Geographic SpreadThin moat

Barrick's mines are scattered across some eighteen countries, from the safety of Nevada and Canada to the frontier of Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Pakistan. The stated logic is diversification: no single mine or country represents so much of the company that its loss would be fatal, so a strike, a coup, or a tax grab in one place is a wound rather than a mortal blow — as Mali's seizure of Loulo-Gounkoto tested in 2025¹, until Barrick regained control in December 2025 on the government's terms².

That is a genuine benefit, and it is the flip side of the irreplaceability problem — because great gold deposits sit where geology put them, often in poor and unstable countries, a large miner has little choice but to operate in difficult places, and spreading the risk across many of them is the sensible response. A portfolio that includes the rock-solid jurisdiction of Nevada alongside the frontier assets is sturdier than one concentrated in either.

The cost of this spread is that Barrick is never not fighting a political battle somewhere. Diversification does not remove jurisdiction risk; it converts the small chance of a single catastrophic loss into the near-certainty of a steady stream of disputes — the Mali standoff over Loulo-Gounkoto, the long saga in Tanzania, the negotiations in Pakistan and the Congo. It is a better risk profile than betting everything on one country, but it is a permanent, recurring tax on the business, and a reminder that much of Barrick's asset base sits on ground it does not politically control.