
    
    $
    210
    
    
    $
    191Gains realized on currency hedge contracts
    
    
    (12
    )
    
    
    (1
    )By-product credits
    
    
    (21
    )
    
    
    (20
    )Cash operating costs
    
    
    177
    
    
    
    170Royalties
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    6Production taxes
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    1Total cash costs
    
    $
    189
    
    
    $
    177
 1. We report total cash costs per ounce data calculated in accordance with The
Gold Institute Production Cost Standard (the Standard). Adoption of the
Standard is voluntary, but we understand that most senior gold producers follow
the Standard when reporting cash cost per ounce data. The data does not have a
meaning prescribed by US GAAP and therefore amounts presented may not be
comparable to data presented by gold producers who do not follow the standard.
Total cash costs per ounce are derived from amounts included in the Statements
of Income and include mine site operating costs such as mining, processing,
administration, royalties and production taxes, but exclude amortization,
reclamation costs, financing costs, and capital, development and exploration
costs. We have also presented a GAAP measure of cost per ounce as required by
securities regulations that govern non-GAAP performance measures. Within this
disclosure document our discussion and analysis is focused on the total cash
cost measure as defined by the Standard, but the most directly comparable
financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is also
provided throughout. See pages 58 to 61 for further information on non-GAAP
performance measures. In 2003, we produced 3% less gold than in 2002. Most of our mines exceeded
their 2002 production levels in 2003, particularly Goldstrike Open Pit and
Kalgoorlie. We experienced lower production at Goldstrike Underground and
Bulyanhulu. Both of these mines had operational difficulties during 2003 which
are discussed in more detail in their respective regional sections. The overall
decrease in gold production compared with 2002 is primarily related to the
closure of several mines in the second half of 2002 on depletion of their
reserves. These mines produced 0.3 million ounces in 2002. Total
cash costs were 7% higher in 2003 primarily because of the operational
difficulties at Goldstrike Underground and Bulyanhulu; mining and processing
more lower grade ore in 2003 at some mines; plus higher royalty and mining
production tax expenses due to higher spot gold prices in 2003. In 2004, we expect to produce 4.9 to 5.0 million ounces at total cash costs of
between $205 and $215 per ounce. The decrease in production from 2003 is
primarily due to expected lower grades at Pierina and Goldstrike Open Pit.
Total cash costs are expected to be higher as we expect to mine and process
more lower-grade ore at these mines in 2004. The achievement of these
production and cost targets is subject to the successful execution of our
mining plan for 2004 at each of our operating mines. Our production and cost targets assume current levels of plant capacity and
performance. They are dependent on our ability to execute our mine plan, which
in turn could be affected by variations in modeled versus actual grade, actual
processing plant performance and the cost of consumables and other cost inputs
such as diesel and energy costs. 32 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS North America Total Cash Costs  per
    
    Total CashProduction
    
    Gold Institute Production
    
    Costs  per(attributable ounces)
    
    Cost Standard1 ($/oz)
    
    US GAAP ($/oz)For the yearsended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2002GoldstrikeOpen pit
    
    
    1,559,461
    
    
    
    1,409,985
    
    
    $
    233
    
    
    $
    228
    
    
    $
    234
    
    
    $
    232Underground
    
    
    551,664
    
    
    
    640,336
    
    
    
    253
    
    
    
    198
    
    
    
    253
    
    
    
    199Goldstrike property
total
    
    
    2,111,125
    
    
    
    2,050,321
    
    
    
    238
    
    
    
    218
    
    
    
    237
    
    
    
    222Eskay Creek
    
    
    352,070
    
    
    
    358,718
    
    
    
    52
    
    
    
    40
    
    
    
    53
    
    
    
    41Round Mountain
    
    
    392,649
    
    
    
    377,747
    
    
    
    173
    
    
    
    187
    
    
    
    177
    
    
    
    202Hemlo (50% owned)
    
    
    267,888
    
    
    
    269,057
    
    
    
    226
    
    
    
    224
    
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    227Holt-McDermott
    
    
    89,515
    
    
    
    83,577
    
    
    
    239
    
    
    
    173
    
    
    
    240
    
    
    
    176Marigold (33% owned)
    
    
    47,396
    
    
    
    27,422
    
    
    
    171
    
    
    
    187
    
    
    
    172
    
    
    
    1943,260,643
    
    
    
    3,166,842
    
    
    $
    209
    
    
    $
    193
    
    
    $
    211
    
    
    $
    198
 1. For an explanation of our use of non-GAAP performance measures, refer to pages 58 to 61. In both 2003 and 2002, we hedged substantially all of our total cash costs that
are denominated in Canadian dollars, and therefore our total cash costs were
not significantly affected by changes in market currency exchange rates in
2003. However, our total cash costs are impacted by changes in the average
exchange rates under our currency hedge contracts. The average currency
exchange rate under our hedge contracts was $0.65 in 2003 compared with $0.64
in 2002. The effect of the difference in this exchange rate on total cash costs
was an increase of about $3 per ounce at our Canadian mines. In 2004, the
average currency exchange rate under our currency hedge contracts is $0.67. The
change in this average exchange rate in 2004 compared with 2003 is expected to
cause about a $3 per ounce increase in total cash costs at our Canadian mines
in 2004. Goldstrike
 Open Pit The increase in production in 2003 compared with 2002 was due to higher ore
grades mined from the pit. The mine produced 60,000 ounces more than the
original plan for 2003, at marginally higher total cash costs. Higher than
planned ore tons and grades were mined from the Northeast and 8th West
laybacks, resulting in 15% higher grades processed for the year when compared
with 2002, which was also better than the original plan for 2003. The 2%
increase in total cash costs during 2003 compared to the prior year was mainly
due to higher processing costs ($15 million or $9 per ounce), and higher
royalties and production taxes ($19 million or $11 per ounce), offset by the
effect of higher ore grades, which caused a $7 per ounce decrease in total cash
costs. Higher processing costs reflected increased acid consumption ($2 million
or $2 per ounce) related to high carbonate material mined, as well as higher
acid prices ($6 million or $4 per ounce) and propane prices ($2 million or $2
per ounce), offset by lower mining costs ($16 million or $10 per ounce),
facilitated by in-pit dumping and a reduced fleet size. 33 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Production for 2004 is expected to be in the range of 1,340,000 to 1,360,000
ounces of gold at total cash costs in the range of $250 to $260 per ounce.
Expected cost and production changes in 2004 are mainly as a result of the
plan to mine closer to reserve grades. Actual total cash costs in 2004 will be
affected by changes in the amount of royalty and production tax expenses,
which in turn are affected by the market price of gold. Goldstrike
 Underground During 2003, the mine produced 14% fewer ounces than
the previous year, and 68,000 ounces less than the original plan for 2003 due
to ground conditions, infrastructure completion, and remnant mining
constraints. On a combined basis, these factors caused total cash costs to be
about $49 per ounce higher than the previous year, combined with higher royalty
and production tax expenses ($4 million or $6 per ounce). The same factors also
caused total cash costs for 2003 to be about 16% higher than the original plan
for the year. Production and costs continue to be affected by ground conditions
at Rodeo and the mining of remnant blocks at Meikle. Ground support
rehabilitation efforts are ongoing and have proven successful in providing
increases to Rodeo production. Remnant mining at Meikle has been re-sequenced
to maximize ore recovery and ground stability. Production for 2004 is expected to be in the range of 590,000 to 610,000
ounces of gold at total cash costs in the range of $245 to $255 per ounce.
Higher production assumes that we will achieve higher recoveries and expected
cost improvements assume both higher recoveries and less dependence on mining
remnant stopes. Our actual total cash costs in 2004 will also be affected by
the actual amounts of royalty expenses and production taxes, which in turn are
affected by the market price of gold. Eskay Creek Gold production in 2003 decreased by 2% compared to the prior year, primarily
due to an anticipated grade reduction, partially offset by an increase in the
mining rate. Production for 2003 was essentially in line with the original
plan for the year. The increase in costs for the year compared to 2002 is
mainly attributable to lower production levels, combined with higher average
smelter costs due to higher penalties for mercury and other impurities ($10
per ounce higher). Total cash costs for the year were about 19% better than
the original plan for the year due to the impact of higher silver by-product
credits. Eskay Creek produces a significant quantity of silver as a by-product (17
million ounces in 2003). Total cash costs per ounce are significantly affected
by both the quantity of silver produced and realized silver sales prices. In
2003, we produced 0.8 million ounces less silver than the previous year due to
lower silver ore grades, which was partly offset by an increase in realized
silver sales prices from $4.74 per ounce to $4.84 per ounce, resulting in a $4
per ounce increase in total cash costs. Production for 2004 is expected to be in the range of 300,000 to 310,000
ounces of gold at higher total cash costs of between $100 and $105 per ounce.
Expected lower production and higher costs assume that we will be mining lower
grade ores and mining further away from primary facilities. Our actual total
cash costs in 2004 will also be affected by the quantity of silver produced as
a by-product and realized silver selling prices, which in turn will be
affected by silver spot market prices. 34 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Round Mountain (50% owned) The increase in ounces produced during 2003 compared
to 2002 resulted from higher recoveries from the dedicated leach pad. The mine
produced 8% more gold than the original plan for 2003, at 13% lower total cash
costs than plan. A draw down in circulating gold loadings due to a carbon plant
expansion, increased side slope leaching, and continued production from a
non-active leach pad all contributed to higher recoveries. In 2003 total cash
costs decreased by 7% due to higher production levels, which included
production of more low-cost ounces as a result of improved recoveries from the leach pads. Our share of production for 2004 is expected to be in the range of 355,000 to
365,000 ounces of gold at total cash costs between $205 and $215 per ounce.
Production is expected to decrease in 2004 due to a lower contribution from
leach pad recoveries. Expected higher total cash costs per ounce in 2004 are a
result of expected lower production levels and increased processing of
stockpiled ore. South America Total Cash Costs  per
    
    Total CashProduction
    
    Gold Institute Production
    
    Costs  per(attributable ounces)
    
    Cost Standard1 ($/oz)
    
    US GAAP ($/oz)For the yearsended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2002Pierina
    
    
    911,723
    
    
    
    898,228
    
    
    $
    83
    
    
    $
    80
    
    
    $
    87
    
    
    $
    101
 1. For an explanation of our use of non-GAAP performance measures, refer to pages 58 to 61. 2003 production was 2% higher than the prior year due to an 18% increase in
productivity. Production and total cash costs in 2003 were essentially in line
with the original plan for the year. The mine successfully implemented
improvements to the crusher system, which has increased tons placed on the pad.
The increased tonnage was offset by planned lower grades, which caused a $1 per
ounce increase in total cash costs. Pierina also produces a quantity of silver
as a by-product (1.7 million ounces in 2003). Total cash costs per ounce are
affected by both the quantity of silver produced and realized silver sales
prices. In 2003, compared to
2002, we produced 0.6 million fewer silver ounces, partly offset by increased
silver prices, which caused a $2 per ounce increase in total cash costs. 2003 was the mines last year of production in the 900,000-ounce range. In
2004, the mine is expected to experience lower production levels as mining
moves to lower grade areas in the open pit. Due mainly to lower expected ore
grades, the mine is expected to produce between 640,000 and 645,000 ounces of
gold with total cash costs between $95 and $100 per ounce in 2004. 35 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Australia/Africa Total Cash Costs  per
    
    Total CashProduction
    
    Gold Institute Production
    
    Costs  per(attributable ounces)
    
    Cost Standard1 ($/oz)
    
    US GAAP ($/oz)For the yearsended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2003
    
    2002Plutonic
    
    
    333,947
    
    
    
    307,377
    
    
    $
    193
    
    
    $
    184
    
    
    $
    193
    
    
    $
    186Darlot
    
    
    154,977
    
    
    
    145,443
    
    
    
    164
    
    
    
    168
    
    
    
    165
    
    
    
    170Lawlers
    
    
    99,223
    
    
    
    113,291
    
    
    
    249
    
    
    
    179
    
    
    
    250
    
    
    
    184Kalgoorlie (50% owned)
    
    
    436,098
    
    
    
    360,025
    
    
    
    209
    
    
    
    222
    
    
    
    212
    
    
    
    2281,024,245
    
    
    
    926,136
    
    
    
    200
    
    
    
    196
    
    
    
    203
    
    
    
    200Bulyanhulu
    
    
    313,551
    
    
    
    356,319
    
    
    
    246
    
    
    
    198
    
    
    
    260
    
    
    
    1991,337,796
    
    
    
    1,282,455
    
    
    $
    210
    
    
    $
    196
    
    
    $
    216
    
    
    $
    199
 1. For an explanation of our use of non-GAAP performance measures, refer to pages 58 to 61. In both 2003 and 2002, we hedged substantially all of our total cash costs that
are denominated in Australian dollars, and therefore our total cash costs were
not significantly affected by changes in market currency exchange rates in
2003. However our total cash costs are impacted by changes in the average
exchange rates under our currency hedge contracts. The average currency
exchange rate under oar hedge contracts was $0.55 in 2003 compared with $0.54
in 2002. The effect of the difference in this exchange rate on total cash costs
was an increase of about $4 per ounce at our Australian mines. In 2004, the
average currency exchange rate under our currency hedge contracts is $0.58. The
change in this average exchange rate in 2004 compared with 2003 is expected to
cause about an $11 per ounce increase in total cash costs at our Australian
mines in 2004. Plutonic In 2003, production was 9% higher than 2002 and 13% higher than the original
plan for the year, due to an increase in processing of higher-grade underground
ore. In 2002, a substantial low-grade stockpile was processed. Higher total
cash costs per ounce in 2003 compared with 2002 were primarily due to mining
various lower-grade open
pits; additional costs for pumping pit water combined with restricted mining
rates from cyclonic storms earlier this year; and costs incurred to maintain
pit slope stability. Total cash costs in 2003 were in line with the original
plan for the year. Production for 2004 is expected to be between 315,000 and 320,000 ounces of
gold at total cash costs between $185 and $195 per ounce. The expected
production decrease is due primarily to a decrease in open pit ore tons mined.
Total cash costs are expected to be 4% lower as a result of the benefits of a
paste fill plant commissioned in third quarter 2003. Expected benefits from
this plant include improved ore recovery, reduced mining dilution and improved
mining flexibility, which are expected to result in lower total cash costs. Kalgoorlie (50% owned) In 2003, the mine produced 21% more gold than the prior
year and 27% higher than the original plan for the year, due to higher ore
grades and better gold recovery rates. Kalgoorlie is an open-pit mine that was
historically an underground mine. As areas of the old underground mine are
excavated through open-pit mining, mining captures high-grade pillars that
result in higher processed 36 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ore grades. Operating improvements, higher ore grade and lower sulphur content
contributed to higher gold recoveries. The 6% lower total cash costs compared
to the prior year, 12% lower than the original plan for the year, was mainly
due to the impact of higher ore grades ($36 per ounce decrease) and improved
recovery rates ($3 per ounce decrease). Our share of production for 2004 is expected to be between 395,000 and 400,000
ounces of gold at total cash costs of between $230 and $240 per ounce. The
expected production decrease is due to expected lower grades and planned
maintenance on the SAG mill. The expected increase in cash costs is due to
lower expected production levels and marginally higher anticipated costs in
the open pit. Bulyanhulu 2003 production was 12% lower than the prior year due to higher mining
dilution, which resulted in lower than planned processed ore grades. Total
cash costs for 2003 were higher than the prior year due to lower production
levels and lower processed ore grades, which caused a $14 per ounce increase
in total cash costs. Higher costs related to maintenance and supplies also
contributed to the increase in total cash costs. Compared to the original plan
for 2003, production was 24% lower and total Cash costs were 41 % higher than
plan for the same reasons as the year over year variance. Late in third quarter 2003, the mine established a stabilization plan following
production difficulties in the first part of the year. During the fourth
quarter, the mining rate averaged 2,790 tons per day  a 7% improvement over
the stabilization plan mining rate. With the successful completion of a
flotation plant expansion and adjustments made through the first half of the
year, gold recovery rates are now averaging 88.5%, up from
88.1%, with a positive impact on total cash costs per ounce. Production for 2004 is expected to be between 360,000 and 365,000 ounces of
gold at total cash costs between $240 and $260 per ounce. The expected
production increase is due to expected higher grades and increased mining
productivity as a result of the stabilization plan. Total cash costs are
expected to be similar to 2003. Both the production and total cash cost
estimates for Bulyanhulu for 2004 are contingent on improvements from the
stabilization plan. While the implementation of this plan is underway, we
anticipate that it will take until the end of 2004 to complete. Accretion and Other Reclamation/ Closure Costs Accretion and other reclamation/closure costs, which includes certain
reclamation costs, accretion expense and other costs and expenses, increased by
$49 million over 2002 to $83 million in 2003. Following the adoption of FAS 143
in 2003, our accounting treatment for these costs changed. Previously, we
accrued these costs over the life of our mines using the units of production
method. Under FAS 143, we only accrue and amortize legal obligations to carry
out reclamation and closure activities over the mine lives, while other
reclamation costs are expensed as they are incurred. We are also required to
discount legal reclamation obligations and accrue an interest-like cost over
the period to time of settlement (accretion). In addition to the cumulative
effect of the change, as compared to the prior year, this change in accounting
policy resulted in a $36 million increase in these costs in 2003. We also
revised our cost estimates for asset retirement obligations at various closed
mines, resulting in a $10 million charge to earnings in 2003. 37 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Amortization Our amortization expense mainly arises on property, plant and equipment at our
operating mines. The majority of these assets are amortized on a units of
production basis. As a result, .amortization expense is affected by the overall
quantity of gold produced and sold, changes in reserve estimates, and the mix
of production across our mines. We produced 0.2 million fewer ounces in 2003
than in 2002, consisting of a 0.3 million ounce decline at five mines that
closed on depletion of reserves in 2002, offset by a 0.1 million ounce increase
at our other mines. At the closed mines, most assets had been fully amortized
by 2002, therefore the decrease in production from these mines in 2003 did not
lead to a significant reduction in amortization expense. Conversely, the 0.1
million ounce increase in production at other mines, combined with the effect
of a change in production mix, led to an overall $3 million increase in our
amortization expense. The overall increase in average amortization per ounce
from $85 per ounce to $90 per ounce reflects this changing production mix, as
well as the impact of changes in reserve estimates. For details of the impact
of changes in reserve estimates on amortization expense in 2003 and 2002, refer
to page 47. For an explanation of how we calculate amortization per ounce,
refer to page 61. For 2004, we expect amortization to be in a range of $480
million to $490 million. Our actual amortization expense in 2004 will be
affected by actual gold production at each of our mines in 2004. Exploration, Development and Business Development Our exploration strategy is
to maintain a geographic mix of projects at different stages in the exploration
process. Our early stage exploration
effort focuses on five major areas where we possess significant
infrastructure: the United States, Peru, Australia, Chile/Argentina and
Tanzania. Exploration, Development and Business Development Expense For the years ended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2001Exploration costsNorth America
    
    $
    19
    
    
    $
    13
    
    
    $
    17Australia/Africa
    
    
    24
    
    
    
    17
    
    
    
    17South America
    
    
    19
    
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    25Development project costsVeladero
    
    
    18
    
    
    
    20
    
    
    
    26Alto Chicama
    
    
    29
    
    
    
    29
    
    
    
    Other
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    Other/Business
Development
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    18$
    137
    
    
    $
    104
    
    
    $
    103
 In 2003, we continued to invest in our exploration program with costs
increasing from 2002 levels in all three of our regions to support the ongoing
level of activities. During 2003, we incurred development expenditures at each
of our development projects. Under US GAAP, development expenditures are not
capitalized until after mineralization is classified as a proven and probable
reserve in accordance with US reporting standards. Our most significant
expensed development expenditures in 2003 were incurred at our Veladero and
Alto Chicama projects. We expensed development costs at Veladero until October
1, 2003, when the project achieved the criteria needed to classify material as
a reserve under SEC rules. For a detailed description of the nature and status
of each of our development projects please refer to pages 14 to 17 of this
Annual Report, which are incorporated by reference in this Managements
Discussion and Analysis. In 2004, we expect our exploration, development and business development
expense to be about 38 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS $110 million. We expect to capitalize all development costs at Veladero in
2004. At Alto Chicama, we will continue to expense development costs until the
mineralization there qualifies as a reserve under SEC rules. Our actual
development expense will be affected by the timing of when mineralization at
Alto Chicama qualifies as a reserve under SEC rules. If we experience a delay
in this expected timing, this could cause an increase in expensed development
costs. Our exploration expense reflects our planned funding of our various
exploration projects. We may spend more or less on these projects depending on
the results of ongoing exploration activities, and we may also fund further
exploration projects in addition to the presently planned projects for 2004. Administration Administration costs of $83 million were $19 million higher than in the prior
year, mainly due to severance costs ($9 million), as well as higher legal
fees, corporate insurance costs, and regulatory compliance costs. For 2004 we
expect administration costs to be about $80 million. Interest Expense We incurred $49 million in interest costs and financing charges in 2003,
related mainly to our debentures and our Bulyanhulu project financing. We use
interest rate swaps to manage the effective rates of interest we pay on our
long-term debt. On $350 million of our $500 million debentures, we have
converted the fixed 7.5% interest rate to a floating rate through 2007, taking
advantage of low market floating interest rates. On our Bulyanhulu financing,
we have taken advantage of the present low interest rates to fix the interest
rate for the term of the debt at a rate of about 7%. Our overall effective
interest rate declined from 7.2% in 2002 to 5.8% in 2003, due to the decline in
market interest rates. In 2003, we capitalized $5 million of
interest at Cowal and Veladero compared to 2002, when we capitalized $2
million at Cowal. In 2004, we expect to capitalize about an additional $17
million of interest to reflect a full year of capitalization at Veladero. We
may also capitalize further amounts of interest on other development projects
after they achieve SEC reserve status or receive internal approval to begin
construction activities. For 2004, we expect to incur interest of about $49 million on our existing debt
obligations, Interest expense on our existing long-term debt obligations is
expected to decline to about $27 million, after capitalizing about $22 million
at Cowal and Veladero. Our actual interest expense on existing debt
obligations, as well as amounts of interest capitalized, will be affected by
changes in market interest rates on variable rate debt obligations, as well as
whether other development projects meet US GAAP criteria for interest
capitalization during 2004. Other Income/Expense In 2003, we earned an effective interest rate on our cash of 3.4%, unchanged
from 2002. Through interest rate swaps, we earned a fixed rate of 3.4% in 2003
on most of our cash balances, with any excess cash balances earning interest
at market interest rates. In 2003, we also realized pre-tax gains of $39
million on the sale of various land positions and assets at mines that closed
in previous years. We may sell further assets in 2004. We also recorded losses
of $12 million on various investments, arising mainly on investments held in a
post-retirement benefit plan. Non-Hedge Derivative Gains Non-hedge derivative gains and losses arising on derivative instruments used
in our risk management strategy that do not qualify for hedge 39 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS accounting treatment are recorded in earnings. These gains and losses do not
include the unrealized mark-to-market loss on our fixed-price forward gold
sales contracts. The gains and losses occur because of changes in commodity
prices, currency exchange rates and interest rates. In 2003, non-hedge derivative gains of $17 million on non-hedge currency
contracts were caused primarily by the impact of a strengthening Australian
dollar. We also recorded gains of $32 million on interest-rate and gold lease
rate swaps in 2003. The fair value of these swaps is affected mainly by
changes in either US dollar interest rates or gold lease rates. A 50-basis
point decline in gold lease rates in 2003 was the main driver of these gains.
Based on historic sensitivities and assuming no change in the size of our gold
lease rate swap position, the effect of a 1% decrease in interest rates on
the fair value of the swaps would be a $32 million gain for a 1% change in
gold lease rates and a $10 million gain for a 1% change in US dollar interest
rates. In 2003, we also recorded gains due to hedge ineffectiveness of $19
million. These gains mainly arose on currency contracts, where because of
changes in the expected timing of forecasted expenditures  the contracts no
longer qualify for hedge accounting treatment, with the effect that gains or
losses are recorded immediately in earnings, rather than being matched with
the originally hedged items. Income Taxes In 2003, we recorded a tax expense of $5 million compared to a tax recovery of
$16 million in 2002. In 2002, the tax recovery of $16 million reflected an
underlying effective tax expense of $6 million (effective tax rate of 3%)
offset by a credit of $22 million following the resolution of certain tax
uncertainties. The relatively low effective
tax rate in 2002 was mainly because a significant portion of our earnings was
generated in a low tax-rate jurisdiction. In 2003, we recorded an underlying income tax expense of $44 million
(underlying effective tax rate of 20%), offset by a net release in deferred
tax valuation allowances of $39 million, including $15 million in Argentina,
$16 million in Australia and $21 million in North America. The increase in our
underlying effective tax rate is due primarily to higher spot gold prices that
lead to us generating larger amounts of taxable income in higher rate tax
jurisdictions. The release of tax valuation allowances in North America
reflects a corporate reorganization that enabled us to utilize certain tax
assets. We released valuation allowances totaling $15 million in Argentina
after we approved a construction start up at Veladero in fourth quarter 2003
and classified mineralization as a proven and probable reserve under SEC
rules. In other instances, the release of valuation allowances reflects higher
levels of taxable income due to higher market gold prices. Should gold prices remain in the $400 per ounce range, we expect our underlying
effective tax rate, excluding any further release of deferred tax valuation
allowances, to rise to about 30% as a larger portion of our earnings would come
from tax jurisdictions with higher tax rates. Our underlying income tax expense
will also be affected by the quantity of gold production delivered under our
fixed-price forward sales contracts, and the actual prices realized for any
deliveries under these contracts, due to the impact of varying levels of
taxation that exist between the various tax jurisdictions in which we operate. 40 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Our income tax expense is also affected by changes in the level of valuation
allowances recorded against deferred tax assets. Valuation allowances are
recorded where there is substantial uncertainty over the realization of a tax
asset. Among other things, a further sustained upward
trend in gold prices may result in further releases of valuation allowances
with corresponding tax credits recorded in earnings. See also pages 49 and 50
for further information on deferred income tax valuation allowances. Statement of Comprehensive Income Comprehensive income consists of net income or loss, together with certain
other economic gains and losses that are collectively described as other
comprehensive income and excluded from the income statement. In 2003, other comprehensive income mainly included gains of $349 million
arising on our cash flow hedge contracts and the transfer of $110 million of
the gains on the cash flow hedges to earnings during the year. Cash Flow Statement Liquidity and Capital Resources Liquidity risk The objective of our liquidity management is to ensure we have the ability to
generate or obtain sufficient cash or its equivalents on a timely and
cost-effective basis to meet our commitments as they fall due. The management
of liquidity risk is crucial to protecting our capital, maintaining market
confidence and ensuring that we can expand into profitable business
opportunities. Liquidity risk is managed dynamically, and exposures are
regularly measured, monitored and mitigated. The primary factors that can
potentially adversely affect our liquidity are realized gold sales prices; cash
production costs; capital expenditure requirements at our operating mines and
development projects; and scheduled repayments of long-term debt obligations.
Our past and future non-cash working capital requirements have not and are not
expected to materially affect our liquidity. Outstanding derivative financial
instruments are
not expected to pose a significant risk to our liquidity, because, unless we
breach the covenants affecting these financial instruments, which we believe
to be unlikely, the counterparties to outstanding derivative instruments
cannot require settlement of the derivatives and we are not subject to any
margin calls. Historic
sources of liquidity
In previous years, our main sources of liquidity
have been our cash inflow from operating activities, our large cash position,
and our various debt-financing facilities. Currently, our debt facilities
include our publicly traded debentures, our Bulyanhulu project financing, and
our undrawn $1 billion revolving credit facility with a syndicate of global
banks. In the last three years, we have generated a total operating cash inflow of
$1.7 billion. We expect to continue to generate significant operating cash flow
over the next few years, providing we can maintain our present production
levels and also 41 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS provided that there is no material decline in the spot price of gold. We
expect capital needs of over $2 billion during the next four years to build
our development projects, as well as between $100 and $200 million per year
for sustaining capital at our existing operations. Our alternatives for
sourcing this capital include our $1 billion cash position, our $1 billion
credit facility, our future operating cash flow, project financings and public
debt financings. We are evaluating these alternatives to determine the optimal
mix of capital resources for the projects. We expect that, absent a material
adverse change in a combination of these sources of liquidity, our present
levels of liquidity will be adequate to meet our expected capital needs. If we
are unable to access project financing due to unforeseen political or other
problems, we expect that we will be able to access public debt markets as an
alternative source of financing. Liquidity management Our liquidity management approach is designed to ensure that reliable and
cost-effective sources of cash are available to satisfy current and prospective
commitments. The Corporate Treasury function has global responsibility for the
implementation of liquidity management policies, strategies and plans. The
Finance Committee provides oversight for liquidity management and liquidity
policies and receives regular reports on our liquidity. We manage our liquidity position on a consolidated basis. When managing the
flow of liquidity between different legal entities within our consolidated
group, we take into account the tax and regulatory considerations associated
with each jurisdiction. While such tax and regulatory considerations add a
degree of complexity to internal fund flows, our consolidated liquidity
management approach takes into account the funding demands associated with
intra-group requirements. The assessment of our liquidity position reflects management estimates and
judgments pertaining to our ability to generate operating cash flow, our
capital needs, our credit capacity and our assessment of likely future debt
market conditions. We consider our liquidity profile to be sound as there are
no known trends, demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that are
presently viewed as likely to result in a material adverse change in our
current liquidity position. Diversification of funding sources is an important component of our overall
liquidity management strategy since it expands funding flexibility, minimizes
funding concentration and dependency and generally lowers financing costs. We
also seek to mitigate certain risks through the use of nonrecourse project
financing. Credit ratings Our ability to access unsecured funding markets and our financing costs in
such markets are primarily dependent upon maintaining an acceptable credit
rating. While our estimates suggest that a minor downgrade would not
materially influence our funding capacity or costs, we recognize the
importance of avoiding such an event and are committed to actions that should
reinforce existing external assessments of our financial strength. A deterioration in our credit rating would not adversely affect our existing
debt obligations or gold sales contracts. There are a number of factors that
are important to our A credit rating, including: our market capitalization;
the strength of our balance sheet, including the amount of net debt and our
debt-to-equity ratio; our cash generating ability, including cash generated by
operating activities and expected capital expenditure requirements; the
quantity of our gold reserves; and our relatively low geo-political risk
profile due to the location of our mines. 42 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Like most financial contracts, our revolving credit facility and our gold
sales contracts require us to comply with certain financial covenants. These
covenants include:  a)
    
    Maintaining a minimum consolidated tangible
net worth of at least $2.0 billion (our consolidated net worth as at December 31, 2003 was
$3.5 billion); andb)
    
    Maintaining a maximum long-term debt to consolidated net worth ratio below 1.5:1 (the ratio
as at December 31, 2003 was under 0.25:1). The calculation of net worth excludes the unrealized mark-to-market gain or
loss on our derivative instruments and gold sales contracts. In the unlikely event that we breach one of these covenants, we would be in
default of our forward gold sales contracts, which could result in the
counterparties requiring settlement of these contracts; the syndicate of banks
in our credit facility could require repayment of amounts outstanding at that
time. Capital structure We regularly review our capital structure with an overall goal of lowering our
cost of capital, while preserving the balance sheet strength and flexibility
that is important due to the cyclical nature of commodity markets, and to
ensure that we have access to cash for strategic purposes. Following a review of our capital structure during 2003, we concluded that a
share buyback program would be consistent with these overall goals. In view of
the high levels of operating cash flow we are generating at current gold
prices, the high levels of liquidity that exist in the capital markets
presently, and because we believe that our current share price represents an
attractive buying opportunity, we initiated a share buyback program. In 2003,
we repurchased 8.75 million shares at a total
cost of $154 million. We may continue to execute this share buyback program in
2004, subject to market conditions, and provided that we can accomplish this
without significantly impacting our liquidity. Operating Activities Our operating cash flow is significantly affected by the volume of gold sales,
as well as realized gold prices and cash operating costs. In 2003, our average
realized gold sales price increased by $27 per ounce over 2002, although this
was offset by a $12 per ounce increase in total cash costs. The effect of these
changes, combined with a 4% decrease in ounces sold, was a $54 million increase
in our operating cash flow in 2003 compared to 2002. Other year on year changes
included a $45 million decrease in payments of reclamation and closure costs
and a $59 million increase in cash payments for income taxes. Operating cash
flow in the last two years included a payment of $86 million in 2003 for the
Inmet settlement and $50 million in 2002 for merger-related costs related to
the 2001 merger with Homestake. Investing Activities Our most significant ongoing investing activities are for capital expenditures
at our mines. Annually, we invest in sustaining capital at our mines, including
expenditures relating to underground development activities. We also incur
significant capital expenditures in the development and construction phases of
new mines, although the yearly level varies depending on the status of our
development projects. In 2003, expenditures were mainly for sustaining capital and underground
development at our operating mines. We spent a total of $217 million on
sustaining capital in 2003, an increase of $18 million over 2002. The increase
in 2003 mainly relates 43 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS to investments at Plutonic to support a transition to owner operated mining
from contractor mining. We also spent $105 million at our development projects
in 2003, an increase of $76 million over the prior year, mainly attributable to
the construction start up at Veladero in 2003. For 2004, we expect to spend a
total of about $770 million, including $191 million for sustaining capital,
which is similar to 2003, and $579 million at our development projects ($273
million at Veladero, $49 million at Cowal, $211 million at Alto Chicama, $35
million at Tulawaka, and $11 million at Pascua). We may increase capital
spending for Pascua in 2004, depending on the timing of Board approval to begin
construction at the project. We also realized proceeds of $48 million from various asset sales in 2003, and
spent $55 million on investments in other mining companies, including a $40
million investment in Highland Gold. Financing Activities Our most significant ongoing financing activities are repayments/drawdowns of
debt obligations; dividend payments; proceeds from issuing capital stock on
exercise of stock options; and purchases of common shares under our share
buyback program. The most significant financing cash flows in 2003 were $29 million received on
the exercise of employee stock options, dividend payments totaling $118
million, and $154 million spent repurchasing 8.75 million common shares under
our share buy-back program. We also made scheduled payments under our long-term
debt obligations totaling $23 million in 2003. For 2004, we will be required to make scheduled long-term debt repayments of
$41 million. The amount of any dividends will be determined by the Board of
Directors. Balance Sheet Working Capital Our working capital position (current assets less current liabilities)
increased by $176 million in 2003 as compared to 2002. This increase was mainly
a result of an increase in other current assets combined with a decrease in
other current liabilities. Other current assets include the unrealized
mark-to-market gain on certain cash flow
hedge contracts that mature in 2004, which increased by $122 million due to the
strengthening of the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar against the US
dollar. Other, current liabilities decreased by $165 million mainly due to the
settlement of the Inmet litigation and payments of income tax installments
during 2003. Canadian Supplement In note 23 to our consolidated financial statements we have provided a
reconciliation between Canadian and US GAAP, including a description of the
material differences affecting our balance sheet, income statement and
statement of cash flow. The principal continuing reconciling differences relate
to the amortization of property, plant and equipment
and intangible assets recorded under Canadian GAAP. These differences arise due
to differences in the carrying amounts of assets and of amortization methods
under Canadian GAAP when compared to US GAAP, as described in note 23 to our
consolidated financial statements. We also expect to see continuing differences
in our accounting for 44 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS exploration and development expenditures. Some expenditures that qualify for
capitalization under Canadian GAAP are expensed under US GAAP. The major
expenditures in 2004 that will be affected by this GAAP difference are
expenditures on our Alto Chicama project, which will not qualify for
capitalization under US GAAP until mineralization at the project qualifies as a
reserve under SEC rules. We will be required to adopt a new accounting standard
under Canadian GAAP in 2004 for reclamation and closure costs. This accounting
standard will, to a large extent, conform our accounting policy for such costs
with FAS 143 under US GAAP, except that the transitional rules under this new
Canadian standard may result in some continuing differences. The other GAAP
differences that affected the reconciliation of earnings under US GAAP compared
with Canadian GAAP were primarily due to facts and circumstances related to the
years presented and are not necessarily indicative of continuing trends that
will cause material GAAP differences in future years. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates Accounting
Policy Changes 
Effective January 1, 2003, we changed our accounting
policy for the amortization of underground development costs, and we adopted
FAS 143,
Asset Retirement Obligations. These accounting changes are described in note 2
to our consolidated financial statements. Critical Accounting Estimates Critical accounting estimates represent estimates that are highly uncertain and
for which changes in those estimates could materially impact our financial
statements, The following accounting estimates are critical:  >
    
    amortization of property, plant and equipment and capitalized mining costs;>
    
    impairment assessments of long-lived assets;>
    
    asset retirement obligations;>
    
    the measurement of deferred income tax assets and liabilities and assessment of the need to
record valuation allowances against those assets;>
    
    the valuation of derivative instruments and
measurement of gains and losses on cash flow
and fair value hedges that are recorded in other
comprehensive income; and>
    
    contingencies. Management has discussed the development and selection of our critical
accounting estimates with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, and
the Audit Committee has reviewed the disclosure relating to such estimates in
conjunction with its review of this Managements Discussion and Analysis. Property, Plant and Equipment and Other Long-Lived Assets Property, plant and equipment, which totaled $3.1 billion at December 31, 2003,
represents a significant portion of our assets (58%). The application of our
accounting policies for these assets has a material impact on our earnings. 45 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS In particular, under our accounting policies we record amortization expense
based on the estimated useful economic lives of these assets, and we
periodically undertake impairment assessments. The most significant estimate
that affects these accounting policies is estimated quantities of proven and
probable mineral reserves. The process of estimating quantities of gold
reserves is complex, requiring significant decisions in the evaluation of all
available geological, geophysical, engineering and economic data. The data for
a given ore body may also change substantially over time as a result of
numerous factors, including, but not limited to, additional development
activity, evolving production history and the continual reassessment of the
viability of production under various economic conditions. A material revision (upward or downward) to existing reserve estimates could
occur because of, among other things: revisions to geological data or
assumptions; a change in the assumed gold prices as well as the results of
drilling and exploration activities. Estimates of reserve quantities can also
change due to changes in expected cash production costs. We calculate reported
reserve estimates in accordance with rules and regulations governing these
estimates. However, because of the subjective decisions we have to make, as
well as variances in available data for each ore body, these estimates are
generally uncertain. Changes in reserve quantities, including changes resulting from gold and
silver price assumptions, would cause corresponding changes in amortization
expense in periods subsequent to the revision, and could result in impairment
of the carrying amount of property, plant and equipment as well as other
long-lived assets such as capitalized mining costs. As at year end 2003, we estimated reserves assuming a $325 per ounce gold
price. At December 31, 2003, we estimated that a $25 per ounce reduction (8%)
in the gold price assumption would reduce our reserves by about 4 million
contained ounces (5%), relating primarily to our Kalgoorlie and Goldstrike
Open Pit operating mines. Conversely, a $25 per ounce increase in gold price
would increase our reserves by about 3.6 million contained ounces (5%),
relating primarily to Kalgoorlie and Goldstrike Open Pit. Amortization Expense We amortize a large portion of our property, plant and equipment using the
units-of-production method based on proven and probable reserves. We estimate
that a 5% decrease in reserves would increase annual amortization by about $28
million and decrease net income by about $23 million ($0.04 per share); and a
5% increase in reserves would decrease annual amortization by about $17
million and increase net income by about $14 million ($0.03 per share). This
sensitivity analysis assumes that the increase or decrease will be consistent
across all our mines. To the extent this increase or decrease varies across
our portfolio of mines, the actual impact on earnings may be higher or lower
than this estimate. The mines where amortization charges are most significantly affected by changes
in reserve estimates are Pierina, Goldstrike Underground, Eskay Creek and
Bulyanhulu. These mines generally have the most significant carrying amounts of
property, plant and equipment subject to amortization using the units of
production method and the highest per ounce amortization charges. The effect of
a 10% change in reserve estimates at these mines on amortization would be as
follows: 46 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Impact on amortization
    
    Impact on amortizationrates (per ounce)
    
    expense1 (millions)Pierina
    
    $
    18
    
    
    $
    13Goldstrike Underground
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    5Eskay Creek
    
    
    5
    
    
    
    3Bulyanhulu
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    8
 1. Based on ounces sold in2003. Impact of Actual Changes in Reserve Estimates on Amortization For the years ended December 31
    
    2003
    
    2002(in millions of dollars, except
    
    Reserves
    
    Amortization
    
    Reserves
    
    Amortizationreserves which are in millions
    
    increase
    
    increase
    
    increase
    
    increaseof contained ounces)
    
    (decrease)
    
    (decrease)
    
    (decrease)
    
    (decrease)Goldstrike
 Underground
    
    
    0.6
    
    
    $
    (10
    )
    
    
    (1.7
    )
    
    $
    27Plutonic
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    (4
    )
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    (4
    )Goldstrike
 Open Pit
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    (6
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Eskay Creek
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    6Bulyanhulu
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.2
    
    
    
    (7
    )
 Changes in reserve estimates are calculated at the end of the year and affect
amortization expense prospectively. The amounts presented represent the effect
of reserve changes at the end of 2002 and 2001. Capitalized Mining Costs At open-pit mines that have diverse grades and waste-to-ore ratios over the
life of the mine, we defer and amortize certain costs, normally associated with
the removal of waste rock (capitalized mining costs). The amortization of
capitalized mining costs is determined using the units of production method
based on estimated recoverable ounces from proven and probable mineral
reserves, and using a stripping ratio calculated as the total tons to be moved
over total proven and probable reserves. Quantities of proven and probable
mineral reserves are subject to material change from period to period as
described above. Consequently stripping ratios are also subject to material
change and the charge to earnings for amortization could differ materially
between reporting periods to the extent
that there are material changes to proven and probable mineral reserves. To
the extent that the average ratio of tons of waste that are required to be
removed for each ounce of gold differs materially from that which was
estimated in the stripping ratio, the actual amortization charged to
operations could differ materially between reporting periods. In 2004, we expect to reduce the stripping ratio at Goldstrike Open Pit from
112:1 to 109:1, and to increase the stripping ratio at Pierina from 48:1 to
60:1. The effect of this change in estimate for 2004 will be to reduce
amortization at Goldstrike Open Pit by $0.6 million; and to increase
amortization at Pierina by $7 million. A further change in the stripping ratio
by a factor of 10:1 at Goldstrike Open Pit would change amortization recorded
by $2 million; and at Pierina would change amortization recorded by $6 million.
Changes in stripping ratio estimates did not have any significant effect on the
comparability of amortization charges between 2003 and 2002. 47 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Impairment Assessments of Long-Lived Assets We review and evaluate our long-lived assets for impairment when events or
changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts may not be
recoverable. Impairment assessments, which are conducted in the manner
described within note 15(c) to our consolidated financial statements, are
based on estimates of future cash flows, which include, among other things,
estimates of:  >
    
    the quantity of gold reserves at our mines;>
    
    future gold and silver prices; and>
    
    future operating and capital costs to mine and process our reserves over extended periods of
time (5 to 25 years). Estimates of future cash flows are inherently uncertain, and are subject to
material change over time. In particular, cash flow estimates are affected by
external factors such as gold and silver prices and also foreign currency
exchange rates. These cash flow estimates and external factors are subject to
material change and therefore it is reasonably likely that the results of
impairment assessments conducted from period to period could have a material
impact on our consolidated financial statements. Based on a long-term gold price of $375 per ounce and our gold mineral reserves
at December 31, 2003, we have completed a sensitivity analysis that indicates
that a 10% decrease in net cash flows, resulting from a combination of a lower
spot gold price and an increase in operating and capital costs at each of our
properties, would not result in the total estimated undiscounted future net
cash flows at any of our mines or development projects being less than the
carrying amount of the related long-lived assets. Asset Retirement Obligations Our mining, development and exploration activities are subject to various laws
and regulations
governing the protection of the environment. We incur expenses on an ongoing
basis to discharge our obligations under these laws and regulations. Certain
expenses meet the definition of an asset retirement obligation as defined in
FAS 143, and we began accounting for them in accordance with the principles of
FAS 143 from 2003 onwards. Other expenses that do not meet the definition of
an asset retirement obligation have been expensed as incurred from 2003
onwards. Prior to 2003, we accounted for all such expenses by accruing the
total estimated costs over the life of a mine using the units of production
method based on proven and probable mineral reserves. On adoption of FAS 143 in 2003, we recorded liabilities totaling $334 million
for asset retirement obligations at fair value on our balance sheet, with a
corresponding adjustment to the carrying amount of the related assets that
give rise to these obligations. Our financial statements will continue to be
materially affected by our estimates of future reclamation and closure costs
that are part of our asset retirement obligations. Significant judgments and estimates are made when estimating the nature and
costs associated with asset retirement obligations. Cash outflows relating to
the obligations are incurred, in some cases, over periods from 2 to 25 years.
When considering the effect of the extended time period over which costs are
expected to be incurred, combined with the estimated discount factors, the fair
value of asset retirement obligations could materially change from period to
period due to changes in the underlying assumptions. Also changes in
environmental laws and regulations could cause material changes in the expected
costs and the fair value of asset retirement obligations. During 2003, we
recorded various changes in estimates of asset retirement obligations at closed
mines that resulted in a $10 million pre-tax charge to earnings. 48 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Derivative Instruments All financial instruments that meet the definition of a derivative in FAS 133
are recorded on our balance sheet at fair value, with the exception of
contracts that qualify for the normal sales exemption. Changes in the fair
value of derivatives recorded on our balance sheet are recorded in earnings
except for the effective portion of the change in fair value of derivatives
that are designated and qualify as a cash flow hedge or a fair value hedge. We
apply judgment in estimating the fair value of derivative instruments, which
are highly sensitive to assumptions regarding gold and other commodity prices,
gold lease rates, market volatilities, foreign currency exchange rates and
interest rates. Variations in these factors could materially affect amounts
credited or charged to earnings to reflect the changes in fair value of
derivatives. The derivative instruments whose past changes in fair value have
most significantly impacted earnings are our gold lease rate swaps. Certain
derivative instruments are accounted for as cash flow hedges. The effective
portion of changes in fair value of these instruments is deferred in other
comprehensive income and will be recognized in earnings when the underlying
hedged items occur and are also recorded in earnings. All derivatives
qualifying for hedge accounting are designated against hedged items where we
believe that the forecasted transaction is probable of occurring. To the extent
that we determine that the hedged items are no longer probable of occurring
within the time-frame designated or within a two month period thereafter, due
to changes in the factors affecting the amounts and timing of the forecasted
transactions designated as the hedged items, gains and losses deferred in other
comprehensive income are reclassified to earnings immediately. The most significant hedged items that are uncertain and subject to possible
change from period to period are forecasted local currency denominated
operating costs and capital expenditures at our Australian and Canadian mines.
Because of the large amount of unrealized gains included in other
comprehensive income, hedge ineffectiveness arising from a relatively small
change in the timing or amount of the hedged items could have a significant
impact on earnings. Estimates of these forecasted transactions are developed
in our annual mine planning process, and updated periodically when events or
circumstances indicate that the timing or amounts of the forecasted
transactions have changed significantly. In recognition of the fact that this
uncertainty increases as the time to the forecasted transaction increases, our
hedging strategy is to hedge a proportion of the forecasted expenditures that
declines in successive time intervals into the future. During 2003, following
changes in the expected timing of forecasted Australian dollar capital
expenditures, we recorded gains totaling $18 million in earnings after we
concluded that the conditions for continued use of hedge accounting treatment
for certain derivative instruments was no longer appropriate. Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities and Related Valuation Allowances In measuring the amount of deferred income tax assets and liabilities we are
periodically required to develop estimates of the tax basis of assets and
liabilities. In circumstances where the applicable tax laws and regulations are
either unclear or subject to ongoing varying interpretations, it is reasonably
possible that changes in these estimates could occur that materially affect the
amounts of deferred income tax assets and liabilities recorded in our
consolidated financial statements. The most significant such estimate affecting
our consolidated financial statements is the tax basis of our Pierina mining
concession, which is described in note 21 (c) to our consolidated financial
statements. It is 49 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS reasonably possible that we may be successful in appealing the revaluation of
the Pierina mining concession, resulting in the de-recognition of deferred
income tax liabilities totaling $141 million, which would be reflected as a
tax credit in earnings in the period such a determination is made. For every deferred tax asset, we evaluate the likelihood of whether some
portion or all of the asset will not be realized. This evaluation is based
on, among other things, expected levels of future taxable income and the
pattern and timing of reversals of temporary timing differences that give
rise to deferred tax assets and liabilities. If, based on the weight of
available evidence, we determine that it is more likely than not (a
likelihood of more than 50 percent) that all or some portion of a deferred
tax asset will not be realized, then we record a valuation allowance against
it. As of December 31, 2003, we have recorded a valuation allowance of $394
million on a portion of our net deferred tax assets totaling $682 million. Valuation Allowance at December 31 (millions)
    
    2003
    
    2002United States
    
    $
    142
    
    
    $
    173Chile /Argentina
    
    
    122
    
    
    
    120Canada
    
    
    72
    
    
    
    67Tanzania
    
    
    44
    
    
    
    43Australia
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    24Other
    
    
    6
    
    
    
    6$
    394
    
    
    $
    433
 In the United States, most of the valuation allowances relate to alternative
minimum tax credit carry forwards (AMT credits). These AMT credits will only
be utilized if there is a significant further increase in the market price of
gold above $400 per ounce or if we secure a source of additional taxable
income in addition to the present income generated by our operating mines. In Chile, valuation allowances relate to tax assets in subsidiaries that do
not have any present sources of income against which to utilize the assets. In
the event these subsidiaries are expected to have sources of income in the
future, we may be able to reduce the level of valuation allowances recorded.
In particular, we may be able to release a portion of the valuation allowances
when a construction decision is made on the Pascua-Lama project. In Canada, substantially all of the valuation allowances relate to capital
losses that will only be utilized if we realize any capital gains in the
future. In Tanzania, after considering the fiscal regime applicable to mining
companies, and the expected levels of future taxable income at the Bulyanhulu
mine, we recorded a valuation allowance against a portion of the deferred tax
assets. In the event that levels of future taxable income at Bulyanhulu are
higher than we presently expect, which could be because of a number of
factors, including a sustained upward movement in gold prices, operating
improvements or the discovery of additional reserves, we may reduce the level
of valuation allowances against these assets. During 2003, we released net valuation allowances totaling $39 million as
previously described on page 39. In future years, levels of taxable income will be affected by, among other
things, changes in gold prices, cash operating costs, proven and probable gold
reserves, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. In particular, if
the recent trend of higher spot gold prices continues, we may conclude that a
portion of valuation allowances recorded at December 31, 2003 are no longer
necessary. Significant changes in these and other factors could have a material
impact on the amount of valuation allowances recorded and on income tax
expense. 50 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Contingencies We regularly assess contingent liabilities, which inherently involve the
exercise of significant management judgment and estimates of the outcome of
future events. By their nature, contingencies will only be resolved when one or
more future events occur or fail to occur  and typically those events may
occur a number of years in the future. As described in note 25 to our consolidated financial statements, we are
involved in claims and legal proceedings, the resolution of which could have a
material effect on our financial condition or future results of operations. In
assessing these contingencies, we evaluated the perceived merits of the legal
proceedings or unasserted claims, as well as the perceived merits of the amount
of relief sought or that we expect to seek. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements We do not enter into off-balance sheet arrangements with special purpose
entities in the normal course of our business, nor do we have any
unconsolidated affiliates. In the case of joint ventures, our proportionate
interest for consolidation purposes is equivalent to the economic returns to
which we are entitled as a joint venture partner. Our only significant
off-balance sheet arrangements are our forward gold sales contracts. Forward Gold Sales Contracts Prior to the adoption of a no-hedge policy in fourth quarter 2003, we
historically entered into fixed-price forward sales contracts in a gold hedging
program to manage our exposure to market gold prices. Following the adoption of
our no-hedge policy, we will not add any new gold hedge contracts, and we
expect to reduce our gold hedge position to zero over time. We have historically entered into forward gold sales contracts with about 19
high quality banking counterparties. The banking counterparties with whom we
entered into these contracts engage in hedging transactions with numerous third
parties
in addition to us. We do not have any relationships with special purpose
entities whose sole business purpose is to enter into derivative transactions
with us. We have used fixed-price forward gold sales contracts to protect our earnings
and cash flow from declining gold prices. These contracts permit us to sell
our gold production in the gold spot market. In a rising gold price
environment, we have the ability to deliver our gold at the higher spot price,
or deliver under the contract at the contract price. We expect to reduce our
gold hedge position to zero over time; in 2003, we reduced our position by 2.6
million ounces to 15.5 million ounces. Through the use of these fixed-price contracts, in periods when the spot price
has been stable or declining, we have been able to realize higher revenues than
if we had sold our gold production in the spot gold market. The impact of
selling our gold production under these contracts, compared to the price that
would have been realized in the spot market, can be illustrated as follows: 51 BARRICK Annual Report 2003




---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Revenues from Forward Gold Sales Contracts

|                                                                          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |  |  |   |       | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- |  |  | - | ----- | 
|For the years ended December 31                                           |  | 2003 |       | 2002 |  | 2001
|                                                                          |  |      |       |      |  |     
|Total revenues from contract sales                                        |  | $    | 1,397 |      |  | $    | 1,401 |  |  | $ | 1,307 | 
|Average contract selling price ($/oz)                                     |  |      | 364   |      |  |      | 352   |  |  |   | 347   | 
|Average spot price ($/oz)                                                 |  |      | 363   |      |  |      | 310   |  |  |   | 271   | 
|Incremental revenues from contracts in excess of average
spot gold prices |  |      | 3     |      |  |      | 168   |  |  |   | 289   | 
|                                                                          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |  |  |   |       | 

Fixed-price Forward Gold Sales Contracts (The Gold Hedge Position)

|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|As of December 31, 2003                                                                                                                                                   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Gold ounces hedged                                                                                                                                                        |  | 15.5 million ounces
(or slightly less
than three years of
expected future
production)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Current termination date of gold sales contracts                                                                                                                          |  | 2013 in most cases                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Average estimated realizable gold sales contract
price at 2013 termination date                                                                                           |  | $ 400/oz1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Delivery obligations                                                                                                                                                      |  | Barrick will deliver
gold production from
operations against
gold sales contracts
by the termination
date (which is
currently 2013 in
most cases). However,
Barrick may choose to
settle any gold sales
contract in advance
of this termination
date at any time, at
its discretion.
Historically,
delivery has occurred
in advance of the
contractual
termination date.
This means Barrick
can deliver gold at
spot prices, or
prices under the
hedge contracts,
until the termination
date of these
contracts.
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Average estimated minimum realizable contract gold
sales price for delivery of 100% of expected
future production into existing sales contracts
over the next three years |  | $ 309/oz1,2,3                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Unrealized mark-to-market loss at December 31, 2003                                                                                                                       |  | $ 1,725 million4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                                                                          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

1.     Approximate estimated value based on current market US dollar
interest rates and an average lease rate
assumption of 1.5%.

2.     Accelerating gold deliveries could potentially lead to reduced
contango that would otherwise have built up
over time.

3.     Assumes delivery of 100% of expected future production against
current gold sales contracts which would
exhaust all remaining gold hedge positions.

4.     At a spot gold price of $415 per ounce.

52

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Key Contract Terms and Conditions
A forward gold sales contract is an agreement that we will sell a fixed number
of ounces of gold to the contract counterparty on a delivery date in the
future at an agreed price. We have the flexibility to choose the delivery date
at any time over a period up to about 10 years and we have the ability to
choose a fixed price or a floating price. Our rights and obligations under
these contracts are defined by Master Trading Agreements (MTAs) that we have
executed with our counterparties. The price-setting mechanism found in these
MTAs is described in note 5 to our consolidated financial statements.

The selling price under a fixed-price forward gold sales contract is based on
the forward price of gold at the future delivery date, which is essentially a
function of the spot gold price on the date the contract is entered into plus a
premium (commonly referred to as contango) through the future delivery date.
The amount of contango is often quoted as a percentage return that reflects the
spread between market LIBOR interest rates (i.e. US dollar interest rates) and
gold lease rates. Generally, US dollar interest rates are higher than the gold
lease rate, which means that the future price is higher than the current price
under the contract. In general, the longer the period of time from the start of
a contract until delivery, the higher the contract price will be compared to
the spot price at the start of the contract. The final contract selling price
increases over time due to the amount of the forward premium or contango
implicit in forward gold prices, as long as US dollar interest rates are higher
than gold lease rates.

Since we have the flexibility to deliver gold under our fixed-price forward
gold sales contracts at any time, primarily over the next 10 years, we can sell
our gold at the higher of the spot price or the contract price well into the
future. In the event spot prices consistently exceed the contract price for
this period, we would eventually deliver gold at a price of about $400 per
ounce under our existing contracts (assuming market contango rates of 2.5%) for
each ounce that we did not sell at spot prices. Although we may choose to
deliver our gold production at higher spot prices, it remains probable that we
will physically deliver gold over the term of the contract, rather than cash
settling the contracts. As discussed elsewhere in this discussion and analysis,
we have targeted a 1.5 million ounce reduction in our gold hedge position in
2004. In order to achieve this reduction, we may deliver gold into fixed-price
forward sales contracts at sales prices that are lower than the then prevailing
spot price of gold.

In most cases, under the terms of our MTAs, the period over which we are
required to deliver gold is extended annually by one year, or kept
evergreen, regardless of our intended delivery dates, unless otherwise
notified by the counterparty. This means that, with each year that passes, the
termination date of most MTAs is extended into the future by one year. In all
of our MTAs with our 19 counterparties, the following applies: the
counterparties do not have unilateral and discretionary right to break
provisions; there are no credit downgrade provisions; and we are not subject
to any margin calls  regardless of the price of gold.

53

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

We have the right to settle at any time during the life of the contracts. This
flexibility is demonstrated by the terms that allow us to deliver into
contracts at any time on two days notice, or keep these contracts outstanding
for as long as primarily 10 years. This feature means that we can sell our
gold at the market price or the hedge price at our discretion, to the
termination date of our contracts (2013 in most cases).

Our trading agreements with our counterparties do provide for early close out
of certain transactions in the event of a material negative change in our
ability to produce gold for delivery under our forward gold sales contracts, or
a lack of gold market, and for customary events of default such as covenant
breaches, insolvency or bankruptcy. The significant financial covenants are: we
must maintain a minimum consolidated net worth of at least
$2 billion 
currently, it is $3.5 billion; and we must maintain a maximum long-term debt to
consolidated net worth ratio of 1.5:1  currently, it is under 0.25:1. The
covenants under our MTAs exclude unrealized mark-to-market gains or losses on
our derivative instruments and forward gold sales contracts in the calculation
of consolidated net worth.

The terms of our forward gold sales contracts with our 19 counterparties
provide flexibility and benefits that we believe are unique to us. These
advantageous terms reflect, among other things, our strong credit rating and
our high quality, long-life, low-cost asset base.

Significance of mark-to-market
gains and losses

At the end of 2003, the unrealized mark-to-market (fair value) on the
derivative instruments position, including gold and silver forward sales
contracts, as well as currency and interest rate hedge programs, was negative
$1.4 billion. This mark-to-market value represents the replacement value of
these contracts based on current market levels, and, subject to us continuing
to meet the significant covenants under our MTAs, does not represent an
economic obligation for payment by us. Our obligations under our gold sales
contracts are to deliver an agreed-upon quantity of gold at an agreed price by
the termination date of the contracts (2013 in most cases).

In accordance with hedge accounting rules, the positive mark-to-market value of
$326 million relating to our currency and interest rate hedge programs is
recorded as an asset on our balance sheet. The mark-to-market value of our gold
and silver sales contracts is not recorded on the balance sheet as accounting
rules that govern these contracts do not require balance sheet recognition.
Instead, in accordance with US GAAP, the economic impact of these sales
contracts is reflected in the financial statements as we physically deliver
gold and silver under the contracts.

54

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A short-term spike in gold lease rates would not have a material negative
impact on us because we are not exposed under our fixed-price forward gold
sales contracts to short-term gold lease rate variations. A prolonged rise
in gold lease rates could result in lower contango (or negative contango
i.e. backwardation) and therefore a smaller forward premium (or
backwardation) under the contract. However, because of the large amount of
Central Bank gold available for lending relative to demand, gold lease rates
have historically tended to be low and any spikes short-lived.

|                               |  |            |        |  
|------------------------------ |  | ---------- | ------ | -
|At December 31, 2003           |  | Fair Value
|                               |  |           
|Forward gold sales contracts   |  | $          | (1,725 | )
|Forward silver sales contracts |  |            | (20    | )
|Foreign currency contracts     |  |            | 288    |  
|Interest rate contracts        |  |            | 38     |  
|                               |  |            |        |  
|                               |  | $          | (1,419 | )
|                               |  |            |        |  

Change in the Fair Value of Forward
Gold Sales Contracts

|                                      |  |                        |        |  
|------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | ------ | -
|                                      |  | Unrealized Gain (Loss)
|                                      |  |                       
|At December 31, 2002                  |  | $                      | (639   | )
|Impact of change in spot price1       |  |                        | (1,088 | )
|Contango earned in the year           |  |                        | 138    |  
|Impact of change in valuation inputs2 |  |                        | (136   | )
|                                      |  |                        |        |  
|At December 31, 2003                  |  | $                      | (1,725 | )
|                                      |  |                        |        |  



|1. |  | From $347 per ounce to $415 per ounce.                                  
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | Other than spot metal prices (e.g. interest rates and gold lease rates).

The mark-to-market value of the gold contracts is based on a spot gold price
of $415 per ounce and market rates for LIBOR and gold lease rates. The
mark-to-market value of the contracts would approach zero (breakeven) at a
spot gold price of approximately $303 per ounce, assuming all other variables
are constant.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

|                        |                                    |      |                 |           |  |           |     |       |  |       |     |     |  |   |     |     |  |   |       |     | 
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---- | --------------- | --------- |  | --------- | --- | ----- |  | ----- | --- | --- |  | - | --- | --- |  | - | ----- | --- | 
|                        |                                    |      | Payments due in
|                        |                                    |      |                
|At December 31, 2003    |                                    | 2004 |                 | 20052006 |  | 20072008 |     | 2009+ |  | Total
|                        |                                    |      |                 |           |  |           |     |       |  |      
|Contractual obligations |                                    |      |                 |           |  |           |     |       |  |       |     |     |  |   |     |     |  |   |       |    
|                        | Long-term debt                     |      | $               | 41        |  |           | $   | 65    |  |       | $   | 569 |  |   | $   | 80  |  |   | $     | 755 | 
|                        | Asset retirement obligations       |      |                 | 41        |  |           |     | 76    |  |       |     | 59  |  |   |     | 337 |  |   |       | 513 | 
|                        | Capital leases                     |      |                 |          |  |           |     | 2     |  |       |     | 3   |  |   |     |    |  |   |       | 5   | 
|                        | Operating leases                   |      |                 | 4         |  |           |     | 6     |  |       |     | 5   |  |   |     | 8   |  |   |       | 23  | 
|Purchase obligations    |                                    |      |                 |           |  |           |     |       |  |       |     |     |  |   |     |     |  |   |       |    
|                        | Supplies inventory and
consumables |      |                 | 12        |  |           |     | 11    |  |       |     |    |  |   |     |    |  |   |       | 23  | 
|                        | Power contracts                    |      |                 | 19        |  |           |     | 15    |  |       |     | 17  |  |   |     | 2   |  |   |       | 53  | 
|                        | Capital expenditures               |      |                 | 163       |  |           |     | 6     |  |       |     |    |  |   |     |    |  |   |       | 169 | 
|Other                   |                                    |      | 10              |           |  |           | 11  |       |  |       | 1   |     |  |   | 4   |     |  |   | 26    |    
|                        |                                    |      |                 |           |  |           |     |       |  |       |     |     |  |   |     |     |  |   |       |     | 
|Total                   |                                    | $    | 290             |           |  | $         | 192 |       |  | $     | 654 |     |  | $ | 431 |     |  | $ | 1,567 |    
|                        |                                    |      |                 |           |  |           |     |       |  |       |     |     |  |   |     |     |  |   |       |     | 

55

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Long-term debt

Our debt obligations do not include any subjective acceleration clauses or
other clauses that enable the holder of the debt to call for early repayment,
except in the event that we breach any of the terms and conditions of the debt.
We are not required to post any collateral under any debt obligations and the
terms of the obligations would not be affected by a deterioration in our credit
rating.

Asset retirement obligations

Amounts presented in the table represent the undiscounted future estimated
cost of asset retirement obligations that are recorded in our financial
statements. The most significant contingent liability relating to reclamation
and closure activities which is not recorded on our balance sheet, or
presented in the above table, relates to potential obligations to monitor
water quality and treat ground water on an ongoing basis. We will record a
liability for these activities if environmental laws and regulations require
us to conduct these activities in the future.

Power purchase agreements

We enter into contracts to purchase power at each of our operating mines. The
contracts provide for fixed prices, which in certain circumstances, are
adjusted for inflation. Some agreements obligate us to purchase fixed
quantities per hour, seven days a week, while others are based on a percentage
of actual consumption. These contracts extend through various dates in 2004 to
2007.

In addition to the purchase obligations set out in the table on the previous
page, we purchase about 0.9 billion kilowatt-hours annually at market rates.
Under the terms of one contract, we purchase power based on actual consumption;
this contract has an exit fee of $12 million should we decide to switch to an
alternate power supplier.

Capital expenditures

Purchase obligations for capital expenditures include only those items where
binding commitments have been entered into. They do not include the full amount
of future expenditures relating to our development pipeline over the next 5
years, because commitments have yet to be made for a large portion of the
estimated future capital costs related to these projects.

Commitments

Royalties

Virtually all of our royalty commitments give rise to obligations at the time
we produce gold. In the event that we do not produce gold at our mining
properties, we have no payment obligation to the royalty holders. The amounts
that we expect to pay in the future are: 2004 
$45 million; 2005 to 2006 
$115 million; 2007 to 2008  $107 million; and 2009 and
beyond  $375 million.
These amounts are estimated based on our expected gold production from proven
and probable reserves (under Canadian reporting standards) for the periods
indicated, and assuming a $350 gold price. The most significant royalty
arrangements are disclosed in note 6 to our consolidated financial statements.

Payments to maintain land tenure and mineral property rights

In the normal course of business, we are committed to making annual payments to
maintain title to certain of our properties and to maintain our rights to mine
gold at certain of our properties. In the event we choose to abandon a property
or discontinue mining operations, the payments relating to that property can be
suspended, resulting in our rights to the property lapsing.

56

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Quarterly Information

|                            |  |           |      |          |  |               |      |              |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |  |  |   |      |  |  |   |      |  |  |   |      | 
|--------------------------- |  | --------- | ---- | -------- |  | ------------- | ---- | ------------ |  | ---- | ---- | ---- |  | ---- | ---- | ---- |  | - | ---- |  |  | - | ---- |  |  | - | ---- |  |  | - | ---- | 
|(in millions,               |  | March 31, |      | June 30, |  | September 30, |      | December 31,
|except per share data)      |  | 2003      |      | 2002     |  | 2003          |      | 2002         |  | 2003 |      | 2002 |  | 2003 |      | 2002
|                            |  |           |      |          |  |               |      |              |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |     
|Gold sales                  |  | $         | 459  |          |  | $             | 478  |              |  | $    | 491  |      |  | $    | 490  |      |  | $ | 549  |  |  | $ | 473  |  |  | $ | 536  |  |  | $ | 526  | 
|Average spot gold price     |  |           | 352  |          |  |               | 290  |              |  |      | 347  |      |  |      | 313  |      |  |   | 364  |  |  |   | 314  |  |  |   | 392  |  |  |   | 323  | 
|Average realized gold price |  |           | 355  |          |  |               | 329  |              |  |      | 352  |      |  |      | 341  |      |  |   | 365  |  |  |   | 342  |  |  |   | 394  |  |  |   | 343  | 
|Net income                  |  |           | 29   |          |  |               | 46   |              |  |      | 59   |      |  |      | 59   |      |  |   | 35   |  |  |   | 34   |  |  |   | 77   |  |  |   | 54   | 
|Net income per share1       |  |           | 0.05 |          |  |               | 0.09 |              |  |      | 0.11 |      |  |      | 0.11 |      |  |   | 0.07 |  |  |   | 0.06 |  |  |   | 0.14 |  |  |   | 0.10 | 
|Operating cash flow         |  |           | 131  |          |  |               | 124  |              |  |      | 66   |      |  |      | 148  |      |  |   | 188  |  |  |   | 126  |  |  |   | 134  |  |  |   | 195  | 
|                            |  |           |      |          |  |               |      |              |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |  |  |   |      |  |  |   |      |  |  |   |      | 

1.     Basic and diluted

Our financial results for the last eight quarters reflect the following
general trends: rising spot gold prices and prices realized from gold sales;
declining gold production and sales volumes; and rising total cash costs.
These trends are discussed elsewhere in this Managements Discussion and
Analysis, and the quarterly trends are consistent with explanations for annual
trends over the last two years.

Fourth Quarter Results

Revenue for fourth quarter 2003 was $536 million on gold sales of 1.36 million
ounces, compared to $526 million in revenue on gold sales of 1.54 million
ounces for the year earlier period. During the quarter, spot gold prices ranged
from a high of $416 to a low of $369 per ounce, averaging $392 per ounce. We
realized an average price of $394 per ounce during the quarter, delivering
600,000 ounces against gold hedge contracts, with the remainder at spot gold
prices. Due to the higher spot gold prices during the quarter, we
realized a $51 per ounce (15%) increase in the gold price compared to the year
earlier period, which more than offset the lower sales volumes.

For the quarter, we produced 1.3 million ounces at total cash costs of $1991
per ounce compared to 1.6 million ounces at total cash costs of $1741 per
ounce. Both production and total cash costs for the quarter were in line with
plan.

Earnings for the fourth quarter 2003 were $77 million ($0.14 per share) as
compared to earnings of $54 million ($0.10 per share) in the year earlier
period. This increase in earnings over the year earlier period reflect a $51
per ounce higher realized gold price and a $60 million increase in non-hedge
derivative gains (2003  $46 million gain versus 2002 $14 million loss). These
factors were partly offset by higher cash operating costs, provisions of $14
million for the Inmet settlement and $10 million for reclamation costs, and an
$18 million lower income tax recovery.

57

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In the quarter, we generated operating cash flow of $134 million ($220 million
prior to the Inmet settlement of $86 million1) as compared to operating cash
flow of $195 million in the prior year period. Lower operating cash flow in the
quarter primarily relates to the payment of $86 million on the Inmet settlement.
Excluding the Inmet settlement, fourth quarter and full year cash flow from
operations was slightly higher in 2003 than 2002.

1.     For an explanation of our use of non-GAAP performance measures, please refer
to pages 58 to 61,

Non-GAAP Performance Measures

We have included total cash costs per ounce data because we understand that
certain investors use this information to assess our performance. The inclusion
of total cash costs per ounce statistics enables investors to better understand
year-on-year changes in production costs, which in turn affect our
profitability and ability to generate operating cash flow for use in investing
and other activities. We have also included a measure of operating cash flow
excluding the settlement of litigation. Litigation settlements are infrequent
in occurrence, and therefore including this non-GAAP measure of performance
provides a more
comparable basis for assessing the Companys cash flow performance in 2003
compared with 2002. Non-GAAP measures do not have any standardized meaning
prescribed by US GAAP, and therefore they may not be comparable to similar
measures prescribed by other companies. The data are intended to provide
additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a
substitute for measures of performance prepared in accordance with GAAP. The
measures are not necessarily indicative of operating profit or cash flow from
operations as determined under GAAP.

58

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Total Cash Costs per Ounce to Financial Statements

|                                                                                      |  |  |              |       |              |  |       |       |          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | ------------ | ----- | ------------ |  | ----- | ----- | -------- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | -
|                                                                                      |  |  | Goldstrike - |       | Goldstrike - |  | Eskay |       | Round   
|For the years ended                                                                   |  |  | Open pit     |       | Underground  |  | Creek |       | Mountain
|December 31                                                                           |  |  | 2003         |       | 2002         |  | 2003  |       | 2002     |  | 2003 |       | 2002 |  | 2003 |       | 2002
|                                                                                      |  |  |              |       |              |  |       |       |          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |     
|Total cash production
costs per US GAAP1                                              |  |  | $            | 380.6 |              |  | $     | 320.2 |          |  | $    | 152.1 |      |  | $    | 123.0 |      |  | $ | 18.6 |   |  | $ | 14.7 |   |  | $ | 67.2 |   |  | $ | 78.7 |  
|Accretion expense and
reclamation costs at
operating mines                            |  |  |              | (2.5  | )            |  |       | (5.5  | )        |  |      |      |      |  |      | (1.2  | )    |  |   | (0.3 | ) |  |   | (0.5 | ) |  |   | (1.6 | ) |  |   | (6.0 | )
|                                                                                      |  |  |              |       |              |  |       |       |          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Total cash production
costs per Gold Institute
Production
Cost Standard               |  |  | $            | 378.1 |              |  | $     | 314.7 |          |  | $    | 152.1 |      |  | $    | 121.8 |      |  | $ | 18.3 |   |  | $ | 14.2 |   |  | $ | 65.6 |   |  | $ | 72.7 |  
|                                                                                      |  |  |              |       |              |  |       |       |          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Ounces sold (thousands)                                                               |  |  |              | 1,625 |              |  |       | 1,383 |          |  |      | 600   |      |  |      | 617   |      |  |   | 354  |   |  |   | 358  |   |  |   | 379  |   |  |   | 389  |  
|Total cash costs per
ounce sold per US
GAAP (dollars)                                 |  |  | $            | 234   |              |  | $     | 232   |          |  | $    | 253   |      |  | $    | 199   |      |  | $ | 53   |   |  | $ | 41   |   |  | $ | 177  |   |  | $ | 202  |  
|                                                                                      |  |  |              |       |              |  |       |       |          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Total cash costs per
ounce sold per Gold
Institute Production
Cost Standard (dollars) |  |  | $            | 233   |              |  | $     | 228   |          |  | $    | 253   |      |  | $    | 198   |      |  | $ | 52   |   |  | $ | 40   |   |  | $ | 173  |   |  | $ | 187  |  
|                                                                                      |  |  |              |       |              |  |       |       |          |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  

|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----- | ---- | -------------- |  | -------- | ---- | ------------- |  | ---- | ---- | ---- |  | ---- | ---- | ---- |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | ----- | ----- | - |  | - | ----- | -
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  | Total
|                                                                                      |  | Hemlo |      | Holt-McDermott |  | Marigold |      | North America
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |              
|For the years ended December 31                                                       |  | 2003  |      | 2002           |  | 2003     |      | 2002          |  | 2003 |      | 2002 |  | 2003 |      | 2002
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |     
|Total cash production
costs per US GAAP1                                              |  | $     | 60.4 |                |  | $        | 65.0 |               |  | $    | 20.9 |      |  | $    | 16.6 |      |  | $ | 8.1  |   |  | $ | 5.4  |   |  | $     | 707.9 |   |  | $ | 623.6 |  
|Accretion expense and reclamation costs at
operating mines                            |  |       | (0.2 | )              |  |          | (1.0 | )             |  |      | (0.1 | )    |  |      | (0.3 | )    |  |   | (0.1 | ) |  |   | (0.2 | ) |  |       | (4.8  | ) |  |   | (14.7 | )
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Total cash production costs per Gold
Institute Production
Cost Standard               |  | $     | 60.2 |                |  | $        | 64.0 |               |  | $    | 20.8 |      |  | $    | 16.3 |      |  | $ | 8.0  |   |  | $ | 5.2  |   |  | $     | 703.1 |   |  | $ | 608.9 |  
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Ounces sold (thousands)                                                               |  |       | 266  |                |  |          | 286  |               |  |      | 87   |      |  |      | 94   |      |  |   | 47   |   |  |   | 28   |   |  |       | 3,358 |   |  |   | 3,155 |  
|Total cash costs per ounce sold per US
GAAP (dollars)                                 |  | $     | 227  |                |  | $        | 227  |               |  | $    | 240  |      |  | $    | 176  |      |  | $ | 172  |   |  | $ | 194  |   |  | $     | 211   |   |  | $ | 198   |  
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Total cash costs per ounce sold per Gold
Institute Production
Cost Standard (dollars) |  | $     | 226  |                |  | $        | 224  |               |  | $    | 239  |      |  | $    | 173  |      |  | $ | 171  |   |  | $ | 187  |   |  | $     | 209   |   |  | $ | 193   |  
|                                                                                      |  |       |      |                |  |          |      |               |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  



|1. |  | Represents cost of sales and other operating costs (excluding
amortization).
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

59

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  |       |      |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------- | ---- | ------------- |  | -------- | ----- | ------ |  | ----- | ---- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | -
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  | Total |      |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |  
|                                                                                      |  | Pierina |      | South America |  | Plutonic |       | Darlot
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |       
|For the years ended December 31                                                       |  | 2003    |      | 2002          |  | 2003     |       | 2002   |  | 2003  |      | 2002 |  | 2003 |       | 2002
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  |       |      |      |  |      |       |     
|Total cash production costs per US GAAP1                                              |  | $       | 78.9 |               |  | $        | 90.2  |        |  | $     | 78.9 |      |  | $    | 90.2  |      |  | $ | 62.6 |   |  | $ | 58.0 |   |  | $ | 25.4 |   |  | $ | 24.8 |  
|Accretion expense and reclamation costs at
operating mines                            |  |         | (3.2 | )             |  |          | (18.4 | )      |  |       | (3.2 | )    |  |      | (18.4 | )    |  |   | (0.2 | ) |  |   | (0.8 | ) |  |   | (0.1 | ) |  |   | (0.3 | )
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  |       |      |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Total cash production costs per Gold
Institute Production
Cost Standard               |  | $       | 75.7 |               |  | $        | 71.8  |        |  | $     | 75.7 |      |  | $    | 71.8  |      |  | $ | 62.4 |   |  | $ | 57.2 |   |  | $ | 25.3 |   |  | $ | 24.5 |  
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  |       |      |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Ounces sold (thousands)                                                               |  |         | 911  |               |  |          | 895   |        |  |       | 911  |      |  |      | 895   |      |  |   | 324  |   |  |   | 311  |   |  |   | 154  |   |  |   | 146  |  
|Total cash costs per ounce sold per US
GAAP (dollars)                                 |  | $       | 87   |               |  | $        | 101   |        |  | $     | 87   |      |  | $    | 101   |      |  | $ | 193  |   |  | $ | 186  |   |  | $ | 165  |   |  | $ | 170  |  
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  |       |      |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  
|Total cash costs per ounce sold per Gold
Institute Production
Cost Standard (dollars) |  | $       | 83   |               |  | $        | 80    |        |  | $     | 83   |      |  | $    | 80    |      |  | $ | 193  |   |  | $ | 184  |   |  | $ | 164  |   |  | $ | 168  |  
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |               |  |          |       |        |  |       |      |      |  |      |       |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |  

|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------- | ---- | ---------- |  | ---------- | ---- | ---------------- |  | ---- | ---- | ---- |  | ---- | ---- | ---- |  | - | ---- | - |  | - | ---- | - |  | ----- | ----- | - |  | - | ----- | -
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  | Total
|                                                                                      |  | Lawlers |      | Kalgoorlie |  | Bulyanhulu |      | Australia/Africa
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                 
|For the years ended December 31                                                       |  | 2003    |      | 2002       |  | 2003       |      | 2002             |  | 2003 |      | 2002 |  | 2003 |      | 2002
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |     
|Total cash production
costs per US GAAP1                                              |  | $       | 23.8 |            |  | $          | 21.3 |                  |  | $    | 88.1 |      |  | $    | 83.6 |      |  | $ | 77.1 |   |  | $ | 78.4 |   |  | $     | 277.0 |   |  | $ | 266.1 |  
|Accretion expense and
reclamation costs at
operating mines                            |  |         | (0.1 | )          |  |            | (0.5 | )                |  |      | (1.5 | )    |  |      | (2.0 | )    |  |   | (4.1 | ) |  |   | (0.4 | ) |  |       | (6.0  | ) |  |   | (4.0  | )
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Total cash production
costs per Gold Institute
Production Cost Standard               |  | $       | 23.7 |            |  | $          | 20.8 |                  |  | $    | 86.6 |      |  | $    | 81.6 |      |  | $ | 73.0 |   |  | $ | 78.0 |   |  | $     | 271.0 |   |  | $ | 262.1 |  
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Ounces sold (thousands)                                                               |  |         | 95   |            |  |            | 116  |                  |  |      | 415  |      |  |      | 367  |      |  |   | 297  |   |  |   | 395  |   |  |       | 1,285 |   |  |   | 1,335 |  
|Total cash costs per
ounce sold per US GAAP
(dollars)                                 |  | $       | 250  |            |  | $          | 184  |                  |  | $    | 212  |      |  | $    | 228  |      |  | $ | 260  |   |  | $ | 199  |   |  | $     | 216   |   |  | $ | 199   |  
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Total cash costs per
ounce sold per Gold
Institute Production
Cost Standard (dollars) |  | $       | 249  |            |  | $          | 179  |                  |  | $    | 209  |      |  | $    | 222  |      |  | $ | 246  |   |  | $ | 198  |   |  | $     | 210   |   |  | $ | 196   |  
|                                                                                      |  |         |      |            |  |            |      |                  |  |      |      |      |  |      |      |      |  |   |      |   |  |   |      |   |  |       |       |   |  |   |       |  



|1. |  | Represents cost of sales and other operating costs (excluding
amortization).
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

60

BARRICK Annual Report 2003



---



##### 



MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Reconciliation of Amortization Costs per Ounce to Financial Statements

|                                                                                           |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |   |  |   |       |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---- | ----- | ---- |  | ---- | ----- | - |  | - | ----- | -
|For the years ended December 31                                                            |  | 2003 |       | 2002 |  | 2001
|                                                                                           |  |      |       |      |  |     
|Amortization expense per consolidated financial statements                                 |  | $    | 522   |      |  | $    | 519   |   |  | $ | 501   |  
|Amortization expense recorded on property,
plant and equipment not at operating mine sites |  |      | (25   | )    |  |      | (26   | ) |  |   | (24   | )
|                                                                                           |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Amortization expense for per ounce calculation                                             |  | $    | 497   |      |  | $    | 493   |   |  | $ | 477   |  
|                                                                                           |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |   |  |   |       |  
|Ounces sold (thousands)                                                                    |  |      | 5,554 |      |  |      | 5,805 |   |  |   | 6,278 |  
|Amortization per ounce (dollars)                                                           |  | $    | 90    |      |  | $    | 85    |   |  | $ | 76    |  
|                                                                                           |  |      |       |      |  |      |       |   |  |   |       |  

Reconciliation of Operating Cash Flow Excluding the Inmet Settlement

|                                               |                                                |      |     |      |  |      |     |      |  |   |     |      | 
|---------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | ---- | --- | ---- |  | ---- | --- | ---- |  | - | --- | ---- | 
|For the years ended December 31                |                                                | 2003 |     | 2002 |  | 2001
|                                               |                                                |      |     |      |  |     
|Operating cash flow per financial statements   |                                                | $    | 521 |      |  | $    | 589 |      |  | $ | 588 |     
|Inmet settlement                               |                                                |      | 86  |      |  |      |    |      |  |   |    |     
|                                               |                                                |      |     |      |  |      |     |      |  |   |     |     
|Operating cash flow excluding Inmet settlement |                                                | $    | 607 |      |  | $    | 589 |      |  | $ | 588 |     
|                                               |                                                |      |     |      |  |      |     |      |  |   |     |     
|Per share data:                                |                                                |      |     |      |  |      |     |      |  |   |     |     
|                                               | Operating cash flow                            |      | $   | 0.97 |  |      | $   | 1.09 |  |   | $   | 1.09 | 
|                                               | Operating cash flow excluding Inmet settlement |      | $   | 1.13 |  |      | $   | 1.09 |  |   | $   | 1.09 | 
|                                               |                                                |      |     |      |  |      |     |      |  |   |     |     

Outstanding Share Data

As at March 4, 2004, 534.6 million common shares (Common Shares) and one
special voting share (Special Voting Share) in the capital of Barrick were
issued and outstanding. Computershare Trust Company of Canada
(Computershare), the holder of the Special Voting Share, is entitled to cast
the number of votes equal to the number of BGI Exchangeable Shares (as defined
below) outstanding (excluding those owned by Barrick and its subsidiaries),
multiplied by 0.53, for which it receives voting instructions from holders of
such BGI Exchangeable Shares.

In connection with Barricks acquisition of Homestake Mining Company effective
December 14, 2001, Barrick Gold Inc. (formerly Homestake Canada Inc.) issued
securities (BGI Exchangeable Shares), which, by their terms, are each
exchangeable at any time for 0.53 of a Common Share. Each BGI Exchangeable
Share entitles the holder to exercise the same voting rights as a holder of
0.53 of a Common Share. Generally, a holder of a BGI Exchangeable Share may exercise
his or her voting right by either providing voting instructions to
Computershare or attending a meeting of holders of Common Shares and voting in
person. As at March 4, 2004, there were 1.5 million BGI Exchangeable Shares
outstanding that were not owned by Barrick, which would entitle the holders of
the BGI Exchangeable Shares to cast 0.8 million votes at a meeting of holders
of Common Shares. For further information regarding the BGI Exchangeable
Shares, please refer to the Companys current Management Information Circular
and Proxy Statement.

As at March 4, 2004, options to purchase 24 million Common Shares were
outstanding under Barricks option plan. In addition, as at March 4, 2004,
options to purchase 0.5 million Common Shares were outstanding under certain
option plans inherited by Barrick in connection with prior acquisitions.

61

BARRICK Annual Report 2003