Skip to main content

Barrick Gold Corp.’s chief executive officer says he is open to a joint venture with Newmont Mining Corp. to combine the companies’ Nevada operations instead of taking over the U.S. gold producer.

“We would be delighted to meet Newmont to see if they’re sincere, and see if a JV can be agreed upon,” Mark Bristow said in an interview Monday. “We’ll consider [dropping the hostile bid] when we get a workable JV.”

Barrick last week proposed acquiring Colorado-based Newmont for US$17.8-billion in a deal valued at 8 per cent below Newmont’s stock price. The Toronto-based miner said that no takeover premium was necessary because the combination of the two giants would generate at least US$750-million a year in cost savings over the first five years. Most of those savings are in Nevada, where they both have large mines in the same region.

Story continues below advertisement

On Monday, Newmont formally rejected Barrick Gold Corp.’s takeover offer, criticizing its “high risk” mine portfolio and its governance record, and calling out its new CEO, Mr. Bristow, for his inexperience in running a global mining company.

“The emperor doesn’t have anything to sell,” Gary Goldberg, chief executive of Newmont, said in an interview of Mr. Bristow’s attempts to woo the investment community.

Newmont put forward its own proposal for a Nevada joint venture, on terms that would see the two companies share management control while Barrick owns a 55-per-cent economic interest.

Mr. Bristow, though, rejected Newmont’s joint-venture terms. Successful JVs are based on the majority owner also being the operator, he said, while arguing that the ownership should be divided 63/37 in favour of Barrick.

After more than 20 years of the two companies trying and failing to reach agreement on mergers or Nevada ventures, Mr. Bristow said he is skeptical the companies will actually reach a consensus, and says he will press on with his efforts to convince shareholders of the merits of Barrick’s proposed takeover of Newmont.

At Monday’s closing price, Barrick’s offer values each Newmont share at US$32.14. Newmont shares closed at US$34.45.

Newmont’s already announced proposal to buy Goldcorp Inc. for US$10-billion would be far more beneficial to the company’s cash flow and net asset value than being acquired by Barrick, Mr. Goldberg argued on Monday. He also raised questions about the synergies touted by Barrick in Nevada, saying they are “unsubstantiated.” In a conference call, Mr. Goldberg said “Barrick’s egocentric proposal is designed to transfer value from Newmont’s shareholders to Barrick.”

Story continues below advertisement

However, in his own statement, Barrick’s Mr. Bristow said the JV as proposed by Newmont in Nevada was a non-starter.

“Newmont’s latest proposal is essentially based on the stale and convoluted process that foundered previously," he said, referring to past efforts between the two miners to reach agreement.

“Agreeing on the terms of the JV will be an uphill battle as each side advocates for the best deal for its own shareholders,” Christopher LaFemina, an analyst with Jefferies, said in a note to clients on Monday.

Disagreement over the JV in Nevada is also another example of the long-running animus that has persisted for years between the world’s two biggest gold companies. Barrick and Newmont have tried and failed on numerous occasions to hammer out a workable agreement in Nevada, and they have also previously tried to merge. In 2014, takeover talks broke down at the eleventh hour after neither side could agree on who should run the company and where the headquarters should be. In the aftermath, Barrick and Newmont blamed each other in a series of press releases for the failure to get over the finish line.

In early April, Newmont is scheduled to hold a shareholder vote to approve the Goldcorp acquisition. Should that deal be approved, Barrick’s quest to buy Newmont would likely be over, as the company has said it has no interest in buying Newmont if it is successful in acquiring Goldcorp. Mr. Bristow has been vocal about his distaste for Goldcorp’s portfolio of assets calling them “second-tier.”

However, it was revealed on Monday that not long ago, Mr. Bristow actually entertained the possibility of doing his own deal with Goldcorp, while he was still CEO of Randgold Resources.

Story continues below advertisement

In its materials on Monday, Newmont published an e-mail sent by Mr. Bristow to Goldcorp’s chairman, Ian Telfer, in 2017. In the correspondence, Mr. Bristow praised Goldcorp’s mine portfolio.

“You have assembled a strong portfolio of assets located in world class districts,” Mr. Bristow wrote at the time. He also indicated that he was willing to meet and chat with Mr. Telfer about the market and “options that might be worthwhile exploring together.”

"He was going around shopping his company to anyone who would listen two years ago,” Newmont’s CEO Mr. Goldberg said on Monday.

“He shopped himself to us. He shopped himself to other places.”

Mr. Goldberg said that despite continuing to meet with Newmont’s biggest shareholders, he doesn’t expect them to reveal in advance which way they’re planning on voting at the coming vote on the Goldcorp transaction.

“Most shareholders tend to hold their votes close to their chest,” he said.

Story continues below advertisement

On Monday, shares in both Barrick and Newmont rose by 1.7 per cent and 1.9 per cent, respectively, in Toronto and New York.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies