19th May 2026: Just came across this: Australian Gold "Cash building & M&A is on but FY27 risks loom" by Levi Spry at UBS Research - 06/05/2026 07:41 pm AEST
Which contained this table:
Published on May 6th FWIW. I don't usually take much notice of UBS, but I do find it interesting that their price targets suggested that 2 weeks ago the 4 best companies to buy across the Aussie gold sector were Chalice (CHN), Pantoro (PNR), Catalyst (CYL) and Genesis (GMD) with their share prices needing to increase +108%, +91%, +89% and +72% respectively to hit their (UBS') 12 month price targets.
Interestingly I bought all four of those companies in my Income Stream Account (ISA) today, with CYL being my largest position there and GMD being my second largest. That would be a nice return if they could manage that sort of growth in 12 months and hit UBS' price targets.
Compared to the 6th May share prices listed above in column 3, CHN closed 1 cent higher today @ $1.45, CYL closed 31 cents higher @ $5.46, GMD closed 14 cents higher @ $6.04 while PNR closed 14 cents lower @ $3.11, so from today's $3.11 close for PNR ($3.11 also being the price I paid for them today) to UBS' 12-month Price Target of $6.20 for PNR, that would be a +99% share price rise. I'd take it if it happens.
My current ISA positions in order of weightings:
The remaining 16.64% of that portfolio is mainly cash, with some in CBUS' managed strategies.
And below are my current SPF (speculative company portfolio) positions and income portfolio (IPF) positions combined, from largest weighting to smallest:
The percentages relate to weightings for that portfolio only and do add up to 100%.
GNG, LYL & SEMI above are in my IPF and the others are my SPF, however I have them currently combined under the same HIN, so they display together. I have reduced my LYL exposure over the past 8 weeks, because I was seeing a lot more opportunities at the speccy (more speculative) end, so I rotated a fair bit of money into that. I also sold some to pay some bills while I was waiting for my ISA to be set up and for the first income payment from it to arrive - which was supposed to be back in March but ended up being last Thursday (14th May), so that took around two months longer than I had expected. I will be cycling some money back into LYL over the next few months to build the position back up.
Not all of those speccy companies are gold companies, but most are, there's also a tin play and a niobium play in there, and a silver play, and some have gold plus other metals or minerals in their portfolio of assets, or are exploring for more than just gold. Likewise, my ISA companies (which are all ASX300 companies, whereas the others immediately above in the SPF and IPF are all ex-300) also aren't ALL gold producers, there's two copper plays (SFR and FFM), another company produces gold and antimony (ALK), another has a high-grade antimony project in addition to their gold projects and gold production (BC8), and one has a high-grade tungsten project in addition to a lot of gold (GGP). But the majority of these companies are gold explorers, developers or producers, or a combination thereof.
So, yeah, I'm still bullish on gold.
As long as gold stays over A$6,000/ounce she'll be apples, and realistically it could fall to $5,000/oz or lower and all of my gold producers would still be making great margins. It's still a good time to be producing gold. Or looking for it and finding it. Or developing / progressing a gold project towards production and/or M&A.
Basically, it's still a good time to be in gold.
Friday 8th May 2026: I've been hearing recently that the gold price has been moving inversely to the oil price, so when the oil price drops, gold rises, and when the oil price rises, gold falls. Just recently - it doesn't seem to be that way over decent periods of time.
There has been a clear inverse relationship between the US$ and the gold price in prior years:
But that doesn't seem to apply to the oil price and gold over the past decade:
Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/1334/gold-prices-vs-oil-prices-historical-correlation
It's interesting that things might be changing in that regard.
The gold price has had a down month as oil prices have risen, but has risen over recent days while the oil price has been moderating or falling on the back of optimism about a possible "deal" between the USA and Iran that may lead to an end to the current conflict.
Source: https://goldprice.org/
New to strawman, so I am keen to sharing some comparative analysis for some of gold miners in my portfolio and on my watchlist. I have completed some research into explorers, but I don’t include it here as it can become dated extremely quickly.
The information in the table below is aggregated from analysis completed over the last 6-12 months and focus is on producers (or upcoming producers). The primary aim of the analysis was to assist in idea generation, with further deep diving before making decisions to reposition or reduce current holdings. I work in the industry, so I apply my own filters and nuances before making an investment (it's not just the numbers). However, I would love to hear other perspectives or thoughts on the information shared and I must admit I don’t know all of the companies well.
Finally, I have used AI to pull the information together into a single table, as I have looked at different metrics at different times in multiple spreadsheets. I have also used it to update recent information such as share prices and market caps in the process. I have critically reviewed the output, with specific checks for the companies of most interest and it is using a paid subscription which has been very at aggregating the information. All this to say let me know if you spot something that doesn't look right.
Output:
The table comprises of (in my preferred order of value):
1. Resource and reserves and Grade
2. Mining Method & Milling Head Grade
4. Simple DCFs price for each company (no residual value)- as a proxy for AISC & production profile
5. Average 12-month price target (added as a sanity check)
Process explanation:
The reserves and resource information is the oldest, however, I have updated this from time to time. I put this together on a “roughly right” basis, and you can find this information in a lot of company presentations. The table is my personal preference. I recently noted changes in Ora Banda numbers and there may be acquisitions that have not flowed through into the reserves (e.g. I am yet to confirm the if the Spartan acquisition is in the RMS reserves). There are others here doing a lot of drilling or work which could see additional material move into reserves. Therefore, a higher EV/reserves may indicate the market is pricing in reserves growth.
The mining method and milling head grade helps understand the key drivers for the business, potential risk and what I look at next. A couple of these are single asset head grades which are not that helpful for multi-asset companies. I find this useful for the smaller mines or those operating in a mill constrained or mining constrained environment. A mill constrained operation is expected to have higher grade feed whereby operations with milling capacity can still generate positive cashflow feeding lower grade stockpiles. There is a distinction with underground and open pit and the associated mining costs (more expensive for underground).
I run a basic 5-and 10-year DCF for each company using forward production guidance and AISC. I track these in their own workbooks for specific companies and have pulled together this number as a proxy for production profile, AISC and capex expenditure. I don’t use the final number as a company valuation or a price target; however, it is critical to note I have used the same gold price profile across all the companies (excluding those that hedge). In this case the “valuations” produced help understanding timing of cash flows and what risk profile each company has- e.g. is the value being generated by cashflows 5-10 years into the future. At the end of the 10-year DCF I subscribe zero residual value, therefore, this does not represent a valuation for a large company with significant ore reserves. NST for example is not representative.
The Table: A comparative output table to guide to what looks interesting. With nuance on what looks right and what carries risk... But I hope this helps.
Full disclosure I own RMS, GMD, BC8, KCN and NST. I have attempted to remain neutral on what I own and when I get time add the specific valuations in my strawman.
Outside of my current holdings I like CYL and VAU. RXL looks interesting but the refractory ore puts me off. I am put off by a few other things with cheaper looking companies such as management teams, jurisdictions or asset quality/complexity. But enough for now.
10-April-2026: New Management at Barrick, New Strategy:
Excerpt:
Barrick Gold is generally considered to be the second-largest gold mining company in the world by production, trailing Newmont Corporation, although I had heard earlier this week that they had dropped to #3 - not sure who overtook them however, if indeed that did occur.
Barrick's former boss, Mark Bristow, was a pig-headed (stubborn) man who made a number of mistakes and never admitted to any of them, so he alienated a significant percentage of Barrick's shareholder base, including some large insto investors in the US, and clashed with his own Board, so it was no surprise to me when Barrick announced (with zero notice, on September 29th last year) that Bristow had resigned as President and CEO of Barrick Gold, effective immediately, after nearly seven years leading the company following the 2019 merger with Randgold Resources (Bristow was previously the boss at Randgold and then took over the top job at Barrick after the two companies merged). His departure was abrupt, with then COO Mark Hill appointed as interim CEO immediately, then later, in February this year, Mark Hill was named as the permanent President and CEO of Barrick Gold.
So Mark Hill had been the COO under Mark Bristow, but clearly didn't share the same views, particularly on risk management.
The biggest issue with Bristow at Barrick was probably his handling of the Mali situation where Barrick ultimately lost control of their gold mines in Mali as a result of Bristow refusing to negotiate with Malian "authorities", and that situation led directly to a US$1.04 billion impairment charge reported in the company's Q2 2025 financial results. Not million, BILLION. That's a LOT of money to lose because you're a stubborn, hard-headed bastard.
There was also plenty of concerns about Bristow taking Barrick away from Gold and into other metals (hence the current planned spin out [IPO] of some of Barrick's safer gold assets as mentioned in the Bloomberg article "Takeaways" above, that effectively split the company into safe gold [newco] and riskier gold+non-gold assets), and his willingness to build new mines in some of the riskiest places in the world without a good working relationship with the governments and various departments in those countries that Barrick needed to stay onside with. Mali was one example of that, the massive Reko Diq copper-gold mine in Balochistan, western Pakistan, was another example, but there are others. Point being, Barrick are clearly trying to undo a fair whack of the reputational damage they have suffered under Bristow now that he's no longer in the picture.
Reko Diq has Afghanistan to the immediate north and Iran to the west and south (see map below) - and it's basically desert with bugger-all infrastructure, so it's not a fun place to build a new mine, especially one as big as Bristow wanted Reko Diq to be. It's no wonder that after LYL did all the studies for Reko Diq they declined to participate in the bidding process for the EPCM (build) contract. As Peter De Leo explained to @Strawman in the recent interview / meeting here, LYL completed all of their commitments with regard to Reko Diq but what Barrick (Mark Bristow at that time) wanted to pay for the build was not acceptable to Lycopodium (LYL), so they declined to bid for the project. The project has since faced a number of hurdles but it's not LYL's problem now.
Further Reading:
https://discoveryalert.com.au/security-risks-reshaping-mining-strategies-2026/ [8th April 2026]
Barrick Slows Reko Diq Development Following Security Review
BY
ON APRIL 8, 2026
The global mining industry has entered an era where traditional risk assessment frameworks prove increasingly inadequate for navigating complex geopolitical environments. Major mining corporations now confront security challenges that transcend conventional operational hazards, requiring sophisticated scenario planning capabilities and dynamic risk management strategies. The intersection of high-value mineral deposits with volatile political landscapes creates unprecedented investment complexities that demand innovative approaches to capital allocation and project development, particularly as executive mining mandates reshape regulatory frameworks.
This shifting paradigm becomes particularly evident when examining mega-projects in frontier markets, where security considerations can fundamentally alter development timelines and financial projections. The mining sector's traditional emphasis on geological and technical risk factors has expanded to encompass comprehensive security intelligence, cross-border stability analysis, and adaptive operational protocols designed for rapidly changing threat environments.
How Security Risks Are Reshaping Major Mining Investment Strategies
The announcement that Barrick to slow development at Reko Diq represents a watershed moment in mining industry risk management, highlighting how security considerations now influence investment decisions at the highest corporate levels. Following preliminary security review findings and escalating incidents in Pakistan and surrounding regions, the company implemented comprehensive project reassessment protocols extending through mid-2027. This strategic pause reflects evolving corporate governance standards that prioritise personnel safety and asset protection over accelerated development timelines.
The New Risk Assessment Framework for Frontier Mining Projects
Contemporary mining corporations have developed sophisticated risk evaluation mechanisms that integrate real-time security intelligence with traditional geological and economic assessments. These frameworks incorporate dynamic monitoring systems capable of tracking security incidents across broad geographic regions, analysing threat patterns, and predicting potential escalation scenarios. The Reko Diq security review exemplifies this approach, encompassing comprehensive evaluation of the evolving security situation, capital requirements, project financing options, and timeline optimisation strategies.
The implementation of these enhanced risk frameworks requires substantial investment in specialised personnel, intelligence gathering capabilities, and scenario modelling systems. Mining companies now employ security analysts, regional political experts, and cross-border intelligence specialists as core members of project development teams. Furthermore, this expanded expertise base enables more nuanced understanding of how local conflicts, regional instability, and international tensions can impact mining operations across extended development periods.
Modern security risk assessment also incorporates predictive modelling techniques that evaluate multiple potential scenarios for regional stability over project lifespans extending 20-30 years. These models consider demographic trends, economic development patterns, governance stability indicators, and historical conflict cycles to establish probability ranges for various security outcomes. Consequently, the complexity of these assessments reflects recognition that mining investments represent long-term commitments in environments where security conditions can fluctuate dramatically.
Capital Reallocation Patterns in Response to Regional Instability
Mining corporations have developed sophisticated capital reallocation mechanisms designed to optimise investment returns while minimising exposure to unacceptable security risks. When projects face extended security reviews, companies implement carefully calibrated spending reduction protocols that preserve project viability without excessive capital exposure. For instance, Barrick's decision to maintain active project management while reducing capital expenditure demonstrates this balanced approach, continuing essential operations while limiting financial risk.
The financial implications of security-driven delays prove substantial across multiple dimensions. Original Phase 1 capital estimates of $5.6-6.0 billion face potential increases of 15-25 percent, while Phase 2 projections of $3.3-3.6 billion remain under comprehensive review. These escalations reflect not only construction cost inflation during delay periods but also enhanced security infrastructure requirements, modified operational protocols, and increased insurance costs reflecting elevated risk assessments.
Capital Impact Analysis During Security Reviews
Why Balochistan's Strategic Location Creates Unique Investment Challenges
The Reko Diq project's location in Chagai district of Balochistan, with proximity to Afghanistan and Iran borders, creates exceptional security complexities that distinguish it from mining operations in more politically stable regions. This tri-border positioning exposes the project to overlapping jurisdictional challenges, cross-border security threats, and regional instability dynamics that can rapidly affect operational safety and supply chain integrity.
Geographic Risk Concentration in Critical Mineral Supply Chains
Balochistan's position at the intersection of three national jurisdictions creates what security specialists term geographic risk concentration, where multiple threat vectors converge in a single operational area. The province's extensive border with Afghanistan and Iran exposes mining operations to spillover effects from regional conflicts, cross-border militant activities, and trafficking networks that exploit porous international boundaries. Moreover, these challenges directly impact critical minerals energy security considerations for global supply chains.
The region's sparse population density and limited government presence compound security challenges by reducing civilian oversight and emergency response capabilities. Chagai district encompasses approximately 44,427 square kilometres with predominantly pastoral and trading communities, creating vast areas with minimal official security infrastructure. This geographic reality requires mining operations to develop comprehensive self-reliant security systems capable of operating independently of local law enforcement capabilities.
Border proximity effects on mining operations include supply chain vulnerabilities where essential equipment and materials must transit potentially unstable crossing points, personnel movement complications requiring coordination with multiple national border agencies, and communication challenges in remote areas with limited infrastructure redundancy. These factors collectively increase operational costs and timeline uncertainty compared to projects in more developed regions.
Historical analysis of the Afghanistan-Iran-Pakistan corridor reveals recurring patterns of cross-border instability, tribal conflicts, and militant activities that create persistent security challenges. The region's complex ethnic and political dynamics, combined with economic factors including smuggling networks and informal taxation systems, establish baseline security conditions that require specialised management approaches.
Joint Venture Governance Under Security Pressure
Complex joint venture structures involving international corporations and state entities face particular governance challenges when security conditions deteriorate rapidly. Decision-making protocols must accommodate different risk tolerances, legal frameworks, and political considerations among partners with varying exposure levels to regional security threats. Barrick's consultation with joint venture partners during the security review process illustrates these collaborative decision-making requirements.
Partnership dynamics during security crises often reveal fundamental differences in risk assessment methodologies between international mining corporations and local governmental or quasi-governmental entities. International companies typically employ conservative security standards reflecting global corporate governance requirements and shareholder protection obligations, whilst local partners may have different perspectives on acceptable risk levels based on regional experience and political considerations.
Stakeholder alignment strategies in high-risk environments require continuous communication protocols, shared intelligence gathering capabilities, and coordinated response planning for various security scenarios. These collaborative frameworks must balance the need for rapid decision-making during crisis situations with the requirement for consensus among partners with potentially conflicting interests and priorities. In addition, understanding the broader geopolitical mining landscape becomes crucial for effective partnership management.
What Are the Financial Implications of Extended Project Reviews?
Extended security reviews generate complex financial implications that extend far beyond simple delay costs, encompassing capital escalation, opportunity costs, financing complications, and market valuation effects. The comprehensive nature of these financial impacts requires sophisticated modelling techniques that account for multiple interacting variables over extended time periods.
Capital Budget Escalation Modelling for Delayed Mega-Projects
Mining project delays in frontier markets typically result in significant capital cost escalation due to multiple reinforcing factors. Construction material and equipment costs continue increasing during delay periods, often at rates exceeding general inflation due to supply chain constraints and specialised mining industry demand patterns. Furthermore, labour costs similarly escalate, particularly for skilled technical personnel required for complex copper-gold development projects.
Security-driven design modifications represent a major source of capital escalation for projects experiencing extended reviews. Enhanced perimeter security systems, upgraded personnel protection facilities, expanded emergency response capabilities, and fortified operational infrastructure all require substantial additional investment beyond original project specifications. These security enhancements often prove non-negotiable requirements for resuming development in deteriorated security environments.
The time value of money calculations for mega-projects experiencing 24+ month delays create substantial financial impacts independent of direct cost escalations. When applied to combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 capital budgets totalling $8.9-9.6 billion, even modest discount rate applications generate hundreds of millions in additional financing costs. Construction cost inflation averaging 3-4 percent annually compounds these effects, potentially adding $534-768 million in escalated costs over a two-year delay period.
Insurance cost escalation represents another significant factor in capital budget increases following security incidents. Political risk insurance, project completion insurance, and personnel coverage all experience premium increases when underwriters reassess regional risk profiles. However, these insurance cost increases often prove permanent rather than temporary, affecting project economics throughout operational lifespans rather than only during development phases.
Opportunity Cost Analysis for Shareholders
Shareholders of companies experiencing extended project delays face substantial opportunity costs as capital remains committed to suspended developments rather than generating returns through alternative investments. Comparative analysis of other copper-gold development projects reveals that investors could potentially achieve superior returns by redirecting capital to operations in more stable jurisdictions with clearer development timelines.
Portfolio optimisation strategies during delay periods require careful balancing of maintaining strategic positions in high-potential projects against pursuing more immediate returns from alternative investments. Mining companies must communicate effectively with shareholders regarding the long-term value preservation rationale for maintaining suspended project positions rather than liquidating assets during uncertainty periods.
The market valuation effects of extended security reviews typically prove more severe than simple delay cost calculations might suggest. Equity markets often apply significant risk premiums to companies with substantial exposure to frontier market projects experiencing security challenges. Consequently, these valuation discounts can persist well beyond resolution of immediate security concerns, reflecting ongoing market scepticism regarding management's ability to successfully navigate complex geopolitical environments.
How Do Security Incidents Impact Mining Project Valuations?
Security incidents create immediate and lasting effects on mining project valuations through multiple transmission mechanisms including market sentiment shifts, credit rating implications, insurance cost increases, and institutional investor behaviour changes. These valuation effects often prove disproportionate to direct operational impacts, reflecting market risk aversion and uncertainty regarding future security conditions.
Market Response Mechanisms to Operational Uncertainty
Equity markets typically respond to mining security incidents with immediate share price volatility followed by sustained risk premium applications that can persist for extended periods. The magnitude of these market responses often exceeds reasonable estimates of direct financial impacts, reflecting investor uncertainty regarding management's ability to effectively navigate complex security environments and resume normal operations.
Institutional investor behaviour during security crises reveals systematic risk aversion patterns that affect mining company access to capital markets. Many institutional investment mandates specifically limit exposure to companies with significant operations in regions experiencing active security incidents, creating potential liquidity constraints and financing complications for affected mining corporations. This trend aligns with broader US uranium policy measures that reflect increasing political risk considerations in resource investment decisions.
Credit rating agencies apply sophisticated risk assessment frameworks that incorporate security incident frequency, regional stability trends, and management response effectiveness when evaluating mining company creditworthiness. Extended security reviews often trigger credit rating reviews that can result in downgrades affecting borrowing costs and debt covenant compliance requirements across entire corporate structures.
Market volatility patterns during security incidents typically follow predictable sequences beginning with sharp initial sell-offs, followed by partial recovery phases, and concluding with sustained risk premium applications until security conditions demonstrate clear improvement. Understanding these patterns enables more effective investor communication strategies and market timing considerations for capital raising activities.
Insurance and Risk Transfer Strategies
Political risk insurance markets have evolved sophisticated products designed to protect mining investments against security-related losses, but coverage limitations and exclusions often prove more restrictive than companies initially anticipate. Insurance underwriters employ increasingly sophisticated risk assessment techniques that result in higher premiums and more restrictive coverage terms for projects in unstable regions.
Consortium-based risk sharing models enable mining companies to distribute security risks among multiple stakeholders, reducing individual exposure levels while maintaining project development capabilities. These collaborative structures require careful legal framework development and ongoing coordination mechanisms to ensure effective risk allocation and decision-making processes.
Government guarantee structures in joint venture arrangements can provide partial protection against political risks, but these instruments often prove limited in scope and may not cover security incident-related losses. The effectiveness of government guarantees depends heavily on the financial capacity and political stability of guarantor governments, factors that may correlate with the security risks they are intended to mitigate.
What Alternative Development Scenarios Could Emerge?
Mining companies facing extended security reviews have developed innovative approaches to maintaining project momentum whilst minimising risk exposure. These alternative development scenarios encompass phased construction strategies, enhanced technology integration, and modified operational protocols designed to reduce vulnerability whilst preserving long-term project value.
Phased Development Optimisation Under Constraint
Modular construction approaches enable mining operations to minimise on-site exposure during unstable security periods whilst maintaining development progress through off-site fabrication and preparation activities. These strategies involve constructing major project components in secure locations for later transportation and assembly, reducing both personnel exposure and asset vulnerability during high-risk periods.
Remote operation capabilities have advanced significantly in recent years, enabling mining operations to maintain productive capacity with substantially reduced on-site personnel requirements. Advanced automation systems, remote monitoring technologies, and drone-based surveillance capabilities allow companies to continue essential operations whilst minimising human exposure to security threats. These developments reflect broader mining industry innovation trends transforming operational approaches.
Technology integration for enhanced security monitoring encompasses sophisticated sensor networks, satellite surveillance systems, and predictive analytics platforms capable of identifying potential security threats before they materialise into incidents. These technological solutions provide early warning capabilities that enable proactive response measures rather than reactive crisis management.
Phased development strategies also involve careful sequencing of capital deployment to minimise sunk costs during security reviews whilst maintaining project development momentum. Companies can focus initial investments on secure infrastructure development, off-site preparation activities, and technology system implementation that provide value regardless of security condition changes.
Strategic Partnership Restructuring Options
Enhanced local stakeholder integration represents a critical strategy for improving project security through community alignment and regional support development. Mining companies increasingly recognise that robust community partnerships provide more effective long-term security than purely defensive security measures, creating shared interests in project success and stability.
Military-civilian cooperation frameworks in some jurisdictions provide structured approaches to security management that leverage official security capabilities whilst maintaining appropriate civilian operational control. These arrangements require careful legal and political navigation to ensure compliance with international standards and corporate governance requirements.
Community investment amplification strategies during security review periods can strengthen local support networks whilst maintaining project visibility and stakeholder engagement. Companies like Barrick continue investing in existing community programmes despite reduced development activity, recognising that sustained community relations prove essential for long-term project viability.
Which Global Copper Projects Benefit from Reko Diq's Delay?
Extended delays at major copper development projects create competitive advantages for alternative copper sources through accelerated investment flows, enhanced market positioning, and supply chain rebalancing opportunities. Mining companies with projects in more stable jurisdictions often experience increased investor interest and accelerated development timelines when competing projects face security-related delays.
Competitive Positioning Analysis
When major copper projects face delays, competing developments often experience accelerated investment and development timelines as capital and market attention shift to more stable jurisdictions.
Alternative copper development projects in politically stable regions benefit from increased investor attention and potentially accelerated financing as capital markets seek exposure to copper price appreciation without accepting elevated political risks. This dynamic creates competitive advantages for projects that previously struggled to attract investment due to relative disadvantages in resource quality or development costs. For instance, Barrick's recent Reko Diq update has highlighted these competitive dynamics in the copper sector.
Established copper producers in stable jurisdictions may experience enhanced market positioning as supply concerns increase due to delayed new production from projects like Reko Diq. These positioning improvements can translate into improved long-term supply agreements, enhanced pricing power, and increased market valuations reflecting scarcity premiums.
Regional supply chain advantages emerge for copper projects located in areas with established infrastructure, reliable logistics networks, and stable regulatory environments. These advantages become more pronounced when competing projects face supply chain vulnerabilities due to security concerns or geographic isolation in unstable regions.
Supply Chain Rebalancing Opportunities
Consuming nations increasingly prioritise supply security alongside cost considerations when establishing long-term copper sourcing strategies. Delays at major projects in unstable regions accelerate this rebalancing toward suppliers in more reliable jurisdictions, even when this involves accepting higher costs or lower quality resources.
Strategic reserve building by major copper-consuming countries reflects growing recognition that supply security considerations warrant premium pricing for reliable sources. This trend benefits established suppliers and projects in stable regions whilst creating additional challenges for developments in frontier markets experiencing security concerns.
Alternative supply source development receives accelerated investment and policy support as governments and corporations seek to reduce dependence on potentially unreliable suppliers. These acceleration efforts often involve enhanced financing terms, expedited permitting processes, and strategic partnership arrangements designed to encourage rapid development in preferred jurisdictions. However, security concerns affecting mining projects continue to influence global supply chain strategies.
How Are Community Relations Being Maintained During the Slowdown?
Maintaining positive community relationships during operational slowdowns proves critical for preserving long-term social licence and ensuring successful project resumption when security conditions improve. Mining companies must balance reduced operational activity with continued community engagement and investment to prevent relationship deterioration during extended delay periods.
Social Investment Continuity Strategies
Barrick to slow development at Reko Diq whilst maintaining community commitments demonstrates recognition that community relationship maintenance requires sustained investment regardless of operational status. These programmes often provide essential services and economic opportunities for local communities that become dependent on mining company support for healthcare, education, and infrastructure development.
Local employment preservation during reduced operations involves creative workforce management strategies that maintain essential personnel whilst reducing overall staffing levels. Companies often prioritise retaining local employees over expatriate staff during slowdown periods, recognising that local workforce relationships prove essential for successful operational resumption.
Community programme sustainability frameworks require careful financial planning to ensure continued funding availability throughout extended delay periods. These frameworks must account for reduced project cash flows whilst maintaining programme effectiveness and community impact levels that preserve stakeholder relationships.
Transparent communication regarding project status and future intentions helps maintain community confidence despite operational uncertainty. Regular stakeholder meetings, progress updates, and clear communication regarding security concerns and resumption conditions help prevent speculation and maintain constructive dialogue with community leaders.
Long-term Social Licence Preservation
Trust-building mechanisms during operational pauses require sustained engagement and demonstration of long-term commitment despite current operational limitations. Mining companies must continuously reinforce their intention to resume operations whilst acknowledging legitimate security concerns and timeline uncertainties.
Cultural sensitivity maintenance in reduced-activity scenarios involves continued participation in local customs, religious observances, and community events that demonstrate respect for local traditions and sustained commitment to community integration. These activities often prove more important during difficult periods than during normal operations.
Social licence preservation strategies must account for potential competition from other economic development initiatives that may emerge during mining project delays. Communities may explore alternative economic opportunities during extended mining delays, requiring companies to maintain competitive community investment levels to preserve future operational viability.
What Does This Mean for Pakistan's Mining Sector Development?
The Barrick to slow development at Reko Diq situation carries implications extending beyond the immediate project to Pakistan's broader mining sector development prospects, international investment attractiveness, and resource development strategy implementation. These broader implications affect government policy responses, regional economic planning, and future investment promotion strategies.
National Resource Development Strategy Implications
Pakistan's mineral sector investment attractiveness faces potential negative impacts from high-profile project delays, particularly when these delays relate to security concerns that may affect multiple regions or project types. International investors often apply broad risk assessments to entire countries rather than evaluating projects individually, creating spillover effects from specific project challenges.
Government response mechanisms to maintain investor confidence become critical during high-profile project delays. These responses may include enhanced security provision commitments, revised regulatory frameworks designed to address investor concerns, and promotional activities highlighting successful projects in other regions or sectors.
Infrastructure development continuity despite project delays requires careful government planning to ensure that transportation, power, and communication infrastructure developments continue even when anchor mining projects experience delays. These infrastructure investments often prove essential for future mining development regardless of specific project timelines.
Regional economic diversification strategies may receive increased emphasis during mining project delays as governments and communities seek alternative economic development pathways that reduce dependence on single large-scale projects. These diversification efforts can provide economic resilience whilst maintaining readiness for mining development resumption.
Regional Economic Development Considerations
Balochistan provincial economic planning must accommodate potential extended delays at Reko Diq whilst maintaining development momentum in other sectors and regions. This planning requires careful resource allocation balancing immediate economic needs against long-term mining development preparation requirements.
Alternative economic development pathway exploration becomes more urgent during mining project delays as communities and governments seek immediate economic opportunities that can provide employment and development benefits whilst mining projects remain suspended. These alternatives may include agriculture development, small-scale manufacturing, or service sector initiatives.
Cross-border cooperation implications for regional stability encompass both challenges and opportunities as security concerns affect international investment whilst potentially creating incentives for enhanced regional security cooperation. Improved tri-border security coordination could benefit multiple economic development initiatives beyond mining projects.
When Might Development Resume and Under What Conditions?
Predicting mining project resumption timelines requires analysis of multiple interacting factors including security condition improvement, market dynamics, regulatory developments, and corporate strategic priorities. The Barrick to slow development at Reko Diq situation illustrates the complexity of these resumption decisions and the multiple variables that influence timing considerations.
Security Threshold Establishment for Project Restart
Measurable security improvement benchmarks provide objective criteria for evaluating conditions suitable for development resumption. These benchmarks typically include incident frequency reduction targets, regional stability indicators, and law enforcement capability assessments that demonstrate sustainable security improvements rather than temporary fluctuations.
Stakeholder confidence restoration requirements encompass multiple constituencies including shareholders, joint venture partners, local communities, and government entities. Restoration strategies must address each stakeholder group's specific concerns and demonstrate sustainable risk mitigation measures that provide reasonable assurance of continued operational viability.
Government stability indicators for investment resumption extend beyond immediate security concerns to encompass broader political stability, policy continuity, and regulatory predictability factors that affect long-term investment viability. These indicators help distinguish between temporary security fluctuations and more fundamental political instability that may require extended delay periods.
International security assessment validation through third-party risk evaluation services provides objective verification of security condition improvements and helps establish credible benchmarks for resumption decisions. These assessments often prove essential for satisfying insurance requirements and board governance standards for major capital deployments.
Market Timing Considerations for Project Reactivation
Copper price environment optimisation for restart decisions involves sophisticated market analysis considering global supply-demand balances, economic growth projections, and competing project development timelines. Higher copper prices can justify enhanced security investments and risk acceptance levels that enable earlier project resumption.
Global supply-demand balance influence on timing reflects the reality that tight copper markets create stronger incentives for overcoming security challenges and accepting elevated risk levels compared to periods of oversupply when delay costs prove more acceptable. Market fundamentals thus directly influence risk tolerance and resumption timeline decisions.
Competitive landscape evolution during delay periods affects project value propositions and market positioning when development eventually resumes. Companies must monitor competing project progress, technological developments, and market structure changes that may alter project competitiveness during extended delay periods.
Disclaimer: This analysis is based on publicly available information and involves forward-looking statements regarding security conditions, market developments, and project timelines that are inherently uncertain. Readers should conduct independent research and consult qualified advisors before making investment decisions. Mining investments in frontier markets involve substantial risks including political instability, security threats, regulatory changes, and market volatility that can result in significant losses.
--- end of article ---
Source: https://discoveryalert.com.au/security-risks-reshaping-mining-strategies-2026/ [8th April 2026]
Also:
https://discoveryalert.com.au/mark-bristow-resignation-barrick-mining-2025/ [1st October 2025]
Mark Bristow’s Abrupt Departure from Barrick Mining Explained
BY
ON OCTOBER 1, 2025
What Led to Mark Bristow's Abrupt Resignation from Barrick Mining?
The mining industry was taken by surprise when Mark Bristow, CEO of Barrick Gold Corporation, announced his resignation effective September 30, 2025. After nearly seven years at the helm, Bristow's sudden departure raised questions throughout the industry about the circumstances behind this unexpected leadership change.
The Timing and Announcement
Bristow's resignation was particularly notable for its abrupt nature, with the board announcing it would take effect immediately. Mark Hill, a company veteran who has overseen Barrick's Latin American and Asia Pacific regions since joining in 2006, was swiftly appointed as interim President and CEO.
The board wasted no time initiating a global search for a permanent successor, signaling both urgency and a desire for fresh leadership. What made the timing even more intriguing was that Newmont, Barrick's chief competitor, announced their planned CEO transition on the exact same day.
Industry analysts noted that the abrupt nature of Bristow's departure is uncommon in the mining sector, where leadership transitions typically involve months of preparation and overlap to ensure operational continuity. The lack of a transition period suggests potential disagreements at the executive level.
Bristow's Legacy at Barrick
Bristow joined Barrick in 2019 following the strategic merger between Barrick and Randgold Resources, which he had founded and led previously. His tenure was marked by significant accomplishments, particularly the successful integration of these two mining giants.
Under his leadership, Barrick transformed into a stronger global gold and copper producer with enhanced operational efficiencies across multiple jurisdictions. Bristow was particularly influential in developing sustainable mining operations across Africa, leveraging his extensive experience from his time at Randgold.
His leadership style—characterized by frequent site visits and hands-on management—brought a distinctive operational focus to Barrick that contrasted with the more centralized approach of his predecessors. This approach initially helped revitalize operations and improve relationships with host governments, though recent African mining challenges had tested this strategy.
Despite these achievements, Board Chairman John Thornton's statement emphasized the need for "the right leader to fully capitalize on Barrick's world-class assets and capabilities, and to driving improved performance, growth and shareholder value"—language that suggests the board was seeking a different strategic direction.
How Does the Mali Dispute Factor into Bristow's Departure?
The ongoing situation in Mali stands out as a significant factor potentially influencing Bristow's departure, representing one of the most challenging geopolitical issues faced by Barrick during his tenure.
The Loulo-Gounkoto Conflict
For nearly three years, Barrick has been embroiled in an escalating dispute with Mali's military government over profit-sharing arrangements at the Loulo-Gounkoto gold complex, one of the company's most productive assets in West Africa.
The conflict reached critical points in January 2025 when Barrick halted operations at the complex, and then dramatically escalated in June 2025 when Mali's military government—which had seized power in a 2021 coup—took control of the mine.
This forceful appropriation represents a severe case of resource nationalism that has become increasingly common in several African mining jurisdictions. For Barrick, the loss of operational control triggered significant financial repercussions, including a US$1.04 billion impairment charge reported in the company's Q2 2025 financial results.
The proximity of this mine seizure to Bristow's departure—just three months apart—suggests that the board may have had concerns about how the situation was managed, particularly given Bristow's reputation for government relations in African mining contexts.
Financial Implications
Despite the challenges in Mali, Barrick has maintained its 2025 production guidance of 3.15-3.5 million ounces of gold and 200,000-230,000 tonnes of copper. This projection demonstrates the company's operational resilience but does not diminish the significant financial impact of losing control of the Loulo-Gounkoto complex.
The Mali situation exemplifies the growing geopolitical risks facing multinational mining companies in certain jurisdictions. Mining industry observers note that resource nationalism has been rising globally, with governments increasingly seeking larger stakes in resource projects, especially in countries experiencing political transitions or economic pressures.
For investors, the Mali dispute raised concerns about Barrick's risk management strategies and its ability to protect assets in politically volatile regions. These concerns likely contributed to shareholder pressure on the board regarding leadership.
What Performance Issues May Have Influenced the Board's Decision?
While the Mali situation represents a specific crisis point, broader performance concerns likely contributed to the board's decision to seek new leadership for Barrick.
Share Price Underperformance
Although specific data points were not disclosed in the company's statements, industry analysts have noted that Barrick's stock has underperformed compared to industry peers in recent years. This relative underperformance created growing pressure from shareholders for improved returns and a clearer path to value creation.
The board's statement specifically emphasized finding leadership "to drive improved performance, growth and shareholder value"—language that signals dissatisfaction with current trajectories. In the highly competitive gold mining sector, where investors have multiple options for exposure to gold prices analysis, relative performance against peers becomes particularly important for maintaining investor confidence.
Strategic Direction Concerns
Bristow's approach to growth and capital allocation may have differed from the board's evolving vision for Barrick's future. Questions about the company's acquisition strategy, project development timeline, and capital return policies could have created tension between the CEO and directors.
While Barrick had completed the integration of Randgold successfully, the company faced increasing questions about its next phase of growth. Competitors had been making strategic moves to reposition their portfolios, raising questions about Barrick's long-term strategy beyond operational optimization.
Operational Challenges
Beyond the highly visible Mali situation, operational efficiency metrics across Barrick's global portfolio may have fallen short of expectations. The development timeline of key projects, including the promising Fourmile gold project in Nevada, could have faced delays or cost pressures contributing to board concerns.
Barrick's competitive positioning against other major gold producers like Newmont has been a consistent focus for investors and analysts. With Newmont making significant strategic moves following its acquisition of Newcrest, questions about Barrick's strategic response may have intensified.
Who is Mark Hill and What Changes Might He Bring?
As Barrick navigates this leadership transition, attention turns to interim CEO Mark Hill and what his leadership might mean for the company's direction.
Hill's Background and Experience
Mark Hill brings nearly two decades of company experience to the role, having joined Barrick in 2006. His most recent position overseeing Latin American and Asia Pacific operations has given him extensive knowledge of Barrick's global portfolio and operational challenges.
His long tenure with the company suggests he is deeply familiar with Barrick's culture, strategic priorities, and operational approach. This institutional knowledge will be valuable in maintaining continuity during the transition period while the board searches for a permanent replacement.
While less publicly visible than Bristow, Hill has developed extensive experience managing complex mining operations across multiple jurisdictions with varying regulatory environments, community expectations, and operational challenges.
Interim Leadership Priorities
As interim CEO, Hill faces several immediate priorities. Stabilizing operations following Bristow's sudden departure will be paramount to maintaining investor confidence and operational momentum.
Addressing the ongoing Mali situation will require diplomatic skill and strategic thinking. While the impairment has been recorded, questions remain about potential recovery of assets or negotiation of a new arrangement with Mali's government.
Maintaining Barrick's production targets for the remainder of 2025 will be crucial for market confidence. The continued development of the Fourmile gold project in Nevada represents an important growth opportunity that requires ongoing attention and investment.
Supporting the board's search for permanent leadership while keeping the organization focused on operational excellence will require careful balance. As an internal candidate, Hill brings continuity but may also represent an opportunity to subtly shift strategies in areas where the board has indicated dissatisfaction.
How Does This Compare to Newmont's Leadership Transition?
The contrast between Barrick's abrupt leadership change and Newmont's carefully planned succession, announced on the same day, highlights different approaches to governance and transition management in the gold mining industry.
Contrasting Transition Approaches
Newmont announced that CEO Tom Palmer will step down on December 31, 2025, following a structured transition plan. Palmer, who like Bristow became CEO in 2019, will remain as a strategic advisor until his retirement in March 2026, ensuring a smooth handover.
Natascha Viljoen, currently serving as Newmont's President and COO, will become the company's first female CEO on January 1, 2026. This represents a significant milestone for gender diversity in mining leadership and suggests Newmont's commitment to developing internal talent for succession.
The orderly nature of Newmont's announcement contrasts sharply with the immediate effect of Bristow's departure from Barrick. Industry observers note that Newmont's approach represents best practices in succession planning, providing clarity to investors, employees, and other stakeholders.
Industry Leadership Trends
The simultaneous leadership changes at the world's two largest gold mining companies signal a significant moment of transition in the industry. Both companies are moving beyond their post-merger integration phases into new strategic eras.
Newmont's appointment of Viljoen highlights the increasing focus on diversity in mining leadership. While the industry has traditionally lagged in gender representation at executive levels, this appointment may accelerate changes across the sector.
The contrasting succession approaches may reflect different board governance philosophies and company cultures. Newmont's structured process suggests long-term succession planning, while Barrick's abrupt change indicates a potential response to immediate concerns.
Both transitions come at a time when the gold mining industry faces significant challenges, including rising costs, declining ore grades, increasing regulatory pressures, and growing stakeholder expectations regarding environmental and social performance.
What Challenges Will Barrick's Next CEO Face?
Whoever ultimately takes the permanent CEO position at Barrick will inherit both significant assets and substantial challenges requiring immediate attention.
Short-Term Priorities
Resolving the Mali situation—or mitigating its financial impact—will remain a critical priority. Whether through diplomatic channels, legal proceedings, or financial arrangements, finding a path forward in Mali will be essential for rebuilding investor confidence.
Maintaining operational continuity across Barrick's global portfolio will require focused leadership during this transition. Key operations in Nevada, Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, and across Africa will need consistent management attention to meet production targets.
Rebuilding investor confidence and improving share performance will likely be an immediate focus. Clear communication about strategic direction, operational improvements, and capital allocation priorities will be essential for restoring market confidence.
Developing a clear strategic vision that differentiates Barrick from competitors will help establish the new CEO's leadership. This may include positions on industry consolidation strategies and balancing gold and copper production strategies.
Long-Term Strategic Decisions
Portfolio optimization will be an ongoing consideration, potentially including divestments of non-core assets or acquisitions to strengthen the company's position in key jurisdictions. The balance between geographic diversification and concentration in low-risk jurisdictions will require careful analysis.
Capital allocation decisions between growth projects, dividends, and share repurchases will directly impact shareholder returns and market perception. Finding the right balance that satisfies both growth-oriented and income-focused investors remains challenging.
The relative emphasis on gold versus copper production will shape Barrick's long-term value proposition. While gold remains the company's primary focus, copper offers exposure to electrification trends and potentially different value drivers.
Navigating increasing resource nationalism in key jurisdictions will require sophisticated government relations strategies and risk management approaches. The Mali situation demonstrates the potential consequences of management risk warning signs being overlooked.
Addressing rising production costs and declining ore grades industry-wide will necessitate continued operational excellence and potentially new technological approaches. Cost inflation has become a significant challenge across the mining industry.
ESG and Sustainability Challenges
Meeting increasingly stringent environmental standards will require continued investment in sustainable practices and technologies. Climate change commitments, water management, and biodiversity impacts will face growing scrutiny.
Managing community relations in complex operating environments demands consistent engagement and benefit-sharing approaches. Social license to operate has become as important as regulatory permits in many jurisdictions.
Implementing effective climate change mitigation strategies while maintaining production efficiency presents technical and financial challenges. The mining industry faces particular pressure regarding its carbon footprint and energy usage.
Balancing traditional mining practices with sustainability innovations will be necessary to meet evolving stakeholder expectations. New technologies and approaches may offer solutions but require significant investment and operational changes.
How Might This Affect Barrick's Market Position?
The leadership transition creates both risks and opportunities for Barrick's competitive positioning in the gold mining industry.
Investor Reaction and Share Performance
Initial market uncertainty following the abrupt leadership change will likely cause some volatility in Barrick's share price as investors assess the implications. This period of uncertainty may create buying opportunities for investors who see long-term value in Barrick's asset portfolio.
The potential for share price recovery under new leadership with a fresh strategy represents a significant opportunity. A clear articulation of strategic direction and early operational wins could rebuild investor confidence relatively quickly.
Investors will focus intensely on Q3/Q4 2025 results for signs of operational stability during the transition. Meeting or exceeding production and cost guidance will be particularly important for maintaining market confidence.
Analyst coverage and recommendations may shift during this period of uncertainty. The board's ability to attract a high-caliber permanent CEO will significantly influence analyst sentiment and long-term outlook.
Competitive Landscape
Potential shifts in competitive dynamics between Barrick and Newmont could reshape the gold mining landscape. With both companies under new leadership by 2026, strategic priorities and competitive positioning could evolve significantly.
Smaller gold producers may see this transitional period as an opportunity to gain market share or position themselves as acquisition targets. Industry evolution trends suggest continued consolidation in the sector as companies seek scale and efficiency.
The leadership change could impact potential industry consolidation and M&A activity. Previous speculation about a potential Barrick-Newmont combination may evolve under new leadership at both companies.
Relationships with joint venture partners and host governments may require reinforcement during the transition. Hill's interim leadership will need to provide continuity in these critical relationships while setting the stage for the permanent CEO.
Production and Growth Outlook
Barrick's ability to maintain its 2025 production guidance despite the leadership change demonstrates underlying operational strength. This resilience provides some confidence that the transition need not disrupt production targets.
A potential reassessment of growth projects and exploration priorities may occur under new leadership. Capital allocation decisions and project prioritization could shift, particularly for early-stage projects.
The development timeline for the promising Fourmile gold project in Nevada will be watched closely by investors as an indicator of strategic continuity. This project represents one of Barrick's most significant organic growth opportunities in a low-risk jurisdiction.
Focus on maximizing value from existing assets during the transition period represents a pragmatic approach. Operational optimization and efficiency improvements can deliver value while longer-term strategic decisions await permanent leadership.
What Does This Mean for the Gold Mining Industry?
The simultaneous leadership changes at the world's two largest gold mining companies signal broader transitions across the industry.
Industry-Wide Leadership Trends
A generational shift in mining leadership is occurring across major companies, with new executives bringing different perspectives on technology, sustainability, and stakeholder engagement. This transition may accelerate industry evolution in several key areas.
The increasing focus on operational excellence over aggressive expansion reflects changing investor expectations in the mining sector. After a period of challenging returns from major capital projects, investors are demanding discipline and returns.
Growing importance of technological innovation and digital transformation is reshaping mining operations and executive priorities. New leadership may accelerate adoption of technologies that improve safety, efficiency, and environmental performance.
Evolution of CEO skill sets now includes greater emphasis on stakeholder management and ESG expertise. The technical mining expertise that once dominated leadership requirements now shares importance with stakeholder engagement capabilities.
Market Implications
Potential impact on gold price if production guidance changes across major producers could create market volatility. While individual company changes may have limited effect, collective shifts in output projections could influence gold prices.
Shifting investor preferences between major producers may create opportunities for portfolio rebalancing. Investment flows between gold producers often reflect perceived management quality and strategic clarity as much as asset quality.
Changing dynamics between producers, juniors, and exploration companies may emerge as strategic priorities evolve. New leadership may take different approaches to partnerships, joint ventures, and early-stage project development.
Evolving relationships between mining companies and host governments remain a critical factor for industry performance. New leadership approaches to government engagement and benefit sharing could reshape these important relationships.
Future of Gold Mining Leadership
Increasing emphasis on diverse leadership teams will likely accelerate across the industry following Newmont's appointment of its first female CEO. Diversity in background, expertise, and perspective is increasingly recognized as valuable for navigating complex challenges.
Growing importance of technological and sustainability credentials for mining executives reflects changing industry priorities. Future leaders will need to demonstrate competence in digital transformation and environmental management alongside traditional mining expertise.
Rising significance of geopolitical expertise and risk management capabilities reflects the complex jurisdictional challenges facing global mining companies. The Mali situation demonstrates the potential consequences of geopolitical risk management failures.
Evolution of corporate governance practices in the mining sector continues as boards respond to changing investor expectations. The contrasting succession approaches at Barrick and Newmont highlight different governance philosophies that will be evaluated by market performance.
FAQ: Mark Bristow's Departure from Barrick Mining
When did Mark Bristow join Barrick Mining?
Bristow became Barrick's CEO in 2019 following the merger with Randgold Resources, a company he founded and led prior to the combination. His leadership was instrumental in successfully integrating the two companies and establishing the post-merger strategic direction.
Who is replacing Mark Bristow at Barrick?
Mark Hill has been appointed as interim President and CEO. Hill currently oversees Barrick's Latin American and Asia Pacific regions and has been with the company since 2006, bringing nearly 20 years of experience with Barrick's operations. The board has initiated a global search for a permanent successor.
What is happening with Barrick's operations in Mali?
Barrick's Loulo-Gounkoto gold complex in Mali has been at the center of a dispute with the country's military government, which has demanded a larger share of profits. Operations were halted in January 2025, and the Malian government seized control of the mine in June 2025, leading to a US$1.04 billion impairment charge in Barrick's second-quarter results.
How has this situation affected Barrick financially?
Barrick reported a US$1.04 billion impairment charge in its second-quarter 2025 results due to the loss of operational control at Loulo-Gounkoto. Despite this significant write-down, the company maintains its overall production guidance for the year, indicating the strength of its remaining portfolio.
Is Barrick still meeting its production targets?
Despite the challenges, Barrick maintains its 2025 production guidance of 3.15-3.5 million ounces of gold and 200,000-230,000 tonnes of copper. This suggests that while the Mali situation represents a significant setback, the company's overall operational performance remains on track.
What changes are happening at Newmont?
Newmont announced that CEO Tom Palmer will step down on December 31, 2025, to be succeeded by Natascha Viljoen, who will become the company's first female CEO on January 1, 2026. Palmer will remain as a strategic advisor until his retirement in March 2026, ensuring a smooth leadership transition.
--- end of article ---
Source: https://discoveryalert.com.au/mark-bristow-resignation-barrick-mining-2025/ [1st October 2025]
As I mentioned earlier, Mark Hill has now been confirmed (in Feb, 2026) as the permanent replacement for Mark Bristow so Mark Hill is no longer just the acting boss, he is now the boss of Barrick, and they are making changes.