Gold mining in emerging Africa…challenges and opportunities

PDAC, March 2014

Africa…a world class gold destination

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

AFRICA

DemocraticRepublic

of theCongo

Mali

BurkinaFaso

Côted’Ivoire

Morila mine(Mali)

Loulo mine

complex(Mali)

Gounkoto

mine(Mali)

Massawa(Senegal)

Tongon mine (Côte d’Ivoire)

Kibali

mine

development(DRC)

Exploration focus

Senegal

Randgold Resources…outperforms with its focus on Africa

Randgold Resources

2002 to 2014

Share price comparison

The gold industry us been unable to replace new gold production despite higher global exploration budgets…

0

10

20

30

50

70

80

90

40

60

Moz US$m

3 year average

potential

production in

new

discoveries

Grassroots

+ 75% of

late stage

budgets

0

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

1997 201102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1098 99 00 0

Source: Metal Economics Group 2012

3 year ave production

potential from discoveriesWorld gold production) Exploration budgets

Shortage of quality projects and discoveries led to global reserve grade decline…

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Reserve Grade

Reserve Grade

Source: Scotiabank Feb 2014

g/t

?

SE Asia

RussiaCentral Asia

Canada

USA

Geology is the key driver in finding world class gold deposits…

Americas - 628

2.2Boz / 0.5g/t

Africa - 222

1.4Boz / 1.4g/t

Europe / Central Asia - 247

0.9Boz / 0.8g/t

Australasia - 268

1.3Boz / 0.6g/t

Total global gold resources – 1 465

5.8Boz / 0.6g/tSource: Metals Economics Group – includes all global assets with >500oz contained Au

Central America

AustraliaWest Africa

Central Africa

South Africa

South America

Alaska

Exploration heads to new frontiers…announced 2012 drill results

Source: SNL Metal Economics Group

Risks facing the African mining industry…

Two significant trends:

Social issues have become far more prominent

Benefits to stakeholders have become the focus

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Uncertainty concerning the administration, interpretation and enforcement of existing regulations

2011/12

2012/13

Resource nationalisation

Social licence to operate - sharing the benefits

Host country national skills

Increased regulation

Access to secure energy

Pipeline shrinkage

Threat of substitutes

Capital dilemma – capital allocation and access

Africa mining code and legislation change…what are the drivers?

Mining code legislation

changes 2008 to 2013

Mining codes currently

under review

AFRICA

Sources: EY Research, Deloitte, Randgold

African mining codes…how they compete depends on project performance

Proportion of cash flows to StateDiscount rate 10%

Cash operating costs US$ 700/oz

Gold price US$ 1200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

Randgold Resources…evaluates risk and reward holistically

geological opportunity

political stability

economic and fiscal regime

infrastructure

Dependent on a qualitative

assessment combining:

Mauritania

Mali

BurkinaFaso

Morocco Tunisia

EgyptLibya

CAR

Niger

Nigeria

Zambia

Namibia

Angola

Tanzania

DRC

EthiopiaS Sudan

South

Africa

Zimbabwe

Botswana

Kenya

Algeria

Congo

Malawi

Uganda

Rwanda

Burundi

Cameroon

Chad

A

B

C

D

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

Guinea

Sierra Leone

LiberiaIvory

Coast

Gabon

BeninTogo

Ghana

Eritrea

Somalia

Eq Guinea

Madagascar

Mozambique

Swaziland

Lesotho

Western Sahara

N Sudan

Juniors…has their role in the resource value chain changed for the good?

Junior companies’ share price performances…2010 to 2014

A B

C D

Exploration and development is what creates value…

• Exploration and evaluation through feasibility is driven by the resource triangle

Reserve definition

Indicated and measured resources

Inferred resources

Advanced targets

Follow-up targets

Identified targets

VALUE

Operating

Mines

The

Resource

Triangle

Size does count...what is world class?

Assume a project with the following characteristics:

Total cash cost: US$ 900/oz

Upfront capital: US$ 500 million

Ongoing capital: 3% of total cash cost

Annual production in base case: 200 000oz

Base case gold price of US$ 1 600/oz

Three scenarios considered:

1 million ounce deposit

3 million ounce deposit

10 million ounce deposit with annual production doubled to 400 000oz

In the 10 million ounce scenario:

Upfront capital increases fromUS$ 500m to US$ 690m

Total cash cost drops from US$ 900/oz to US$ 760/oz

IRR

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Gold Price US$/oz

P1 : 1M oz

P2 : 3M oz

P3 : 10M oz - throughput doubled

Project gold price sensitivity - IRR

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Gold price US$/oz

Impact of feasibility input costs on IRR with different reserve basis…

Effect of dropping the grade/recoveries by 10% or increasing the cost by 10%...

The bigger deposit can withstand the effect of negative variances in key project parameters

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Gold price US$/oz

IRR

Project gold price sensitivity – IRR

Effect of cost increases

P1: 1Moz

P2: 3Moz

P3: 10Moz – throughput doubled

P3a: 10Moz – throughput doubled and

cost increased by 10%

P1: 1Moz

P2: 3Moz

P3: 10Moz – throughput doubled

P3a: 10Moz – throughput doubled and

grade/recoveries reduced by 10%

Project gold price sensitivity – IRR

Effect of grade/recovery decrease

IRR

Value creation through exploration and development depends on evaluation and feasibility studies…

Valu

e

Time

exploration discovery

production

development

Brownfields

exploration:

further

discovery

Feasibilities are about proper testwork and

correct and realistic assumptions:Geology Mine plans Metallurgy Reserves Trade-offs

Financial modelling Baseline and impact studiesSocio-economic

Environmental Investment terms and agreements

Feasibility

Reinvestment and sustainability

Delivery of value

Social licence enabled by a partnership philosophy…

Provide enabling platform for business

Provide or incentivise development of infrastructure

Mining code conducive to fiscal stability and good governance

Mining

Companies

and

Investors

Employees

and

communities

Governments

NGO’s and

Regulators

Attract first world finance

Guard against exploitation of equity markets at expense of host country

Deal honestly and transparently with governments

Create jobs

Transfer skills

Support local suppliers

Have meaningful social responsibility programmes

Responsibility of

mining companies:

Responsibility of

Governments:

Randgold Resources…its focus on Africa has delivered value for all stakeholders

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Randgold Production (000oz) Randgold LSE

Euromoney Global Gold Mine Randgold Cash Costs (US$/oz)

-373-493-379-603-252-335-90-77-34-76-22 -373-493-379-603-252-335-90-77-34-76-22 -373-493-379-603-252-335-90-77-34-76-22 -38

Net debt

US$m

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: Barclays, Bloomberg

US$/oz

Index

Shareprice

Disclaimer…

Competent persons:COMPETENT PERSONS: Yalea and Gara mineral resources from Loulo were calculated by Mr Abdoulaye Ngom, an officer of the company, under thesupervision of Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, an officer of the company and competent person. Loulo 3 and Baboto mineral resources from Loulo werecalculated by Mr Ivan Doku, an independent consultant, and reviewed by Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, an officer of the company and competent person.Faraba mineral resources from Gounkoto were calculated by Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, an officer of the company and competent person. Tongon mineralresources were calculated by Mr Mamadou Ly and Mr Babacar Diouf, both officers of the company, under the supervision of Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, anofficer of the company and competent person. Morila mineral resources were calculated by Mr Adama Kone, an officer of the company, under thesupervision of Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, an officer of the company and competent person. Kibali mineral resources were calculated by Mr Ernest Doh, anofficer of the company and competent person. Morila open pit resources were calculated by Miss Paula Oligive, an independent consultant, under thesupervision of Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, an officer of the company and competent person. Gounkoto mineral resources were calculated by Mr Fredrick deBruin, an independent consultant, under the supervision of Mr Jonathan Kleynhans, an officer of the company and competent person. Mr JohanKleynhans and Mr Rodney Quick are members of SACNASP and both have sufficient experience in the style of mineralisation and types of depositsunder consideration and the activity which they are undertaking as competent person as defined in the 2004 addition in the ‘Australasian Code forReporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’.The Loulo, Tongon, Morila and Gounkoto open pit mineral reserves were calculated by Mr Shaun Gillespie, an independent consultant and competentperson and member of SAIMM. Kibali open pit mineral reserves were generated by Mr Nicholas Coomson, an officer of the company and competentperson and member of AusIMM. Loulo underground reserves were calculated by Mr Mamou Toure, an officer of the company, and reviewed by Mr MarkOdell, an independent consultant and competent person and practising professional engineer. Massawa mineral reserves remain unchanged from lastyear and were calculated by Mr Onno ten Brinke, an independent consultant and competent person and member of AusIMM, and reviewed by MrRodney Quick, an officer of the company and competent person. The Kibali underground mineral reserves were calculated by Mr Tim Peters of PiranMining and reviewed by Mr Dan Donald of Mine RP, both independent consultants and competent person and members of AusIMM. All competentperson have sufficient experience in the style of mineralisation and types of deposits under consideration and the activity which they are undertaking ascompetent person as defined in the 2004 addition in the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and OreReserves’.Cautionary note to US investors: The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) permits mining companies, in their filingswith the SEC, to disclose only proven and probable ore reserves. Randgold uses certain terms in this report such as ‘resources’ that the SEC does notrecognise and strictly prohibits the company from including in its filings with the SEC. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any parts of thecompany’s resources will ever be converted into reserves which qualify as ‘proven and probable reserves’ for the purposes of the SEC’s Industry Guidenumber 7.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussedin this presentationare forward-look ing statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the US Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the USSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-look ing statements include, but are not limited to, statementswith respect to the future price of gold, the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, the realisation of mineral reserve estimates, the timing andamount of estimated future production, costs of production, reserve determination and reserve conversion rates. Generally, these forward-look ingstatements can be identified by the use of forward-look ing terminology such as ‘will’, ‘plans’, ‘expects’ or ‘does not expect’, ‘is expected’, ‘budget’,‘scheduled’, ‘estimates’, ‘forecasts’, ‘intends’, ‘anticipates’ or ‘does not anticipate’, or ‘believes’, or variations of such words and phrases or state thatcertain actions, events or results ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘might’ or ‘will be taken’, ‘occur’ or ‘be achieved’. Assumptions upon which such forward-look ingstatements are based are in turn based on factors and events that are not within the control of Randgold Resources Limited (‘Randgold’) and there is noassurance they will prove to be correct. Forward-look ing statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that maycause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of Randgold to be materially different from those expressed or implied by suchforward-look ing statements, including but not limited to: risks related to mining operations, including political risks and instability and risks related tointernational operations, actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as planscontinue to be refined, as well as those factors discussed in Randgold’s filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘SEC’). AlthoughRandgold has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-look ingstatements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that suchstatements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly,readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Randgold does not undertake to update any forward-look ing statements herein,except in accordance with applicable securities laws.CAUTIONARY NOTE TO US INVESTORS: The SEC permits companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proven and probable orereserves. We use certain terms in this release, such as ‘resources’, that the SEC does not recognise and strictly prohibits us from including in our filingswith the SEC. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any parts of our resources will ever be converted into reserves which qualify as ‘provenand probable reserves’ for the purposes of the SEC’s Industry Guide number 7.