| SEC Info | Home | Search | My Interests | Help | Sign In | Please Sign In | ||||||||||||||||||||
As Of Filer Filing As/For/On Docs:Pgs Issuer Agent 3/26/03 Placer Dome Inc 6-K 3/25/03 1:199 Bowne of Vancouver/FA
Document/Exhibit Description Pages Size 1: 6-K Report of a Foreign Private Issuer HTML 1,397K
|
| Proxy Circular |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
FORM 6 – K
Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the month of March, 2003
PLACER DOME INC.
Suite 1600, 1055 Dunsmuir Street
P.O. Box 49330, Bentall Postal Station
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V7X 1P1
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
| Form 20-F o | Form 40-F þ |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Yes o | No þ |
PLACER DOME INC.
Suite 1600, 1055 Dunsmuir Street,
NOTICE OF ANNUAL AND SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders (the “Meeting”) of Placer Dome Inc. (the “Corporation”) will be held at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel, 100 Front Street West, Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, the 30th day of April, 2003, at 10:00 o’clock in the forenoon (Eastern Daylight Time) for the following purposes:
| (a) | to receive the Annual Report and audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2002; | |
| (b) | to elect directors for the ensuing year; | |
| (c) | to appoint auditors for the ensuing year; | |
| (d) | to consider, and if thought fit, to approve and ratify a resolution amending the Corporation’s 1987 Stock Option Plan by increasing the number of common shares issuable thereunder from 25,000,000 to 32,000,000; and | |
| (e) | to transact such other business as may properly come before the Meeting and any adjournment thereof. |
Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 12, 2003 will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the Meeting either in person or by proxy, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.
| BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS | |
![]() |
|
| J. DONALD ROSE | |
| Executive Vice-President, Secretary | |
| and General Counsel |
DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Your attention is called to the attached Management Proxy Circular and Statement.
IF YOU ARE A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER OF THE CORPORATION AND ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON, PLEASE COMPLETE, DATE, SIGN AND RETURN THE ENCLOSED PROXY BY FAX TO (416) 368-2502 OR IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. TO BE EFFECTIVE, PROXIES MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE 10:00 O’CLOCK A.M. (EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME) ON APRIL 29, 2003 BY CIBC MELLON TRUST COMPANY, Proxy Department, Unit 6, 200 Queens Quay East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 4K9. If you attend the Meeting, sending your proxy will not prevent you from voting in person.
If you own shares held through a broker, a financial institution or other nominee (the “Intermediary”), these materials have been forwarded to you by your Intermediary and should be completed and returned in accordance with the instructions provided to you by the Intermediary.
Shareholders in Canada and in the United States who have questions about items being voted on at the Meeting may telephone toll free the Corporation’s proxy solicitation agents (Georgeson Shareholder Communications Canada) at 1-866-894-3397 (English) and at 1-866-895-3397 (French).
PLACER DOME INC.
MANAGEMENT PROXY CIRCULAR AND STATEMENT
SOLICITATION OF PROXIES
This Management Proxy Circular and Statement (the “Circular”) is being furnished by the management (“Management”) of Placer Dome Inc. (“Placer Dome” or the “Corporation”) in connection with its solicitation of proxies for use at the Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders of the Corporation to be held on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 and at any and all adjournments thereof (the “Meeting”).
The address of the registered and head office of the Corporation is Suite 1600, 1055 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; mailing address P.O. Box 49330, Bentall Postal Station, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7X 1P1.
It is anticipated that this Circular, together with the accompanying Notice of Meeting and Form of Proxy, will first be mailed to shareholders of the Corporation on or about March 19, 2003.
Unless otherwise indicated, all monetary amounts referred to herein are stated in Canadian currency.
The Corporation will bear the cost of solicitation of proxies. Solicitation will be by mail, possibly supplemented by telephone or other personal contact by regular employees of the Corporation. In addition, the Corporation will retain Georgeson Shareholder Communications Canada, Inc., 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 5210, Toronto Dominion Centre, P.O. Box 240, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1J3, to aid in the solicitation of proxies from Canadian individuals and institutions and, through its U.S. affiliate, Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc., from U.S. individuals and institutions, at an expected fee of $51,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses.
Revocability and Voting of Proxies
A shareholder may revoke a proxy by depositing an instrument in writing executed by the shareholder or the shareholder’s attorney authorized in writing either at the registered office of the Corporation at any time up to and including the last business day preceding the day of the Meeting, or with the chairman of the meeting on the day of the Meeting, or in any other manner permitted by law.
Common shares of the Corporation (the “Common Shares”) represented by properly executed proxies in the enclosed form (if executed in favour of the Management nominees and deposited as provided in this Circular) will be voted, or withheld from voting, in accordance with the instructions of the shareholder on the proxy on any ballot that may be called for. If the shareholder specifies a choice with respect to any matter to be acted upon, the Common Shares will be voted accordingly. In the absence of any instructions on the proxy, such Common Shares will be voted (i) for the election as directors of the Corporation of all the persons listed under the heading “Election of Directors”; (ii) for the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as auditors of the Corporation; and (iii) for the approval and ratification of the proposed amendment to the Corporation’s 1987 Stock Option Plan by increasing the number of Common Shares issuable thereunder from 25,000,000 to 32,000,000. The enclosed form of proxy confers discretionary authority upon the persons named therein with respect to amendments to or variations of matters identified in the Notice of Meeting and with respect to other matters which may properly come before the Meeting. At the date hereof, Management knows of no such amendments, variations or other matters to come before the Meeting. If any such other matter, or if any amendments to or variations of the matters identified in the Notice of Meeting, should properly come before the Meeting, proxies received pursuant to this solicitation will be voted on such amendments, variations and other matters in accordance with the best judgment of the person voting the proxy.
Confidentiality of Voting
Proxies are counted and tabulated by CIBC Mellon Trust Company, the transfer agent of the Corporation, in such manner as to preserve the confidentiality of individual shareholder votes, except that the Corporation will have access to proxies as necessary to meet applicable legal requirements in the event of a proxy contest, or in the event a shareholder has made a written comment or submitted a question on the form of proxy.
Appointment of Proxyholder
The persons named in the enclosed form of proxy are directors and/or officers of the Corporation. A shareholder has the right to appoint some other person, who need not be a shareholder, to represent the holder at the Meeting by striking out the names of the persons designated in the accompanying form of proxy and by inserting such other person’s name in the blank space provided or by executing a proxy in a form similar to the enclosed form. To be voted at the Meeting, completed forms of proxy must be received at the office of the Corporation’s registrar and transfer agent, CIBC Mellon Trust Company, Proxy Department, Unit 6, 200 Queens Quay East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 4K9, not later than 10:00 o’clock a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) on April 29, 2003.
VOTING SECURITIES AND PRINCIPAL HOLDERS THEREOF
On February 19, 2003, the Corporation had outstanding 408,819,927 Common Shares, each entitling the holder thereof to one vote at the Meeting.
Only holders of Common Shares of record at the close of business on March 12, 2003 will be entitled to notice of the Meeting. Each shareholder of record at the close of business on that date will be entitled to vote at the Meeting the Common Shares then recorded in that shareholder’s name.
Two individuals present in person and together holding or representing by proxy at least one third of the Corporation’s outstanding Common Shares constitute a quorum at meetings of shareholders.
To the knowledge of the directors or officers of the Corporation, no person beneficially owns, or exercises control or direction over, more than 10% of the outstanding Common Shares.
INFORMATION REGARDING DIRECTORS
Election of Directors
The term of office of the current directors of the Corporation will expire at the Meeting or when their successors are duly elected or appointed. The Articles of the Corporation provide that the number of directors shall consist of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 with the actual number of directors being determined from time to time by resolution of the directors. The board of directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) is currently composed of 11 directors. The Board has, by resolution, fixed the number of directors to be elected at the Meeting at 11. All of the nominees for director are to be elected at the Meeting to serve until the next annual meeting or until their successors are duly elected or appointed. All of the nominee directors have consented to be named herein as such, and have agreed to serve if elected. All of the nominees listed below are currently serving as directors. The table below provides additional information about the nominee directors, including the number of Common Shares beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, or over which control or direction is exercised by each nominee. There are no other shares of the Corporation beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, or over which control or direction is exercised by the nominee directors of the Corporation. The number of Common Shares beneficially owned by all such nominees as a group does not exceed 1% of the outstanding Common Shares.
The Board has four standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee, the Human Resources and Compensation Committee and the Safety and Sustainability Committee. For the purpose of
2
| Shares | ||||||||||||||||
| owned, | ||||||||||||||||
| Committee | Director | Principal occupation | controlled | |||||||||||||
| Nominees for election | Age | Membership | since | and positions with affiliates | or directed | |||||||||||
| G. BERNARD COULOMBE Asbestos, Quebec | 61 | SSC* | 1994 | Mining Consultant (advising Raymond Chabot Inc. as monitor of the business and financial affairs of Jeffrey Mine Inc.(1)). | 3,500 | |||||||||||
| JOHN W. CROW Toronto, Ontario | 66 | AC, HRCC | 1999 | President, J&R Crow Inc. (economic and financial consultants). | 5,000 | (2) | ||||||||||
| GRAHAM FARQUHARSON Toronto, Ontario | 62 | CGC, SSC | 1999 | President, Strathcona Mineral Services Limited (mining industry consulting company). | 1,070 | |||||||||||
| ROBERT M. FRANKLIN Willowdale, Ontario | 56 | CGC, HRCC | 1987 | Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of the Corporation; President, Signalta Capital Corporation (investment company). | 15,000 | (3) | ||||||||||
| DAVID S. KARPIN Toorak, Australia | 60 | AC, SSC | 1998 | Consultant; Executive Chairman, Karpin Slaughter Limited; Chairman, Melbourne Health. | 1,079 | (4) | ||||||||||
| ALAN R. MCFARLAND New York, New York, U.S.A. | 60 | AC* | 1987 | Managing Member, McFarland Dewey & Co. LLC (investment bankers). | 20,444 | (5) | ||||||||||
| CLIFFORD L. MICHEL Gladstone, New Jersey, U.S.A. | 63 | HRCC* | 1987 | Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel (law firm); President and chief executive officer and a director of Wenonah Development Company (private investment company). | 613,050 | (6) | ||||||||||
| EDYTHE A. PARKINSON-MARCOUX Canmore, Alberta | 54 | CGC, SSC | 1997 | Consultant and Strategic Adviser, Southern Pacific Petroleum (petroleum company) and Ensyn Group Inc. (petroleum and biomass company). | 7,500 | |||||||||||
| JAY K. TAYLOR Blaine, Washington, U.S.A. | 56 | 1999 | President and CEO of the Corporation. | 96,589 | (7) | |||||||||||
3
| Shares | ||||||||||||||||
| owned, | ||||||||||||||||
| Committee | Director | Principal occupation | controlled | |||||||||||||
| Nominees for election | Age | Membership | since | and positions with affiliates | or directed | |||||||||||
| VERNON F. TAYLOR III Oak Creek, Colorado, U.S.A. | 55 | CGC* | 1987 | Co-Chairman, Optigas Inc. (a company that gathers and markets natural gas). | 15,000 | |||||||||||
| WILLIAM G. WILSON Dublin, Ireland | 67 | AC, HRCC | 1993 | Business consultant; Chairman of the Board, Dundee Precious Metals Inc. (gold and precious metals investment company). | 5,000 | (8) | ||||||||||
| (1) | A company under the protection of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. |
| (2) | These shares are held by J&R Crow Inc., of which Mr. Crow is the President, a director and a shareholder. |
| (3) | Of these shares, 7,127 are owned personally and 7,873 are owned by Signalta Capital Corporation of which Mr. Franklin is the President, a director and the sole shareholder. |
| (4) | These shares are held by Mayfield Superannuation Nominees Pty. Ltd., a company of which Mr. Karpin is a director and shareholder. |
| (5) | 10,250 of these shares are owned by a trust of which Mr. McFarland is a co-trustee. |
| (6) | Of these shares, 2,800 are owned personally; 600,000 are owned by Wenonah Development Company of which Mr. Michel is the President and chief executive officer, a director and a shareholder; 10,250 are owned by trusts of which Mr. Michel is a co-trustee and in which various members of his family have current beneficial interests. |
| (7) | Of these, 36,212 are vested units held by Mr. Taylor under the Unit Performance Plan for senior employees (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Long-Term Incentives — Unit Performance Plan”). |
| (8) | These shares are held by Merrion Ltd., a company wholly owned by Mr. Wilson. |
| * | Committee chair |
The Board has established share ownership guidelines for directors. The recommended level of share ownership is a minimum of 5,000 Common Shares.
Compensation of Directors
Each director (except Mr. Franklin) who is not an employee of the Corporation receives an annual retainer of US$25,000 and a per meeting fee of US$1,000 in the case of either personal attendance or telephone attendance at a meeting of the Board or a committee thereof. Any director (except Mr. Franklin) who chairs a committee of the Board and is not an employee also receives an annual fee of US$4,000. An additional fee of US$1,000 per meeting attended in North America, up to five meetings per year, is paid to Mr. Karpin, who resides in Australia, in recognition of the additional travel commitment. In circumstances where a director incurs a time commitment in addition to the time spent preparing for or attending a meeting of the Board or any of its committees, for a purpose related to the directorship such as education, or furthering the director’s understanding or knowledge related to or for the benefit of the Corporation, the director is entitled to a per diem payment of US$1,000. Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket and travel expenses.
In 2002 a special committee of the Board consisting of Messrs. Franklin, Karpin, Michel, Wilson and J.K. Taylor, was established for the purpose of monitoring developments with respect to Placer Dome Asia Pacific Limited’s offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of AurionGold Limited and providing guidance to Management with respect thereto. The special committee held 17 meetings by teleconference. Messrs. Karpin, Michel and Wilson received US$1,000 per meeting attended. Messrs. Franklin (chair of the committee) and Taylor (who is a member of management) did not receive meeting fees in respect thereof.
Mr. Franklin, non-executive Chairman of the Board of the Corporation, receives an annual fee of $175,000 and will receive an additional payment in 2003 of $50,000 in recognition of the additional time and commitment required of him in 2002, particularly in relation to the AurionGold Limited transaction. The Corporation reimburses Mr. Franklin for annual club membership fees and parking fees ($5,950 and $4,800, respectively, in 2002).
The Corporation’s 1993 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan (the “Directors’ Plan”) provides that, as of the date of each annual meeting of the shareholders of the Corporation, there shall be granted to each non-employee director (other than the Chairman) an option to purchase 5,000 Common Shares and the Chairman shall be granted an option to purchase 10,000 Common Shares. In the case of non-employee directors who become directors after the commencement of the Directors’ Plan, there is an initial grant of an option to purchase 10,000 Common Shares. The exercise price of the options granted to directors, if expressed in Canadian dollars, is
4
Material Interests of Corporation’s Directors or Officers
None of the Corporation’s directors or officers nor any of their associates has had any direct or indirect material interest, since the beginning of the Corporation’s last completed financial year, in respect of any transaction that has materially affected or will materially affect the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The Board
The Board is responsible for the stewardship of the Corporation and fully endorses a system of corporate governance that is designed to assist the Board to manage effectively, or supervise the management of, the business and affairs of the Corporation. The Board provides guidance to Management in the pursuit of the Corporation’s goals.
The Board believes that good corporate governance is important to the effective performance of the Corporation and plays a significant role in protecting shareholders’ interests and maximizing shareholder value.
The Corporation’s corporate governance practices are compared with the TSX corporate governance disclosure guidelines, including the proposed amendments published in April 2002 and not yet formally implemented as of December 31, 2002. The Corporation’s “Statement of Corporate Governance Practices” pursuant to Section 473 of the TSX Company Manual is attached as Schedule “A” to the Circular. The Corporation has also been reviewing its governance practices in response to the extensive regulatory changes in progress arising from the United States Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as well as the NYSE’s corporate governance rule proposals (“NYSE Proposals”) and anticipated further changes arising from discussions between the TSX and the Ontario Securities Commission. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is in the process of issuing rules and regulations to give effect to provisions of the United States Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is currently considering approval of the NYSE Proposals.
As the provisions of the United States Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the NYSE Proposals and the TSX Guidelines come into effect, the Corporation will review its governance practices.
At present, each committee of the Board is composed of four Directors, all of whom qualify as unrelated directors who are independent of management and free from any interest or business relationship which could, or could be perceived to, materially interfere with their ability to act in the best interests of the Corporation. Each of the committees has specific mandates and defined authorities which are reviewed periodically. The responsibilities of each committee are summarized below.
Corporate Governance Committee
The Corporate Governance Committee has the general responsibility for developing the Corporation’s approach to governance issues. The Committee is responsible for identifying and recommending nominees to the Board for eventual proposal as candidates for election as Directors at the Annual Meeting. In considering nominations, the Committee seeks, amongst other things, diversity through qualified persons representing various industry backgrounds, geographical areas, gender and records of achievement in individual fields of endeavour. The Committee also reviews, advises and recommends to the Board any matters concerning the size and composition of the Board, organisation and responsibility of Board Committees, the compensation of the Board and Board Committees and the evaluation process for the Chairman and the Board. The Committee is also responsible for reviewing and monitoring the orientation of new Board members and for reviewing and approving officers’ directorships in companies other than subsidiary companies and to review directors’ relationships with other outside entities with regard to potential conflicts of interest.
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee has the responsibility to assist the Board in its oversight functions as they relate to the Corporation’s accounting, financial reporting, auditing, risk management and internal controls. The Audit Committee, on behalf of the Board, has the responsibility, among other things, for: (a) reviewing the financial statements of the Corporation and recommending whether such statements should be approved by the Board;
5
Human Resources and Compensation Committee
The Human Resources and Compensation Committee assists the Board in matters related to employment, remuneration and succession planning, and the oversight of the Corporation’s various stock option, stock purchase, pension and other benefit plans. The Committee has responsibility for: (a) fixing the compensation of the President and CEO and approving the compensation of the other senior officers of the Corporation; (b) exercising the powers conferred on it by the Board with respect to option and share purchase plans; and (c) reviewing annually, or more often if it deems appropriate, succession for key executives, performance appraisal and development of senior officers, senior management organisation and reporting structure, contingency plans in the event of the unexpected disability of key executives and performance and funding of pensions and other benefits.
Safety and Sustainability Committee
The Safety and Sustainability Committee has responsibility for periodically reviewing the Corporation’s Safety and Sustainability Policies and, if appropriate, making recommendations to the Board with respect thereto. The Committee also has responsibility for taking any actions it deems necessary to satisfy itself that these policies are being implemented, including reviewing the reports to the Board with respect to safety and sustainability (including environmental, social and economic) matters. The members of the Committee have the right, for the purpose of exercising their authority, to be provided with information under the control of the Corporation and its affiliates.
Summary of meetings held and attendance of directors
The information below shows Board and committee meetings held and attendance of directors for the year ended December 31, 2002.
| Corporate | Human Resources | Safety and | ||||||||||||||||||
| Director | Board | Audit | Governance | and Compensation | Sustainability | |||||||||||||||
| 9 meetings(1) | 6 meetings(2) | 5 meetings(3) | 4 meetings | 4 meetings | ||||||||||||||||
|
G. B. Coulombe
|
9/9 | 1/1 | 4/4 | * | ||||||||||||||||
|
J. W. Crow
|
8/9 | 4/6 | * | 3/3 | 2/3 | * | ||||||||||||||
|
G. Farquharson
|
8/9 | 4/5 | * | 4/4 | * | |||||||||||||||
|
R. M. Franklin
|
9/9 | 3/3 | 5/5 | * | 4/4 | * | ||||||||||||||
|
D. S. Karpin
|
9/9 | 6/6 | * | 4/4 | * | |||||||||||||||
|
A. R. McFarland
|
9/9 | 6/6 | * | |||||||||||||||||
|
C. L. Michel
|
8/9 | 3/3 | 4/4 | * | ||||||||||||||||
|
E. A. Parkinson-Marcoux
|
9/9 | 5/5 | * | 4/4 | * | |||||||||||||||
|
J. K. Taylor
|
9/9 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
V. F. Taylor, III
|
9/9 | 5/5 | * | |||||||||||||||||
|
W. G. Wilson
|
8/9 | 3/3 | * | 4/4 | * | 1/1 | ||||||||||||||
| * | Currently a member of the committee — committee membership changed in April of 2002 after the Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders when the size of the Board was reduced from 12 to 11 directors and the number of members of each committee was reduced from five to four. |
| (1) | In addition to the five regularly scheduled meetings, four additional meetings were held during 2002. Two of the additional meetings were held by teleconference. |
| (2) | One of these meetings was held by teleconference. |
| (3) | Two of these meetings were held by teleconference. |
6
DIRECTORS’ AND OFFICERS’ LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Corporation maintains a combined Directors’ & Officers’ Liability and Corporation Reimbursement Insurance Policy covering a period of one year from September 30, 2002 (the “Policy Year”) with a limit on liability of US$95,000,000 per policy year to cover the directors and officers of the Corporation and its subsidiaries, individually and as a group, and to cover the Corporation’s subsidiaries for their liability to indemnify their respective directors and officers pursuant to their by-laws. In respect of the Corporation Reimbursement Insurance, the insured company would bear the first US$500,000 of any loss.
The Corporation paid an aggregate premium of US$853,000 for such insurance for the Policy Year.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, information concerning compensation earned during such periods by the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and the Corporation’s four other most highly compensated executive officers who were serving as executive officers on December 31, 2002 (collectively the “Named Executives”).
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE(1)
| Long-Term | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annual Compensation | Compensation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Awards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Securities Under | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other Annual | Options/SARs | All Other | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name and Principal Position | Year | Salary | Bonus(2)(6) | Compensation(3) | Granted(4) | Compensation(5) | ||||||||||||||||||
| ($) | ($) | ($) | (#) | ($) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| J. K. TAYLOR | 2002 | 534,930 | 541,298 | — | 228,500 | 123,732 | ||||||||||||||||||
| President and CEO | 2001 | 510,270 | 105,542 | — | 345,250 | 119,395 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2000 | 472,495 | 204,821 | — | 148,800 | 20,612 | |||||||||||||||||||
| G. A. HANDLEY | 2002 | 245,176 | 181,494 | — | 43,050 | 9,703 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Executive Vice-President, | 2001 | 210,000 | 54,192 | — | 46,900 | 6,298 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Strategic Development | 2000 | 168,327 | 72,112 | — | 26,250 | 4,545 | ||||||||||||||||||
| W. M. HAYES | 2002 | 283,000 | 175,000 | 37,200 | 42,100 | 4,861 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Executive Vice-President, | 2001 | 275,000 | 76,000 | 37,200 | 81,100 | 4,702 | ||||||||||||||||||
| United States and Latin America | 2000 | 275,000 | 142,540 | 59,298 | 66,800 | 2,732 | ||||||||||||||||||
| R. J. MCLENNAN | 2002 | 262,370 | 146,469 | — | 42,350 | 7,091 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Executive Vice-President | 2001 | 258,365 | 64,850 | — | 68,350 | 2,135 | ||||||||||||||||||
| and Chief Financial Officer | 2000 | 262,591 | 69,822 | — | 32,900 | 9,183 | ||||||||||||||||||
| P. W. TOMSETT | 2002 | 206,330 | 182,174 | 54,152 | 34,850 | 3,821 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Executive Vice-President, | 2001 | 195,639 | 80,610 | 53,367 | 49,850 | 372 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Asia Pacific | 2000 | 158,673 | 100,303 | 3,289 | 42,050 | 152 | ||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | All dollar amounts in the Summary Compensation Table are in United States dollars. Compensation is paid in Canadian dollars except in the cases of Mr. Hayes, who is paid in United States dollars, and Mr. Tomsett, who is paid in Australian dollars. The United States/Canadian dollar rates of exchange used for conversion are: 2002 — 1.5703, 2001 — 1.5482, 2000 — 1.4852. The United States/ Australian dollar rates of exchange used for conversion are: 2002 — 1.8389, 2001 — 1.9312, 2000 — 1.717. |
| (2) | This compensation is determined pursuant to the Corporation’s Executive Annual Incentive Plan and, except within this Summary Compensation Table, is referred to in this Circular as “variable compensation”. In lieu of payment, one third of the total variable compensation of Messrs. Taylor, Handley, Hayes, McLennan and Tomsett was replaced by units under the terms of the Corporation’s Unit Performance Plan described below (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Long-Term Incentives — Unit Performance Plan”). |
| (3) | For Mr. Hayes, the amounts shown are the dollar value of perquisites and personal benefits received by Mr. Hayes in connection with his international employment status (for 2002 and 2001 the amounts shown consist entirely of housing benefits). For Mr. Tomsett, the amounts shown for 2002 and 2001 represent the dollar value of perquisites and personal benefits received by Mr. Tomsett in connection with his international employment status (including a car allowance in the amounts of US$40,492 and US$38,557, respectively) and the dollar value of imputed interest benefits (US$10,941 and US$13,777, respectively) from an interest-free housing loan granted to him by a subsidiary of the Corporation. For 2000, the amount shown for Mr. Tomsett is the dollar value of imputed interest benefits from his interest-free loan. |
7
| (4) | All awards are stock options. |
| (5) | The amounts shown consist of, except in the case of Mr. Tomsett, who was not a member of an employee stock purchase plan in 2002, matching contributions by the Corporation to an employee stock purchase plan (for 2002: Mr. Taylor: US$22,035; Mr. Handley: US$7,355; Mr. Hayes: US$1,604; and Mr. McLennan: US$4,477), and the dollar value of units granted by the Corporation in respect of “dividend equivalents” earned on units under the Unit Performance Plan (for 2002: Mr. Taylor: US$6,174; Mr. Handley: US$2,348; Mr. Hayes: US$3,257; Mr. McLennan: US$2,614; and Mr. Tomsett: US$3,821) (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Long-Term Incentives — Unit Performance Plan”). In addition, for Mr. Taylor, US$95,523 of the amount shown for 2002 consists of a contribution by the Corporation to Mr. Taylor’s supplemental retirement benefit arrangement (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Other Compensation — CEO’s Compensation”). |
| (6) | For Mr. Taylor, the amounts shown for 2002 and 2001 represent Mr. Taylor’s total variable compensation less US$95,523 and US$96,887, respectively, which amounts were contributed to Mr. Taylor’s supplemental retirement benefit arrangement (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Other Compensation — CEO’s Compensation”). |
Long-Term Incentive Plan Awards Table
The following table sets forth the number of units awarded in 2002 to Named Executives under the Corporation’s Unit Performance Plan (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Long-Term Incentives — Unit Performance Plan”).
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLANS — AWARDS IN
| Performance or | ||||||||
| Securities, Units | Other Period | |||||||
| or Other Rights | Until Maturation | |||||||
| Name | (#) | or Payout(3) | ||||||
| J. K. TAYLOR | 18,900 | (1) | Retirement | |||||
| G. A. HANDLEY | 5,387 | (1) | Retirement | |||||
| 23,406 | (2) | Retirement | ||||||
| W. M. HAYES | 5,058 | (1) | Retirement | |||||
| R. J. MCLENNAN | 4,347 | (1) | Retirement | |||||
| P. W. TOMSETT | 5,704 | (1) | Retirement | |||||
| (1) | These units were granted by the Corporation to match the number of units converted by the Named Executive from the first one third of his 2002 variable compensation (see “Summary Compensation Table”). Each unit has a value of $17.64, being the average closing sale price per Common Share in Canadian dollars on the TSX for the month of January 2003. |
| (2) | These units represent Mr. Handley’s “initial grant amount” (see “Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation — Long-Term Incentives — Unit Performance Plan”). |
| (3) | Members of the Corporation’s Unit Performance Plan are entitled to redeem units if a member is terminated without cause within two years after a change in control of the Corporation. |
Pension Plans
During 2002, three of the Named Executives were covered by the Placer Dome Inc. Executive Retirement Plan (the “Executive Plan”). Mr. Hayes was covered in 2002 by the Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Placer Dome U.S. Inc. (the “U.S. Plan”), which covers employees of Placer Dome U.S. Inc. Mr. Tomsett was covered by the Placer Executive Superannuation Fund (the “PDAP Plan”), which covers certain executive employees of Placer Dome Asia Pacific Limited.
Executive Plan
The Named Executives are not required to make contributions to the Executive Plan. The amount of pension payable under the Executive Plan is determined as 2% of final average earnings (“FAE”) multiplied by the total number of years of credited service to a maximum of 35. FAE are defined as the average annual earnings during the 36 consecutive months within the last ten years of employment in which such earnings are highest. Earnings for pension purposes include base salary and payments under the Corporation’s Executive Annual Incentive Plan. The Executive Plan benefits are subject to a ceiling imposed by Canadian Income Tax regulations of $1,722 of annual pension for each year of credited service. Pensions are not integrated with or reduced by Canada Pension Plan payments. Under the Executive Plan, 65% of the pension payable to a retired member is payable for life to the member’s surviving spouse upon the member’s death.
8
U.S. Plan
The Named Executive who is now covered by the U.S. Plan is not required to make contributions to the U.S. Plan. The amount of pension payable under the U.S. Plan is 2% of FAE multiplied by the total number of years of credited service up to a maximum of 35 years plus past service credit, if any, less an offset for Social Security benefits. FAE are defined as the average annual earnings during the five years in which such earnings are highest. Earnings for the purposes of this pension plan include base salary and any overtime payments. There is an annual benefit limitation for participants as set forth in Section 415 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
PDAP Plan
The named executive who is covered by the PDAP Plan is not required to make contributions to the PDAP Plan. The amount of benefit payable under the PDAP Plan is defined in terms of a lump sum payment upon retirement equal to 22.5% multiplied by FAE multiplied by the total number of years of credited service. FAE are defined as the average annual salary on the three review dates immediately preceding termination of service or attainment of normal retirement age. Salary includes base salary only.
Supplementary Income Agreements
During 2002, individual agreements were in force between the Corporation and all Named Executives. Under these agreements pension supplements are payable. The amount of the pension supplement is the difference between the amounts of pension payable under the pension plans of the Corporation and its subsidiaries, or the actuarial equivalents thereof, and an amount calculated in accordance with the Executive Plan formula but assuming no ceiling on the annual pension for any year of credited service. The agreements provide that in the event of the death of the Named Executive prior to retirement under the Executive Plan, the death benefit paid to the spouse of the Named Executive will be that benefit required, if any, so that the total value of death benefits from all the pension programs of the Corporation and its subsidiaries will equal 65% of the commuted value of the total pension benefits earned by the Named Executive at the date of death under all the pension programs of the Corporation and its subsidiaries.
PENSION PLAN TABLE(1)
| Years of Service | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Remuneration | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ($) | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
125,000
|
$ | 12,500 | $ | 25,000 | $ | 37,500 | $ | 50,000 | $ | 62,500 | $ | 75,000 | $ | 87,500 | ||||||||||||||
|
150,000
|
15,000 | 30,000 | 45,000 | 60,000 | 75,000 | 90,000 | 105,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
175,000
|
17,500 | 35,000 | 52,500 | 70,000 | 87,500 | 105,000 | 122,500 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
200,000
|
20,000 | 40,000 | 60,000 | 80,000 | 100,000 | 120,000 | 140,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
225,000
|
22,500 | 45,000 | 67,500 | 90,000 | 112,500 | 135,000 | 157,500 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
250,000
|
25,000 | 50,000 | 75,000 | 100,000 | 125,000 | 150,000 | 175,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
300,000
|
30,000 | 60,000 | 90,000 | 120,000 | 150,000 | 180,000 | 210,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
400,000
|
40,000 | 80,000 | 120,000 | 160,000 | 200,000 | 240,000 | 280,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
500,000
|
50,000 | 100,000 | 150,000 | 200,000 | 250,000 | 300,000 | 350,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
600,000
|
60,000 | 120,000 | 180,000 | 240,000 | 300,000 | 360,000 | 420,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
700,000
|
70,000 | 140,000 | 210,000 | 280,000 | 350,000 | 420,000 | 490,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
800,000
|
80,000 | 160,000 | 240,000 | 320,000 | 400,000 | 480,000 | 560,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
900,000
|
90,000 | 180,000 | 270,000 | 360,000 | 450,000 | 540,000 | 630,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1,000,000
|
100,000 | 200,000 | 300,000 | 400,000 | 500,000 | 600,000 | 700,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1,100,000
|
110,000 | 220,000 | 330,000 | 440,000 | 550,000 | 660,000 | 770,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1,200,000
|
120,000 | 240,000 | 360,000 | 480,000 | 600,000 | 720,000 | 840,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1,300,000
|
130,000 | 260,000 | 390,000 | 520,000 | 650,000 | 780,000 | 910,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1,400,000
|
140,000 | 280,000 | 420,000 | 560,000 | 700,000 | 840,000 | 980,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
1,500,000
|
150,000 | 300,000 | 450,000 | 600,000 | 750,000 | 900,000 | 1,050,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(1) All dollar amounts in the Pension Plan Table are in United States dollars.
The table above illustrates the maximum annual pension for a Named Executive payable under the combination of the pension plans of the Corporation or its subsidiaries and the individual agreement to a person retiring at age 65 as of December 31, 2002, based on certain assumptions as to level of earnings and service. The
9
Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights Plans
The Placer Dome 1987 Stock Option Plan (the “1987 Plan”) provides for the issuance of Common Shares and the granting of stock appreciation rights. Options and related stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) are available to employees of the Corporation and are granted by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board. No SARs are outstanding under the 1987 Plan. The exercise price of options, if expressed in Canadian dollars, is the price per Common Share of the last board lot sale of such shares on the TSX on the trading date immediately preceding the date the option is granted. The exercise price of options, if expressed in United States dollars, is the price per Common Share of the last board lot sale of such shares on the NYSE on the trading day immediately preceding the date the option is granted. The maximum term of each option and SAR is 10 years.
Pursuant to the 1987 Plan, there is one stock option grant program in effect. Under the Standard Stock Option Grant Program, the options become exercisable in three cumulative instalments on each of the first through third anniversary dates of the date of grant. A second stock option grant program, the Ownership Incentive Program, was designed to encourage employees to become long term shareholders of the Corporation. Under this program, employees who owned shares were eligible for incentive options on a matching basis if the shares were held continuously for two years. Fifty incentive options were granted for each fifty shares owned. The number of shares was reduced to the nearest fifty. Vesting of these options was conditional on the employee retaining ownership during the two year period following the grant. Options were 100% vested at the end of the two year period if this condition was met. Subsequent to the February 2002 grants, the Ownership Incentive Program was discontinued for all employees. Employees will continue to hold options that have been granted previously under the 1987 Plan. The vesting and exercise criteria will remain unchanged.
OPTION/SAR GRANTS DURING THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED FINANCIAL YEAR
| Market Value | ||||||||||||||||||||
| of Securities | ||||||||||||||||||||
| % of Total | Underlying | |||||||||||||||||||
| Options/SARs | Options/SARs | |||||||||||||||||||
| Securities Under | Granted to | Exercise or | on the Date | |||||||||||||||||
| Options/SARs | Employees | Base Price | of Grant | |||||||||||||||||
| Name | Granted(1) | in 2002 | ($/Security)(2) | ($/Security)(2) | Expiration Date | |||||||||||||||
|
J. K. TAYLOR
|
207,750 | (3) | 9.88% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| 20,750 | (4) | 0.99% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | |||||||||||||||
|
G. A. HANDLEY
|
29,250 | (3) | 1.39% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| 3,800 | (4) | 0.18% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | |||||||||||||||
| 10,000 | (3) | 0.48% | 10.10 | 10.31 | September 11, 2012 | |||||||||||||||
|
W. M. HAYES
|
42,050 | (3) | 2.00% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| 50 | (4) | 0.00% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | |||||||||||||||
|
R. J. MCLENNAN
|
42,050 | (3) | 2.00% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| 300 | (4) | 0.01% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | |||||||||||||||
|
P. W. TOMSETT
|
34,850 | (3) | 1.66% | 12.51 | 12.85 | February 12, 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| (1) | All option awards for 2002 were granted for Common Shares. |
| (2) | Based on the Common Share price on the NYSE. All dollar amounts in this table are in United States dollars. |
| (3) | These option awards were granted pursuant to the Standard Stock Option Grant Program with the first one third of these awards becoming exercisable after one year, the second one third after two years, and the final one third after three years. |
| (4) | These option awards were granted pursuant to the Ownership Incentive Program and are fully exercisable after two years. |
10
AGGREGATED OPTION/SAR EXERCISES DURING THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED FINANCIAL YEAR AND FINANCIAL YEAR-END OPTION/SAR VALUES
| Value of Unexercised | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| in-the-Money | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Unexercised Options/SARs | Options/SARs at | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Securities | Aggregate | at December 31, 2002(1) | December 31, 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Acquired | Value | (#) | ($)(2) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| on Exercise | Realized | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Name | (#) | ($) | Exercisable/Unexercisable | Exercisable/Unexercisable | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
J. K. TAYLOR
|
Nil | Nil | 489,962 | 514,850 | 1,200,082 | 1,366,010 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
G. A. HANDLEY
|
Nil | Nil | 102,450 | 83,100 | 137,889 | 206,453 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
W. M. HAYES
|
Nil | Nil | 236,101 | 120,167 | 370,412 | 356,679 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
R. J. MCLENNAN
|
21,150 | 144,032 | 121,734 | 100,233 | 55,599 | 274,043 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
P. W. TOMSETT
|
Nil | Nil | 74,601 | 82,099 | 179,823 | 215,366 | ||||||||||||||||||
| (1) | There were no unexercised SARs at December 31, 2002. |
| (2) | The closing board lot sale price of Common Shares on the TSX on December 31, 2002 was $17.86. |
Executive Annual Incentive Plan
All the Named Executives are members of the Executive Annual Incentive Plan. This Plan provides for the granting of variable compensation to individual executive officers if specified goals are achieved. The amount of an individual Named Executive’s variable compensation is determined on the basis of corporate, regional/ functional, and individual performance in relation to the specified goals. All the specified goals applicable to the President and CEO and the corporate goals applicable to the Named Executives are established and reviewed by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board. The President and CEO establishes the other goals applicable to the individual Named Executives.
Employment Agreements
All the Named Executives currently employed by the Corporation and/or a subsidiary of the Corporation have agreements with the Corporation in respect of their employment. The base salary amounts payable under these employment agreements (the “Employment Agreements”) are adjusted annually by such amount, if any, as the Human Resources and Compensation Committee determines following annual reviews. The Employment Agreements contain certain restrictions on the employment of the Named Executives in the gold mining industry for twelve months after the termination of employment.
The provisions of the Employment Agreements with the Named Executives include the following:
Each expire on the occurrence of the earliest of the following:
| (i) | the employee attaining the age of 65 years; | |
| (ii) | the resignation of the employee; | |
| (iii) | the Corporation terminating the employee’s employment for just cause; and | |
| (iv) | the Corporation giving written notice to the employee of the termination of his employment. |
The terms of the Employment Agreements for each Named Executive provide that if the employment of the Named Executive is terminated by the Corporation, for other than just cause, the Corporation will pay to him an amount equal to twice his current annual salary plus an amount equal to the previous two years’ variable compensation payments. The employee will also be reimbursed up to $10,000 for relocation, financial counselling and tax planning services.
The Employment Agreements provide that if a Named Executive’s employment is terminated (including resignation in certain “circumstances”) within two years after a change in control of the Corporation, the Named Executive is entitled to a severance payment equal to 1.5 times the general severance amount he would be entitled to as indicated above. In addition, the Named Executive’s stock options vest immediately. The severance payment is reduced proportionately if employment is terminated within two years of the normal retirement date (age 65). A “change in control” includes an event that results in one group owning 20% or more of the voting shares of the entity (including an entity resulting from a merger). The circumstances in which a resignation would entitle the Named Executive to the severance payment include resignation following an adverse change in the position, compensation or responsibilities of the Named Executive, and/or a fundamental change in the nature of the business of the Corporation.
11
REPORT ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Composition of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee
The Human Resources and Compensation Committee is composed of four directors, C. L. Michel (Chairman), J. W. Crow, W. G. Wilson and R. M. Franklin. Mr. Franklin is the non-executive Chairman of the Board.
Human Resources and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation
The Corporation’s compensation policy for all executive officers is to target, on average, the 50th percentile of a sample of North American mining/ resource companies with a check on a peer group of gold producers. Comparisons are made on a basis that recognizes company size and job scope. Performance is suitably recognized through variable compensation and long-term incentives.
The Human Resources and Compensation Committee reviews executive base salaries annually using the comparator group and other relevant competitive data as input. The services of independent consultants are used to provide data and analysis.
Executive Compensation — Objectives
The objectives of the executive compensation strategy are as follows:
| 1. to attract and retain talented and effective individuals to lead those functions that are important to the Corporation’s success; | |
| 2. to encourage and recognize high levels of performance by linking achievement of specific goals with incentive compensation; and | |
| 3. to establish a clear linkage between long-term executive compensation and the interests of the Corporation and its shareholders. |
Executive Compensation — Structure
The Corporation’s executive compensation program has four components:
| • Base salary | |
| • Variable compensation | |
| • Long-term incentives |
| — Stock option grants | |
| — Unit Performance Plan |
| • Benefits |
1. Base Salary
The Committee reviews executive base salaries annually using the 50th percentile of the comparator group (see above) and other relevant competitive data as input. The services of independent consultants are used to provide data and analysis. As of the Committee’s latest review, base salaries were generally consistent with this philosophy.
2. Variable Compensation
Along with the establishment of competitive salary structures and long-term incentives, one of the objectives of the executive compensation strategy is to encourage and recognize high levels of performance by linking achievement of specific goals with variable compensation.
The variable compensation opportunity is established and adjusted, as required, to remain competitive with the Corporation’s comparator group of North American mining/ resource companies. Target opportunities range from 35% to 75% of base salary for the executive group. Variable compensation for executive officers is determined on the basis of corporate, regional/ functional, and individual performance. While all three elements are important, corporate performance is considered to be the most critical, and the program is designed to highlight this.
The relative importance of the three factors varies with the position, to reflect the influence or leverage that the individual executive has on corporate and regional/ functional performance. The weightings are 60%/20%/20%
12
The awards for corporate, regional/ functional, and individual performance can vary from 0% to 150%. In addition, the individual performance rating is also applied as an overall multiplier and can vary from 0% to 150%.
Corporate performance measures for 2002 were Return on Net Assets, Increase in Net Asset Value, Cash Flow from Operations, Operating Earnings, Mine Operating Earnings and Production, as well as a number of strategic quantifiable objectives related to increasing reserves, safety, human resources, research and technology and business processes. If Return on Net Assets is negative for the year, the corporate performance factor is reduced to zero for all executive officers.
For 2002, the awards for the corporate performance measures ranged from 0% to 150% of target.
The individual performance ratings for the executive group ranged from 100% to 145%.
3. Long-Term Incentives
(i) Stock Option Grants
| Stock option grants provide a mechanism to link long-term compensation to Common Share price performance. | |
| The expected value provided to the executives under the Standard Stock Option Grant Program is based on a modified Black-Scholes valuation of the option. The expected value targets for executives range from 60% to 200% of salary. These market competitive target levels are adjusted by (i) an individual performance factor ranging from 0% to 150% and (ii) an Adjusted Reserve Profit factor. | |
| Adjusted Reserve Profit (ARP) is designed to reflect value and is used as a proxy for the net asset value of the gold mining asset. | |
| The ARP factor applied to the long-term incentive award is assigned based on the percentage change in the three-year average ARP/ Shares Outstanding in any given year. For 2002 the ARP factor applied to the target long-term incentive awards was 0.75. | |
| The number of outstanding options, the in-the-money value of outstanding options, or the number of Unit Performance Plan units that an executive officer holds is not factored into the determination of whether and how many new option grants are made to executive officers. | |
| Executive officers participated in the Ownership Incentive Program on the same terms available to all employees, as described earlier in the Circular. The Ownership Incentive Program was discontinued after February 2002. |
(ii) Unit Performance Plan
| The Unit Performance Plan is designed to align the interests of senior employees with those of the Corporation’s shareholders and to encourage retention. | |
| Eligible employees can irrevocably elect to participate in the Unit Performance Plan. The participants must agree to defer a minimum of one-third of their earned annual variable compensation, which is converted into notional units with a value based on the average previous January closing price of Common Shares. Each unit credited to a participant from the first one-third of their variable compensation will be matched by the Corporation with one additional unit. Voluntary deferrals above one-third of the earned annual variable compensation can be made but do not receive any company match. | |
| In consideration of non-competition covenants, the Corporation may allocate an amount, typically equal to one year’s base salary, to be credited to a participant and converted into units at the applicable value for that year (“initial grant”). | |
| Notional dividends equivalent to the amount of actual dividends paid from time to time on Common shares (“dividend equivalents”) are allocated to units held by participants and are reinvested into further notional units. |
13
| Units will be redeemed in cash, or be cancelled, in April following the calendar year of cessation of active employment at the unit value determined during the month of January preceding the April redemption date. Units (other than matching units, initial grant units, and dividend equivalents relating thereto) shall be 100% vested and 100% redeemable upon termination of employment. Matching units and initial grant units (and dividend equivalents relating thereto) under the Unit Performance Plan, will be redeemable only if cessation of active employment occurs due to retirement at or after age 60, or death, or termination without cause within two years of a change in control. In all other cases, these other units will not be redeemable and will be cancelled. For these purposes, “retirement at age 60” excludes any situation where severance pay or similar compensation is provided to the participant. |
4. Other Compensation
Benefits are maintained at a level that is competitive overall, in relation to large Canadian resource companies. These include financial counselling and club memberships.
CEO’s Compensation
Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Corporation, has a current base salary of US$636,821. (Mr. Taylor’s compensation is paid in Canadian dollars. The United States/Canadian dollar rate of exchange used for conversion is 1.5703.) Mr. Taylor is eligible to participate in the Executive Annual Incentive Plan and the 1987 Plan (see “Executive Annual Incentive Plan” and “Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights Plans”). The Corporation has established a defined contribution arrangement to provide supplementary retirement benefits to Mr. Taylor. The contributions to this arrangement (which are subject to an annual limit of $150,000) are part of Mr. Taylor’s total variable compensation.
The overall compensation for the CEO is determined on the basis of a market comparison of North American mining companies, with a check on a peer group of gold producers. The Corporation’s strategy is to target compensation at the 50th percentile of the comparator group, and suitably recognize performance through variable compensation and long-term incentives.
Corporate performance determines 60% of the CEO’s variable compensation (see “Measures of Corporate Performance for Variable Compensation”). An additional 20% is based on achievement of specific objectives designed to improve all aspects of the business and drive the longer-term success of the Corporation. These objectives are agreed by the Board on an annual basis. The remaining 20% is based on personal contribution as determined by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee. The Committee bases the evaluation of personal contribution on information obtained from a corporate governance process, including an annual review by the CEO of his performance, which he delivers to the Board for its consideration and discussion with him.
In 2002 the Human Resources and Compensation Committee approved modifications to the Measures of Corporate Performance for Variable Compensation. The variables are as follows.
Measures Of Corporate Performance For Variable Compensation
| Target | ||||||||
| Factor | Description | Weight | ||||||
|
(a) Financial Targets
|
Achieve Earnings, Cash Flow and Production Targets with Reference to: | |||||||
| • | Pre-tax Return on Net Assets | 55 | ||||||
| • | Increase in Net Asset Value | |||||||
| • | Cash Flow from Operations | |||||||
| • | Operating Earnings, Mine Operating Earnings and Production | |||||||
14
| Target | ||||||||
| Factor | Description | Weight | ||||||
|
(b) Strategic Quantifiable Targets
|
• | Increase Proven and Probable Reserves | 45 | |||||
| • | Improve Safety Performance, as measured against industry standards and corporate objectives | |||||||
| • | Human Resource Program Advancement — Continue the process of attaining a high performance, value added culture | |||||||
| • | Improve Business Processes to enhance planning and improve operating performance | |||||||
| • | Research and Technology Advancement | |||||||
Report Presented By:
| C. L. Michel (Chairman), J. W. Crow, R. M. Franklin, and W. G. Wilson. |
Stock Performance Graph
The following graph compares the total cumulative shareholder return for $100 invested in Common Shares of the Corporation on December 31, 1997 with the cumulative total return of the S&P/TSX Composite Index, the Philadelphia Gold and Silver Index and the S&P 500 Index, respectively.
CUMULATIVE VALUE OF A CDN$100 INVESTMENT ASSUMING REINVESTMENT OF DIVIDENDS
15
INDEBTEDNESS OF DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND SENIOR OFFICERS
As of February 19, 2003, none of the individuals who at any time since January 1, 2002 was a director, executive officer, senior officer or proposed nominee for election as director, and none of their respective associates, is indebted to the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or has indebtedness to another entity that is the subject of a guarantee, support agreement, letter of credit or other similar arrangement or understanding provided by the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, other than routine indebtedness.
The aggregate indebtedness to the Corporation and its subsidiaries as of February 19, 2003 of all current and former directors, officers and employees of the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, excluding routine indebtedness, was US$1,364,668.
APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS
Shareholders will be requested to re-appoint Ernst & Young LLP as auditors of the Corporation, to hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders.
Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP are expected to be present at the Meeting, will have an opportunity to be heard on any part of the business of the Meeting that concerns them as auditor, and are expected to be available to respond to appropriate questions relating to their duties as auditor.
Auditors Fees
For the year ended December 31, 2002, the Corporation paid Ernst & Young LLP and its affiliates US$1,763,000, as detailed below:
| Year ended | |||||
| December 31 | |||||
| 2002 | |||||
| (US$,000) | |||||
|
Ernst & Young LLP
|
|||||
|
Audit services(i)
|
957 | ||||
|
Audit-related services(ii)
|
593 | ||||
|
Other services(iii)
|
213 | ||||
| $ | 1,763 | ||||
| (i) | Includes services that are provided by the independent auditor in connection with statutory and regulatory filings, principally for the audit of the annual financial statements contained in the Annual Information Form, Circular and Form 40-F documents. |
| (ii) | Includes assurance and related services by the independent auditor that are related to the performance of the audit, principally for consultation concerning financial accounting and reporting standards and employee benefit plan audits. |
| (iii) | Principally relates to legal services in connection with a Canadian tax litigation matter. |
On December 5, 2002, the Audit Committee began a practice of pre-approving audit and non-audit services by the independent auditor. The Committee delegated to its Chairman the authority, to be exercised between regularly scheduled meetings of the Audit Committee, to pre-approve audit and non-audit services by the independent auditor up to a maximum amount of US$250,000 in the aggregate.
1987 STOCK OPTION PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
The Corporation’s 1987 Plan continues to be instrumental in providing a market-competitive total compensation package for attracting and retaining executives and eligible managers and linking long-term compensation to Common Share price performance. For particulars of the 1987 Plan see “Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights Plans”.
Currently, the aggregate maximum number of Common Shares that are reserved for issuance under the 1987 Plan is limited to 25,000,000 Common Shares. From 1987 to December 31, 2002, 5,087,099 Common Shares were issued upon the exercise of options thereby reducing the number of Common Shares currently available for issuance to 19,912,901. As at December 31, 2002 options to purchase an aggregate of 14,198,739 Common Shares were outstanding, and accordingly, as at that date only 5,714,162 Common Shares were available for grant of further
16
Placer Dome manages its stock option program responsibly and is actively reviewing alternatives to stock options for Long Term Incentive purposes. Over the term of the 1987 Plan the Corporation has, on average, granted options on an annual basis equal to less than 1% of the number of Common Shares outstanding. When strong corporate and individual performance targets for 2002 were met, the aggregate annual grant of options made in February 2003 was less than 1% of the number of Common Shares then outstanding. The grants under the 1987 Plan are subject to meaningful corporate and individual performance targets as discussed further in the “Report on Executive Compensation”. Based on past experience, the Corporation does not expect significant numbers of additional options under the 1987 Plan to become available as a result of expiry or cancellation. Accordingly, and in light of the lack of remaining options available for grant and subject to shareholder approval, the Board, on February 19, 2003 approved an increase of 7,000,000 in the number of Common Shares available for issuance under the 1987 Plan.
In order that the 1987 Plan may continue to fulfil its role as the key element to the Corporation’s long-term compensation strategy, shareholders are being asked to approve and ratify a resolution to increase the aggregate number of Common Shares reserved and authorized for issuance under the 1987 Plan by 7,000,000 to 32,000,000 Common Shares. If approved by the shareholders, the total number of Common Shares reserved under the 1987 Plan, minus options that have been exercised, would represent approximately 6.6% of the total number of the issued and outstanding Common Shares of the Corporation. In order to approve the amendment to the 1987 Plan, a majority of the votes cast at the Meeting must be voted in favour of the resolution. Unless otherwise instructed, the Management nominees named in the enclosed form of proxy will vote for the 1987 Stock Option Plan Amendment Resolution, the text of which is as follows:
“BE IT RESOLVED that:
| 1. | the 1987 Stock Option Plan of the Corporation be amended by deleting the second paragraph of Section 4 thereof and replacing it with the following: |
| “The aggregate number of Shares for which Options may be granted shall not exceed thirty-two million (32,000,000) Shares, subject to adjustment under Section 13 below.” |
| 2. | Any director or officer of the Corporation is hereby authorized, for and on behalf and in the name of the Corporation, to do all such acts and things and to execute (whether under the corporate seal of the Corporation or otherwise) and deliver and file all such agreements, documents and other writings as are necessary or desirable to carry out and give effect to the intent and purpose of this resolution.” |
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS
Pursuant to Section 137 of the CBCA, any notice of a shareholder proposal intended to be raised at the 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Corporation must be submitted to the Corporation at its registered office, to the attention of the Secretary, on or before November 21, 2003 to be considered for inclusion in the management proxy circular and statement for the 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
It is the position of the Corporation that shareholder proposals need be recognized only if made in accordance with the foregoing procedure and the provisions of the CBCA.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Schedule “B” to the Circular includes Selected Consolidated Financial Information of the Corporation for 2002 and the preceding two years, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, the consolidated balance sheets of the Corporation as at December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the consolidated statements of earnings (loss), shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2002, prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in Canada.
Additional information regarding the business of the Corporation is contained in the Corporation’s Annual Information Form (“AIF”). The Corporation’s annual report on Form 40-F includes the Corporation’s AIF. When available, copies of the AIF, interim financial statements for periods subsequent to December 31, 2002 and additional copies of this Circular may be obtained upon request from the Secretary of the Corporation at Suite 1600,
17
A person requesting the document who is not a shareholder of the Corporation may be required to pay a reasonable charge for these documents.
DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
DIRECTORS’ APPROVAL
The undersigned hereby certifies that the contents and the sending of this Circular to the shareholders of the Corporation have been approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
J. DONALD ROSE
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
ALBERTA CERTIFICATE
Date: February 19, 2003
The foregoing contains no untrue statement of a material fact (as defined in the Securities Act (Alberta), as amended) and does not omit to state a material fact that is required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement contained herein not misleading in the light of the circumstances in which it was made.
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
JAY K. TAYLOR President and Chief Executive Officer |
REX J. MCLENNAN Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |
18
SCHEDULE “A”
PLACER DOME INC.
The Corporation’s corporate governance practices are compared with the TSX corporate governance disclosure guidelines, including the proposed amendments published in April 2002 and not yet formally implemented as of December 31, 2002.
| Does Placer Dome | ||||||||
| TSX Corporate Governance Guidelines | Align? | Placer Dome’s Corporate Governance Practices | ||||||
|
1.
|
The Board should explicitly assume responsibility for stewardship of the Corporation | ü |
The Board has responsibility for the stewardship
of the Corporation and ultimate accountability for the
governance of the Corporation’s business and management. The Board relies on Management for the preparation of periodic reports, and to provide the support and information necessary to enable the Board to fulfill its obligations effectively. Decisions sufficiently important to require Board authorization include: the appointment and replacement of the Corporation’s CEO; the appointment of all corporate officers; the issuance of securities of the Corporation, with the exception of securities issued under the Corporation’s option and share purchase plans; major acquisitions, dispositions and joint venture formations; borrowing exceeding specified limits; the percentage of future metal production that can be committed for sale; significant corporate policies; and the payment of dividends. |
|||||
| As part of the overall stewardship responsibility, the Corporation should assume responsibility for the following matters: | ||||||||
|
a.
|
adoption of a strategic planning process and approval of a strategic plan which takes into account, among other things, the opportunities and risks of the business | ü | The Board, directly or through its committees, has the responsibility to participate with Management in developing and approving the mission of the business, its objectives and goals, and the strategy by which it proposes to reach those goals. Strategic issues are reviewed with Management and addressed by the full Board at regularly scheduled Board meetings and at meetings specifically called for this purpose. | |||||
A-1
| Does Placer Dome | ||||||||
| TSX Corporate Governance Guidelines | Align? | Placer Dome’s Corporate Governance Practices | ||||||
|
b.
|
the identification of the principal risks of the Corporation’s business and ensuring the implementation of appropriate systems to manage these risks | ü | The Board identifies the principal risks of the Corporation’s business. The Board, as a whole, has oversight responsibility with respect to political risks and risks related to the Corporation’s forward-selling practices. A number of other specifically identified risks, such as financial controls and environment, health and safety, are reviewed periodically, at regularly scheduled meetings, by the Audit Committee and the Safety and Sustainability Committee, respectively. The relevant committee then reports its findings to the Board. | |||||
|
c.
|
succession planning, including appointing, training and monitoring senior management | ü | A key responsibility of the Board is ensuring that adequate provision has been made for succession planning and for other human resource issues. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Board has an active role in identifying and assessing potential candidates. The Human Resources and Compensation Committee reviews and reports to the Board on succession plans annually. This committee also carries out more frequent examinations of other human resource issues. | |||||
|
d.
|
a communications policy for the Corporation | ü |
The Corporation has implemented a corporate
communications policy which has been approved by the Board.
Adequate structures are in place to ensure effective, timely and
non-selective communications between the Corporation and its
shareholders, the public and regulatory agencies. In addition, the Corporation, through its Investor Relations group, provides shareholders with various communication channels, such as the corporate website, a toll-free telephone number in North America and an electronic mail address, details of which are provided in the annual report to shareholders, to ensure that shareholders’ feedback and concerns are adequately received and addressed by the Corporation. The Corporation’s quarterly earnings conference calls are broadcast live over the Internet and are accessible by telephone on a live and recorded basis. The Corporation’s website contains information regarding the Corporation’s webcasts as well as transcripts of the quarterly conference calls. |
|||||
|
e.
|
the integrity of the Corporation’s internal control and management information systems | ü | The Board, through its internal review process and the appointment of various committees, has put in place an effective system to satisfy itself that the Corporation’s internal control and management information systems are operating properly. | |||||
A-2
| Does Placer Dome | ||||||||
| TSX Corporate Governance Guidelines | Align? | Placer Dome’s Corporate Governance Practices | ||||||
|
2.
|
The board of directors should be constituted with a majority of the individuals who qualify as “unrelated” directors | ü |
As used herein, the term “unrelated
director” means a director who is independent of management
and is free from any interest and any business or other
relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to,
materially interfere with the director’s ability to act
with a view to the best interests of the Corporation, other than
interests and relationships arising from shareholding. With the exception of Mr. J.K. Taylor, the President and CEO of the Corporation, all of the nominees for director are unrelated directors. Mr. R.M. Franklin, is a non-executive Chairman and is not a member of management. |
|||||
|
3.
|
The application of the definition of “unrelated director” to the circumstances of each individual director should be the responsibility of the board which will be required to disclose on an annual basis whether the Board has a majority of unrelated directors. The board will also be required to disclose on an annual basis the analysis of the application of the principles supporting this conclusion | ü |
The Corporate Governance Committee has the
responsibility to review annually directors’ relationships
with regard to potential conflicts of interest and to determine
the independence of the members of the Board. As part of this
assessment process, each director is required to complete an
Annual Questionnaire disclosing the particulars of their
external affiliations, business or family relationships,
transactions and interests, including potential conflicts of
interest, which could impact the director’s
independence. Based on the information provided by the nominees for election as directors as to their individual circumstances, the Board, through the Corporate Governance Committee, has determined that, with the exception of Mr. J.K. Taylor, President and CEO of the Corporation, all of the nominees for director are outside and unrelated directors. |
|||||
|
4.
|
The board of directors should appoint a committee of directors composed exclusively of outside directors, a majority of whom are unrelated directors, with the responsibility for proposing new nominees to the board and for assessing directors on an ongoing basis | ü | The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for recommending nominees to the Board for eventual proposal as candidates for election as directors at the Annual Meeting. In considering nominees, the Committee seeks, amongst other things, diversity through qualified persons representing various industry backgrounds, geographical areas, gender and records of achievement in individual fields of endeavour. The Corporate Governance Committee is also responsible for the evaluation process of the Board. All members of the Corporate Governance Committee are outside and unrelated directors. | |||||
A-3
| Does Placer Dome | ||||||||
| TSX Corporate Governance Guidelines | Align? | Placer Dome’s Corporate Governance Practices | ||||||
|
5.
|
The board of directors should implement a process for assessing the effectiveness of the board of directors, its committees and the contribution of individual directors | ü | The Board has established a review process designed to provide for periodic examinations of important governance issues such as the effectiveness of Board procedures and performance. The Corporate Governance Committee evaluates the performance of the Board and its committees annually through a Board Organization Review Process Questionnaire completed by Board members. Each director also completes an Individual Director Self-Evaluation Form annually. The Chairman of the Board reviews all self-evaluation forms and discusses issues raised with individual directors as appropriate. | |||||
|
6.
|
Every Corporation should provide an orientation and education program for new recruits to the board of directors | ü | New Board members receive an orientation program designed to acquaint the director with the Corporation’s activities and management systems. The Secretary maintains a “Director’s Handbook” of key corporate governance and policy issues which is updated regularly for existing Board members and explained to new members. New Board members are given an early opportunity to visit the Corporation’s operations to give them additional insight into the Corporation’s business. | |||||
|
7.
|
Every board of directors should examine its size and undertake, where appropriate, a program to establish a board size which facilitates effective decision-making | ü |
The Corporate Governance Committee at least
annually reviews, advises and recommends to the Board any
matters concerning the size and composition of the Board,
organization and responsibilities of Board Committees, and the
evaluation process for the Chairman and the Board. The Board, based on a recommendation from the Corporate Governance Committee, has determined that the present size of the Board is appropriate for effective decision-making. At the Annual Meeting on April 30, 2003, 11 directors will stand for election. |
|||||
|
8.
|
The board of directors should review adequacy and form of the compensation of directors and ensure the compensation realistically reflects the responsibilities and risk involved in being an effective director | ü | The Corporate Governance Committee reviews and recommends to the Board the compensation of the Board. At least once every year the Corporate Governance Committee reviews the adequacy and form of compensation of the directors with regard to practices of comparable corporations and to ensure that the directors’ compensation is aligned with the interests of the shareholders, while allowing the Corporation to attract and retain individuals having the necessary qualifications. | |||||
A-4
| Does Placer Dome | ||||||||
| TSX Corporate Governance Guidelines | Align? | Placer Dome’s Corporate Governance Practices | ||||||
|
9.
|
Subject to Guideline 13, committees of the board of directors should generally be composed of outside directors, a majority of whom are unrelated directors | ü | All members of the Board’s committees are outside and unrelated directors. | |||||
|
10.
|
The board of directors should expressly assume responsibility for, or assign to a committee of directors, general responsibility for developing the Corporation’s approach to governance issues | ü | The Corporate Governance Committee has the general responsibility for developing the Corporation’s approach to governance issues. | |||||
|
11.
|
The board of directors, together with the Chief Executive Officer, should develop position descriptions for the board of directors and for the Chief Executive Officer, involving the definition of the limits to management’s responsibilities. The board of directors should approve or develop the corporate objectives which the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for meeting and assess the CEO against these objectives | ü |
The Board and the CEO have developed position
descriptions for the Board and the CEO. The Board has
established limits to Management’s responsibilities in
respect of major acquisitions, dispositions and joint venture
formations, borrowing exceeding specified limits and significant
corporate policies. The Board annually approves the corporate objectives which the CEO is responsible for meeting and assesses the performance of the CEO against these objectives. |
|||||
|
12.
|
The board of directors should implement structures and procedures which ensure that the board of directors can function independently of management. The chair should ensure that the board carries out its responsibilities effectively, which will involve the board meeting on a regular basis without management present and may involve assigning the responsibility for administering the board’s relationship to management to a committee of the board | ü |
Mr. R.M. Franklin, who is the non-executive
chairman of the Board and is not a member of Management, chairs
all Board meetings. During a portion of every regularly scheduled meeting the Board meets independently of Management. It may choose to do so at any other time. With the exception of Mr. J.K. Taylor, the President and CEO of the Corporation, all of the nominees for director are unrelated directors. |
|||||
A-5
| Does Placer Dome | ||||||||
| TSX Corporate Governance Guidelines | Align? | Placer Dome’s Corporate Governance Practices | ||||||
|
13.
|
The audit committee of the board of directors
should be composed only of unrelated directors. All of the members of the audit committee should be financially literate and at least one member should have accounting or related financial expertise. Each board shall determine the definition of and criteria for “financial literacy” and “accounting or related financial expertise”. The board should adopt a charter for the audit committee which sets out the roles and responsibilities of the audit committee which should be specifically defined so as to provide appropriate guidance to audit committee members as to their duties. The audit committee should have direct communication channels with the internal and external auditors to discuss and review specific issues as appropriate. The audit committee duties should include oversight responsibility for management reporting on internal control. While it is management’s responsibility to design and implement an effective system of internal control, it is the responsibility of the audit committee to ensure that management has done so. |
ü |
The Audit Committee is composed entirely of
unrelated directors. The Board has adopted the definitions of
“financial literacy” and “accounting or related
financial expertise” as set out in the practice notes of
the TSX proposed guidelines. Based on information provided by each director, the Board has determined that all members of the Audit Committee are financially literate and at least one member has accounting or related financial expertise. The Board has adopted a charter for the Audit Committee which sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Committee. These roles and responsibilities are defined to provide appropriate guidance to Audit Committee members as to their duties. A brief description of the Audit Committee responsibilities is set out under the heading “Corporate Governance — Audit Committee” at page 5 of the Circular. At least once each year the Audit Committee meets alone and separately with the senior financial officers of the Corporation, with the internal auditors and with the external auditors. The Audit Committee requires Management to design and implement an effective system of internal control. |
|||||
|
14.
|
The board of directors should implement a system which enables an individual director to engage an outside adviser at the Corporation’s expense, in appropriate circumstances. The engagement of the outside adviser should be subject to the approval of an appropriate committee of the board | ü | Individual directors can engage outside advisers at the expense of the Corporation with the authorization of the Corporate Governance Committee. | |||||
A-6
SCHEDULE “B”
SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The selected financial data in Table I has been derived from the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in Canada. All amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars except for per share amounts.
| Years ended December 31 (1)(2) | |||||||||||||
| 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | |||||||||||
Sales |
$ | 1,259 | $ | 1,266 | $ | 1,464 | |||||||
Operating earnings (loss) |
159 | (186 | ) | (575 | ) | ||||||||
Net earnings (loss) |
119 | (188 | ) | (347 | ) | ||||||||
Per common share: |
|||||||||||||
Net earnings (loss) |
0.30 | (0.62 | ) | (1.10 | ) | ||||||||
Diluted net earnings (loss) |
0.30 | (0.62 | ) | (1.10 | ) | ||||||||
Cash dividends |
0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | ||||||||||
| December 31 (1)(2) | ||||||||||||
| 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | ||||||||||
Total assets |
$ | 4,018 | $ | 2,658 | $ | 3,012 | ||||||
Cash and short-term investments |
546 | 440 | 340 | |||||||||
Long-term debt and capital leases,
including current portion |
686 | 583 | 620 | |||||||||
Deferred credits and other liabilities |
229 | 170 | 157 | |||||||||
Shareholders’ equity |
2,402 | 1,597 | 1,817 | |||||||||
| 1) | During the fourth quarter of 2002, Placer Dome changed its accounting policy, retroactive to January 1, 2002, with respect to depreciation and depletion of property, plant and equipment to exclude future estimated mining and development costs. Previously, certain mining operations had included future cost estimates and associated reserves in their depreciation calculations. This change was made to remove the inherent uncertainty in estimating future mining and development costs in arriving at depreciation and depletion rates. This change was applied retroactively with restatement of 2001 comparative figures. The impact of the change in 2001 was to increase operating loss and net loss by $8 million or $0.03 per share. The change had no impact in 2000. | |
| 2) | Amounts in this table reflect the following significant transactions: |
| (i) | Effective January 1, 2000, the adoption of Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook (“CICA”) Section 3465, Income Taxes, which resulted in a reduction in opening retained earnings of $287 million. | ||
| (ii) | Effective October 1, 2000, the adoption of CICA Emerging Issues Committee Abstract of Issue Discussed EIC-113, Accounting by Commodity Producers for Written Call Options. Under EIC-113, call options that are not part of a put/call collar strategy (“net call position”) are marked-to-market with the change in value recorded in earnings currently. | ||
| (iii) | In December 2000, Zaldívar completed the sale of some of its water rights for a sum of $135 million, receivable in fifteen equal annual installments of $9 million commencing July 1, 2001. This resulted in a pre-tax gain of $76 million ($49 million after tax) on a discounted basis. | ||
| (iv) | In 2000, Placer Dome recorded write-downs of $839 million ($634 million after tax) to reflect the impairment in the value of certain mine assets including $651 million for Getchell, $119 million for Las Cristinas, $39 million for Osborne, $18 million for Porgera, $6 million for La Coipa, $3 million for Bald Mountain and $3 million for the Mulatos property. | ||
| (v) | In 2001, Placer Dome recorded write-downs and provisions totalling $331 million (with nil tax effect), including $320 million for the Getchell Mine and $8 million for the Bald Mountain Mine. Placer Dome wrote off Getchell after extensive analysis failed to identify a mine plan that would recover the carrying value of the asset. | ||
| (vi) | On December 31, 2002, Placer Dome completed its acquisition of AurionGold Limited, by issuing 77,934,094 shares and cash of $63 million. This increases the Corporation’s ownership in the Granny Smith and Porgera Mines to 100% and 75% from 60% and 50% respectively as well as adding the Paddington and Kundana mills and related gold mines (collectively “Kalgoorlie West”) and the Henty and Kanowna Belle gold mines to the company’s holdings. | ||
| (vii) | Effective July 1, 2002, Placer Dome and Kinross Gold Corporation formed the Porcupine Joint Venture which combined the operations of the Dome mine and mill, with Kinross’ Hoyle Pond, Pamour and Nighthawk Lakes mines as well as the Bell Creek mill. Placer Dome owns a 51% interest in the joint venture. |
At February 19, 2003, 408,819,927 common shares of the Corporation were outstanding.
-B-1-
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Management’s discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) provides a detailed analysis
of Placer Dome’s business and compares its 2002 financial results with those of
the previous two years. In order to better understand the MD&A, it should be
read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and its related
notes that begin on page B-31 of this report. The Corporation prepares and
files with various Canadian regulatory authorities its consolidated financial
statements and MD&A in United States (“U.S.”) dollars and in accordance with
Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The Corporation
also prepares U.S. dollar consolidated financial statements and MD&A in
accordance with U.S. GAAP for Annual Information Form and U.S. regulatory
purposes (See note 1 of the consolidated financial statements for more
information).
The MD&A is comprised of eight key sections. The Overview provides a high level summary of Placer Dome’s financial results, operating performance and financial condition. The Financial Results of Operations section provides a detailed analysis of sales and mine operating earnings, including a review of mine-by-mine gold and copper production, costs and outlook. The Other Income and Expenses section reports on items outside of the mining operations that impact Placer Dome’s net earnings (loss) for the year. The Financial Condition and Liquidity section describes Placer Dome’s cash position and investing activities, as well as its forward sales and options program for metal sales and foreign currency. The Strategy section describes Placer Dome’s strategic plan, achievements in its focus areas and short and long term strategic targets. In Risks and Uncertainties, the risks associated with the business are identified, and the risk management programs in place to manage and mitigate exposures are discussed. The Markets section discusses the global supply and demand fundamentals impacting the business in the year and in the year ahead. And finally, the Outlook section outlines Placer Dome’s 2003 view of production and costs, capital expenditures, exploration and development priorities, and earnings sensitivities
All amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars, except where otherwise indicated.
| 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | |||||||||||
Sales |
1,259 | 1,266 | 1,464 | ||||||||||
Mine operating earnings |
|||||||||||||
Gold |
271 | 237 | 340 | ||||||||||
Copper |
44 | 59 | 82 | ||||||||||
Other |
(9 | ) | (10 | ) | (3 | ) | |||||||
| 306 | 286 | 419 | |||||||||||
Net earnings (loss) |
119 | (188 | ) | (347 | ) | ||||||||
Cash flow from operations |
339 | 356 | 365 | ||||||||||
Gold |
|||||||||||||
Consolidated production (000s ozs)(i) |
2,852 | 2,834 | 3,101 | ||||||||||
Cash cost ($/oz)(i) |
180 | 184 | 180 | ||||||||||
Total cost ($/oz)(i) |
237 | 242 | 239 | ||||||||||
Consolidated sales (000s ozs) |
2,809 | 2,933 | 3,170 | ||||||||||
Price realized ($/oz) |
342 | 326 | 347 | ||||||||||
London spot price ($/oz) |
310 | 271 | 279 | ||||||||||
Copper |
|||||||||||||
Consolidated production (000s lbs) |
427,477 | 417,160 | 430,210 | ||||||||||
Cash cost ($/lb) |
0.46 | 0.45 | 0.45 | ||||||||||
Total cost ($/lb) |
0.60 | 0.60 | 0.64 | ||||||||||
Consolidated sales (000s lbs) |
431,162 | 420,338 | 436,645 | ||||||||||
Price realized ($/lb) |
0.71 | 0.74 | 0.82 | ||||||||||
London spot price ($/lb) |
0.71 | 0.72 | 0.82 | ||||||||||
(i) Placer Dome’s share of gold production, cash and total production costs were 2,823,000 ozs, $180/oz and $237/oz in 2002, 2,756,000 ozs, $184/oz. and $242/oz in 2001, and 2,984,000 ozs, $177/oz and $236 /oz in 2000.
-B-2-
1. OVERVIEW
| • | Consolidated net earnings under Canadian GAAP for 2002 were $119 million or $0.30 per share compared with a loss of $188 million or $0.62 per share in 2001 and a loss of $347 million or $1.10 per share in 2000. | |
| • | On October 22, 2002, Placer Dome announced that it had acquired a controlling interest of 56% of the outstanding shares of AurionGold Limited (“AurionGold”). Accordingly, the results of operations of AurionGold have been included in the accompanying financial statements from October 31, 2002 forward. At year end, this interest had increased to 100% of AurionGold. The acquisition increases Placer Dome’s ownership in the Granny Smith and Porgera gold mines to 100% and 75% from 60% and 50% respectively, includes the Paddington and Kundana mills and related gold mines (collectively “Kalgoorlie West”) as well as the Kanowna Belle and Henty gold mines in Australia and provides significant land positions within the prospective Kalgoorlie and Laverton regions of Western Australia. It will add approximately 1 million ounces of gold to Placer Dome’s annual production. Placer Dome also expects to realize synergies, over time, of $25 million, after-tax, through rationalization of corporate overhead and exploration programs, reductions in procurement costs, financing costs and income taxes and other operational benefits. With the completion of the acquisition, Placer Dome is pressing ahead with the integration including the closing of now redundant offices. | |
| • | Effective July 1, 2002, Placer Dome and Kinross Gold Corporation (“Kinross”) formed the Porcupine Joint Venture which combined the operations of the Dome mine and mill, with Kinross’ Hoyle Pond, Pamour and Nighthawk Lakes mines as well as the Kinross Bell Creek mill. Placer Dome owns a 51% interest in and is the operator of the joint venture, while Kinross owns the remaining 49% interest. | |
| • | In 2002, Placer Dome’s net earnings were impacted by an unrealized non-hedge derivative loss of $12 million primarily related to the AurionGold precious metal program. In 2000, net earnings included a $49 million gain on the sale of Zaldivar water rights. | |
| • | In 2002, Placer Dome did not record any write-downs. In 2001 it recorded write-downs totalling $331 million, mostly comprised of $320 million related to the Getchell project after extensive analysis failed to identify a mine plan that would recover the carrying value of the asset. In 2000, the company recorded write-downs totalling $634 million relating to Getchell, Las Cristinas, Osborne, Porgera, La Coipa and Bald Mountain. | |
| • | Cash flow from operations was $342 million, 6% lower than 2001 and 2000. The Corporation ended the year with $546 million in cash and short-term investments and $686 million in total debt outstanding (including $137 million as a result of the AurionGold acquisition), compared with $440 million and $585 million, respectively, at the end of 2001. | |
| • | Under Placer Dome’s gold sales program, the Corporation realized an average price of $342 per ounce for gold, a premium of $32 per ounce over the average spot price and contributing $86 million to revenue. During 2002, excluding the impact of the AurionGold acquisition, Placer Dome successfully met its goal of reducing its ounces committed under its hedge program to 6.9 million ounces. At December 31, 2002, including the effect of the AurionGold acquisition, Placer Dome had maximum committed ounces of 12.6 million ounces under its hedge program. | |
| • | Placer Dome’s share of gold production in 2002 was 2,823,075 ounces, including 217,694 ounces from the AurionGold properties. Consolidated gold production increased by 1% from 2001 levels due to the AurionGold acquisition and increased production at a number of operations, most notably at Granny Smith due to commencement of production at the higher grade Wallaby deposit in the fourth quarter of 2001 and at Bald Mountain as a result of increased heap leach recoveries. This was mostly offset by the closure of the Kidston mine in 2001, reduced production from Golden Sunlight as it approaches the end of its mine life, lower production due to lower grades at Cortez and a lower share of production from the Dome mine due to the formation of the Porcupine Joint Venture with Kinross. Placer Dome’s share of unit cash cost decreased by 2% to $180 per ounce. Copper production increased by 2% compared with the prior year due to higher recoveries at the Zaldivar Mine. | |
| • | Placer Dome’s proven and probable mineral reserves as of December 31, 2002 increased by 19% over 2001 levels to 52.9 million ounces due primarily to the inclusion of reserves from the AurionGold transaction and an increase in the long term gold price assumption from $275/oz. to $300/oz. Proven and probable copper reserves decreased by 18% due to depletion and the lowering of the long term copper price assumption from $0.90/lb. to $0.85/lb. | |
| • | Looking ahead, Placer Dome’s share of gold and copper production in 2003 is targeted at approximately 3.5 million ounces and 400 million pounds, respectively. Cash and total production costs for gold are estimated to be around $195 |
-B-3-
| and $260 per ounce, respectively. Amortization of the fair value allocation of the AurionGold purchase price is responsible for $11 of the forecast $24 per ounce increase in total production costs from 2002. |
Quarterly Results
| Quarters Ended (i) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| (unaudited) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Years Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||
| March 31 | June 30 | Sept. 30 | Dec. 31 | Dec. 31 | |||||||||||||||||
2002 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Sales |
$ | 315 | $ | 287 | $ | 287 | $ | 370 | $ | 1,259 | |||||||||||
Mine operating earnings |
93 | 72 | 63 | 78 | 306 | ||||||||||||||||
Operating earnings |
69 | 40 | 32 | 18 | 159 | ||||||||||||||||
Net earnings (loss) |
47 | 38 | 33 | 1 | 119 | ||||||||||||||||
Net earnings (loss) per common share |
0.13 | 0.11 | 0.08 | — | 0.30 | ||||||||||||||||
2001 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Sales |
$ | 351 | $ | 311 | $ | 300 | $ | 304 | $ | 1,266 | |||||||||||
Mine operating earnings |
80 | 73 | 72 | 61 | 286 | ||||||||||||||||
Operating earnings (loss) |
52 | 38 | (280 | ) | 4 | (186 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Net earnings (loss) |
32 | 22 | (250 | ) | 8 | (188 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Net earnings (loss) per common share |
0.09 | 0.05 | (0.77 | ) | 0.01 | (0.62 | ) | ||||||||||||||
(i) During the fourth quarter of 2002, Placer Dome changed its accounting policy with respect to depreciation and depletion of property, plant and equipment at certain mining operations to exclude future estimated mining and development costs. Accordingly the results for the first three quarters of 2002 and all of 2001 have been restated.
Critical Accounting Policies
Placer Dome’s accounting policies are described in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. Management considers the following policies to be the most critical in understanding the judgments that are involved in preparing Placer Dome’s consolidated financial statements and the uncertainties that could impact its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Use of Estimates
The attached consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with Canadian GAAP, which requires management to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates and assumptions; however, actual amounts could differ from those based on estimates and assumptions.
Property, Plant and Equipment / Exploration and Development
In accordance with its accounting policies in these areas, Placer Dome capitalizes costs incurred on properties after it has been established that a mineral deposit is commercially mineable and a decision has been made to formulate a mining plan. Upon commencement of production, capitalized costs for assets in use are subject to depreciation and depletion over their estimated economic lives.
Mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates are imprecise and depend partly on statistical inferences drawn from drilling and other data, which may prove to be unreliable. Future production could differ dramatically from mineral reserve estimates for the following reasons:
| • | mineralization or formation could be different from those predicted by drilling, sampling and similar examinations; | |
| • | the grade of mineral reserves may vary significantly from time to time and there can be no assurance that any particular level of gold may be recovered from the mineral reserves; | |
| • | declines in the market price of gold may render the mining of some or all of Placer Dome’s mineral reserves uneconomic; and | |
| • | increases in operating mining, processing and reclamation costs could adversely affect the economic viability of mineral reserves. |
-B-4-
Any of these factors may require Placer Dome to reduce its mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates, change its production estimates or increase its costs. Changes in reserve quantities would cause corresponding changes in amortization expense in periods subsequent to the reserve revision, and could result in impairment of the carrying amount of property, plant and equipment.
Derivatives and Hedging Activities
Placer Dome treats gold and silver forward contracts and cap agreements as hedges. Accordingly, gains and losses on these instruments are recognized in sales revenue on the forward date identified at the contract inception. Had Placer Dome not made this election, the instruments would have been recorded on the balance sheet as either assets or liabilities with measurement at fair value. Changes in the fair value of the instruments would have been recorded each period in current earnings and could have resulted in increased volatility in earnings.
-B-5-
2. FINANCIAL RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
| PRODUCTION AND OPERATING SUMMARY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For the year ended December 31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Placer Dome's Share | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Placer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mine | Dome's | Production | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| share | Mine | Millfeed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (% of mine | operating | (000s | Grade | Recovery | (ozs, | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| production) | earnings (1) | tonnes) | (g/t,%) | (%) | 000s lbs) | change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GOLD |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canada |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campbell |
100% | 2002 | $ | 12 | 357 | 17.5 | 96.1 | 193,150 | +8 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | $ | (3 | ) | 438 | 13.3 | 94.8 | 178,139 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dome (3) |
100% | 2002 | (3 | ) | 1,673 | 2.4 | 91.8 | 118,663 | -61 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 1 | 4,122 | 2.6 | 89.3 | 302,795 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Musselwhite |
68% | 2002 | 1 | 787 | 5.9 | 95.3 | 142,579 | -10 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 1 | 878 | 5.9 | 95.3 | 158,988 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porcupine (3) |
51% | 2002 | 2 | 1,095 | 3.2 | 91.6 | 101,919 | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
United States |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bald Mountain |
100% | 2002 | 19 | 5,265 | 1.1 | 91.3 | 172,328 | +59 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | (10 | ) | 3,777 | 1.5 | 65.3 | 108,393 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cortez (4) |
60% | 2002 | 86 | 2,217 | 7.5 | 88.6 | 649,006 | -9 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 71 | 2,153 | 9.0 | 90.7 | 712,850 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Getchell (5) |
100% | 2002 | 2 | — | — | — | 54,806 | n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | — | — | — | — | 3,111 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Golden Sunlight |
100% | 2002 | — | 2,271 | 2.0 | 78.4 | 111,806 | -43 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 5 | 2,338 | 3.2 | 80.9 | 195,507 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Australia |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Henty (7) |
100% | 2002 | (1 | ) | 43 | 7.4 | 93.7 | 7,963 | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Smith (7) |
100%/60% | 2002 | 46 | 2,505 | 4.3 | 92.5 | 326,894 | +57 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 20 | 2,180 | 3.3 | 91.1 | 208,306 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kalgoorlie (7) |
100% | 2002 | (2 | ) | 516 | 4.0 | 93.9 | 61,841 | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kanowna Belle (7) |
100% | 2002 | 1 | 326 | 5.7 | 90.1 | 69,337 | n/a | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kidston (8) |
70% | 2001 | 6 | 2,392 | 1.4 | 86.0 | 103,403 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Osborne (9) |
100% | 2002 | D | 1,461 | 1.0 | 79.9 | 38,149 | -9 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | D | 1,487 | 1.1 | 80.2 | 41,706 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Papua New Guinea |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Misima (6) |
80% | 2002 | 14 | 4,757 | 0.9 | 88.4 | 115,638 | -13 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 8 | 4,590 | 1.0 | 89.1 | 133,282 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porgera (7) |
75%/50% | 2002 | (1 | ) | 2,437 | 5.2 | 84.7 | 368,769 | -3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | (6 | ) | 2,881 | 4.9 | 81.6 | 380,311 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
La Coipa (10) |
50% | 2002 | 1 | 3,172 | 1.1 | 84.7 | 95,989 | +64 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | (4 | ) | 3,174 | 0.7 | 82.4 | 58,425 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
South Africa |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
South Deep |
50% | 2002 | 13 | 889 | 7.1 | 96.4 | 194,238 | +14 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 7 | 678 | 8.1 | 97.2 | 171,126 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currency hedging |
2002 | (5 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | (18 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metals hedging revenue |
2002 | 86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 159 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL GOLD (2) |
2002 | 271 | 2,823,075 | +2 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | $ | 237 | 2,756,342 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COPPER |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Osborne (8) |
100% | 2002 | 4 | 1,461 | 3.3 | 96.0 | 101,652 | -6 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 2 | 1,487 | 3.5 | 95.6 | 108,496 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zaldívar |
100% | 2002 | 42 | 15,961 | 1.0 | 84.4 | 325,825 | +6 | % | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 50 | 16,458 | 1.2 | 69.6 | 308,664 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currency hedging |
2002 | (3 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metals hedging revenue |
2002 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL COPPER |
2002 | $ | 44 | 427,477 | +2 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | $ | 59 | 417,160 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
2002 | (9 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | (10 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONSOLIDATED MINE |
2002 | $ | 306 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OPERATING EARNINGS (1) |
2001 | $ | 286 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Additional columns below]
[Continued from above table, first column(s) repeated]
| PRODUCTION AND OPERATING SUMMARY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| For the year ended December 31 | Estimated annual 2003 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Placer Dome's Share | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Placer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mine | Dome's | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| share | Cost per unit (2) | Production | Cost per unit (2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (% of mine | ($/oz, $/lb) | (ozs, | ($/oz, $/lb) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| production) | Cash | Total | 000s lbs) | Cash | Total | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GOLD |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canada |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campbell |
100% | 2002 | 172 | 244 | 193,000 | 181 | 253 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 208 | 287 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dome (3) |
100% | 2002 | 245 | 328 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 208 | 268 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Musselwhite |
68% | 2002 | 219 | 292 | 161,000 | 199 | 272 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 191 | 265 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porcupine (3) |
51% | 2002 | 230 | 285 | 226,000 | 209 | 269 | |||||||||||||||||||||
United States |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bald Mountain |
100% | 2002 | 152 | 203 | 97,000 | 172 | 225 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 280 | 365 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cortez (4) |
60% | 2002 | 129 | 168 | 594,000 | 141 | 192 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 131 | 166 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Getchell (5) |
100% | 2002 | 107 | 179 | 89,000 | 172 | 192 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Golden Sunlight |
100% | 2002 | 279 | 305 | 143,000 | 141 | 158 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 123 | 249 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Australia |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Henty (7) |
100% | 2002 | 323 | 414 | 95,000 | 183 | 293 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Smith (7) |
100%/60% | 2002 | 124 | 161 | 283,000 | 196 | 271 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 170 | 181 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kalgoorlie (7) |
100% | 2002 | 201 | 330 | 381,000 | 230 | 300 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Kanowna Belle (7) |
100% | 2002 | 147 | 269 | 242,000 | 172 | 285 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Kidston (8) |
70% | 2001 | 166 | 217 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Osborne (9) |
100% | 2002 | D | D | 37,000 | D | D | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | D | D | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Papua New Guinea |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Misima (6) |
80% | 2002 | 196 | 213 | 109,000 | 213 | 226 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 186 | 218 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porgera (7) |
75%/50% | 2002 | 216 | 298 | 571,000 | 239 | 329 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 207 | 285 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chile |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
La Coipa (10) |
50% | 2002 | 224 | 306 | 85,000 | 215 | 298 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 212 | 297 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
South Africa |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
South Deep |
50% | 2002 | 204 | 241 | 233,000 | 206 | 243 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 196 | 235 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currency hedging |
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metals hedging revenue |
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL GOLD (2) |
2002 | 180 | 237 | 3,539,000 | 194 | 261 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 184 | 242 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COPPER |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Osborne (8) |
100% | 2002 | 0.47 | 0.63 | 85,000 | 0.55 | 0.73 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 0.50 | 0.71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zaldívar |
100% | 2002 | 0.45 | 0.59 | 311,400 | 0.48 | 0.63 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 0.43 | 0.56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Currency hedging |
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metals hedging revenue |
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL COPPER |
2002 | 0.46 | 0.60 | 396,400 | 0.50 | 0.65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | 0.45 | 0.60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONSOLIDATED MINE |
2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OPERATING EARNINGS (1) |
2001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes: Refer to page B-30 of this report for the notes to the Production and Operating summary. Effective January 1, 2002, Placer Dome reclassified amortization of deferred stripping costs from non-cash to cash cost in accordance with the Gold Institute’s revised disclosure standard. During the fourth quarter of 2002, Placer Dome changed its accounting policy, retroactive to January 1, 2002, with respect to depreciation and depletion of property, plant and equipment at certain mining operations to exclude future estimated mining and development costs. This change was applied retroactively with restatement of 2001 comparative figures. The impact of the change in 2001 was to decrease mine operating earnings by $8 million.
-B-6-
2002 compared with 2001
Mine operating earnings were $306 million in 2002, 7% higher than 2001 due primarily to more positive contributions from gold partially offset by lower contribution from copper.
Gold operating earnings increased by 14% in 2002 to $271 million compared with 2001 due primarily to a higher realized price per ounce. Gold sales revenue was $945 million in 2002 compared with $941 million in the prior year reflecting a 4% decline in sales volume and a $16 per ounce increase in the average realized price. Consolidated gold production increased by 1% from 2001 levels due to the AurionGold acquisition and increased production at a number of operations, most notably at Granny Smith due to commencement of production at the higher grade Wallaby deposit in the fourth quarter of 2001 and at Bald Mountain as a result of increased heap leach recoveries. This was mostly offset by the closure of the Kidston mine in 2001, reduced production from Golden Sunlight as it approaches the end of its mine life, lower production due to lower grades at Cortez and a lower share of production from the Dome mine due to the formation of the Porcupine Joint Venture with Kinross. Consolidated cash and total production costs per ounce for the year were $180 and $237, respectively, compared with $184 and $242, respectively, in 2001.
Copper operating earnings of $44 million in 2002 were 25% lower than 2001 due primarily to a 4% lower realized price per pound. Copper sales revenue was $289 million compared with $291 million in 2001, reflecting the decrease in the average realized price partially offset by a 3% increase in sales volume. Consolidated copper production was 427.5 million pounds (193,955 tonnes), up marginally from last year due to higher production from the Zaldívar Mine. Consolidated cash and total production costs per pound of copper were $0.46 and $0.60, respectively, compared with $0.45 and $0.60, respectively, in 2001. The higher costs experienced at the Zaldívar Mine were offset by lower costs at the Osborne Mine.
Canada
| • | Following completion of the revised mine plan in October 2001, production at Campbell Mine in 2002 increased 8% compared with prior year due to a 32% increase in grades and a slight increase in recoveries, partially offset by an 18% decrease in throughput. Throughput was reduced to permit an increase in development work necessary to provide adequate flexibility to the operation. Ongoing mine development and continued definition of the DC Zone resulted in probable mineral reserve additions of 0.3 million ounces. | |
| Development of the DC Zone will be initiated in 2003. The development program calls for an investment of $17 million over three years of which approximately $11 million will be spent in 2003. The DC Zone is a new mining area within the Campbell mine and lies between 5500 and 6300 feet below surface, accessed by the bottom two levels of the Reid shaft. This investment will provide access to over 300,000 ounces of mineral resources and allow exploration in surrounding areas. | ||
| The DC Zone development is the initial success resulting from the ability to explore at depth with the completion of the Reid shaft. Over the next 5 years Campbell expects to average 200,000 ounces of production at cash costs averaging $165/oz. | ||
| • | Effective July 1, 2002, Placer Dome (CLA) Limited (“PDCLA”) and Kinross Gold Corporation (“Kinross”) formed the Porcupine Joint Venture which combined the operations of the Dome mine and mill with Kinross’ Hoyle Pond, Pamour and Nighthawk Lakes mines as well as the Bell Creek mill. The objective is to increase value by combining Dome’s modern operations with Kinross’ large and highly prospective land package that is expected to extend the productive life of the Dome facilities. PDCLA owns a 51% interest in and is the operator of the joint venture. The immediate focus will be on optimizing production from the combined operations. At the Dome Mine, production in the first six months of 2002 was 22% lower than the prior year period due to mechanical problems with the crushing and conveying circuit and lower grades. In the second half of 2002, the Porcupine Joint Venture contributed 101,919 ounces, which is 32% below Dome Mine’s contribution in the same prior year period. The contribution to Placer Dome’s annual production from the Dome Mine and the Porcupine Joint Venture for 2002 was 222,582 ounces, 27% below that of Dome Mine in 2001. The operations, as synergistic benefits are realized, are expected to continue the trend of increased production in the fourth quarter of 2002 throughout 2003 with Placer Dome’s share of production forecast to be 226,000 ounces with cash and total unit operating costs of $209 and $269 respectively. With mining of the Dome underground scheduled to be completed in early 2004, the focus will be to add significant mineral reserves and mineral resources through an aggressive underground and surface exploration program. The Pamour pit is the most prospective target at this time as the feasibility study was completed in 2002 adding 0.8 million ounces of mineral reserves (0.1 million ounces proven and 0.7 million ounces probable). This study will be expanded in 2003. |
-B-7-
| • | At the Musselwhite Mine, Placer Dome’s share of gold production in 2002 was 10% lower than 2001, primarily due to unplanned production interruptions and delays in commissioning of the new underground crusher and conveyor system. The conveyor system is expected to meet design capacity in 2003. | |
| Cash costs were higher due to these factors and increased development work, but are expected to improve to $199/oz in 2003 as production returns to 2001 levels of 160,000 ounces to Placer Dome’s account. A decrease in grades is offset by higher throughput resulting from the completion of the conveyor system. As a result of a re-negotiation with the local First Nations communities completed in 2002, Musselwhite is no longer subject to any limit on daily mill throughput. | ||
| Exploration efforts continue on increasing the mineral resource base of the mine within existing known areas of mineralization and exploiting the position of the mine as the only processing infrastructure within a 250 kilometre radius. |
United States
| • | Placer Dome’s share of production from the Cortez Mine in 2002 was 9% lower than 2001 due primarily to lower grade ore for CIL processing and carbonaceous ore sales which ceased in July 2002 but restarted in November 2002. New terms for carbonaceous ore sales, which include the processing of previously uneconomic ore types, were renegotiated with Barrick Gold resulting in the resumption of sales. Unit cash and total production costs in 2002 were essentially in line with those of 2001. | |
| Construction of the South Area Heap Leach pad was completed during 2002 with the pad being commissioned in July. The Cortez joint venture is currently undergoing permitting for the expansion of the South Pipeline deposit, which includes stages 8 and 9, as well as the Crossroads and Gap orebodies. Permitting is expected to be completed in 2004. Permitting for the Pediment deposit, which hosts a proven and probable mineral reserve of 1.2 million ounces, is also underway. | ||
| Cortez has completed an engineering pre-feasibility study comparing the viability of treating carbonaceous, preg-robbing ore from the Pipeline / South Pipeline deposit using two new competing processes. One method uses a modified cyanide-based leaching process and the other uses a thiosulfate-based heap leaching process. A full feasibility study is slated for late 2003 after completion of the current work program. The selected alternative will reduce Cortez’ need to sell carbonaceous ore, thereby reducing costs and increasing the potential to add mineral reserves. Gold production in 2003 is expected to be 8% lower than 2002 due to lower grades and throughput somewhat offset by higher heap leach production. Cash and total production costs per ounce are expected to increase by 9% and increase by 14% respectively from 2002 levels primarily due to lower production. | ||
| In 2003 the mine has an exploration budget of $12 million that will focus on further delineation of known deposits and several prospective areas within the land package, including the Cortez and Horse Canyon windows. At the Hilltop property, which hosts refractory and oxide material, further engineering and metallurgical testing will be conducted in 2003. | ||
| • | At the Bald Mountain Mine, production in 2002 was 59% higher than 2001 due to improvements in leach pad solution chemistry leading to higher recovery and increased carbon column capacity. Gold production in 2003 is expected to decrease by 43% as mining is completed in July but production continues supplemented by the processing of stockpiles. The heap leach pads are expected to produce gold through 2008. A number of areas, including Stage 7 of the Top Pit are being evaluated to identify economic extensions to the life of the mine. | |
| • | With Golden Sunlight approaching the end of its mine life, gold production in 2002 was 43% lower than 2001. Milling of stockpiled ore was essentially completed in September 2002 when the pit ramp went into production. In the first quarter of 2002 a proposal for underground mining was approved and the project has been contributing ore since June. Golden Sunlight is expected to source ore from the ramp until May 2003 after which ore will be sourced from underground mining. The mine and mill are scheduled to close in September, 2003. | |
| The mine has been conducting concurrent reclamation over the past several years and has completed reclamation of the first tailings impoundment and west waste rock dump at a cost of $12 million, less than half of the amount currently secured by bond. The completed reclamation covers an area of 1,030 acres, or nearly half of the total area to be reclaimed. The mine continues to work closely with the local community to identify the best alternatives for use of the property post-closure. |
-B-8-
| Gold production in 2003 is expected to be 28% higher than 2002 at greater than 140,000 ounces with cash costs below $150/oz driven by higher grades from the ramp and underground. | ||
| • | In 2002, ongoing work at the Getchell Mine has been encouraging. During 2002, the operation had 57 employees who worked to further define the potential to resume mining the Getchell and Turquoise Ridge orebodies. This resulted in Placer Dome reporting proven and probable mineral reserves of 2.7 million ounces at year end. In September, a test-mining program at Turquoise Ridge and the high-grade N Zone was initiated to determine the viability of sustained production of 300,000 ounces per year from the mine, this work will continue through all of 2003. During the fourth quarter of 2002, the mine evaluated the economic potential of contract mining of the Getchell orebody resulting in a decision to commence contract mining in January 2003. In 2002, production from pre-existing stockpiles totalled 54,806 ounces which were processed at Newmont’s Twin Creeks facility under the current contract that runs through June 2004. Production in 2003 from these initiatives is anticipated to be approximately 89,000 ounces. |
Australia and Papua New Guinea
| • | At the Porgera Mine, Placer Dome’s share of production in 2002 was 3% below 2001 levels due to production interruptions in the third quarter of 2002 partially offset by higher grades and two months of production from the additional 25% interest in Porgera acquired in the AurionGold transaction. Electrical power was only available intermittently from July 16, 2002 until October 12, 2002 due to several acts of vandalism that interrupted the power supply. The open pit operations were suspended from August 27, 2002 until October 12, 2002. Cash and total costs per ounce at $216 and $298 (excluding $7 million of costs related to the production interruption) respectively, are higher than 2001 due to lower production as well as amortization of the fair value allocation to the additional 25% interest from the AurionGold acquisition. | |
| Underground mining, which was suspended in 1997, recommenced in the fourth quarter of the year. A probable underground mineral reserve of 0.6 million ounces is reported for Porgera. Greater understanding of the costs of underground mining has lead to a review of the underground mineral resource to evaluate a more appropriate cut-off grade. A lower cut-off grade would substantially increase continuity of the underground mineral resource. | ||
| In 2003, Placer Dome’s share of gold production is expected to be 571,000 ounces, a 55% increase over 2002 due to higher throughput and grades and ownership of the additional 25% interest for the full year. Unit cash and total operating costs are expected to increase by approximately 10% in 2003 from 2002 due to an increase in the percentage of more costly underground feed in 2003 and the amortization of the fair value allocation from the AurionGold acquisition. | ||
| • | At the Granny Smith Mine, Placer Dome’s share of production in 2002 was 326,894 ounces (or 57%) higher than 2001 due to the commencement of production from the higher grade Wallaby deposit in the fourth quarter of 2001 and two months of production from the additional 40% interest in Granny Smith acquired in the AurionGold transaction. Both the Sunrise and Jubilee pits were depleted during the first quarter of 2002. | |
| In 2003, production is expected to be around 283,000 ounces, a 13% decrease from 2002 due to by decreased grades, production and recovery due to harder ore as the Wallaby pit deepens partially offset by ownership of the additional 40% interest for the full year. Unit cash and total operating costs are expected to increase by approximately 58% and 68% respectively in 2003 due to lower gold production and higher depreciation associated with the fair value allocation of the 40% interest from the AurionGold acquisition. | ||
| • | At the Osborne Mine, copper and gold production in 2002 were 101.7 million pounds and 38,149 ounces respectively, a decrease of 6% and 9% from 2001 levels due primarily to lower grades. Cash and total cost per pound of copper (Osborne produces copper concentrate with gold as a by-product) were $0.47 and $0.63 respectively a 6% and 7% decrease from 2001 due to cost control efforts. Production for 2003 is expected to be approximately 85 million pounds of copper and 37,000 ounces of gold with cash and total costs per pound of $0.55 and $0.73 respectively. The anticipated decrease in copper production and corresponding increase in unit costs is due to lower copper grades. | |
| • | Mining was completed at the Misima Mine on May 26, 2001 and production for the remainder of 2001 and all of 2002 was from the processing of stockpiled ore. Stockpile milling is anticipated to continue into 2004. Production in 2002 was lower than 2001 due to higher throughput more than offset by lower grade. Production for 2003 is expected to be approximately 6% below 2002 levels due to decreased throughput. | |
| • | As a result of the AurionGold acquisition, in addition to the interests discussed above, Placer Dome acquired the Paddington and Kundana mills and related mines (collectively “Kalgoorlie West”), and the Kanowna Belle and |
-B-9-
| Henty mines effective October 31, 2002. Placer Dome’s share of production from these mines for the final two months of 2002 were 61,841 ounces from Kalgoorlie West, 69,337 ounces from Kanowna Belle and 7,963 ounces from Henty. | ||
| In December 2002, Kanowna Belle suffered a slide along a known fault that affected its pit ramp. Impact on production was minimal and operations returned to normal after access to a portal was restored. Remediation of the pit ramp will be completed in the first quarter of 2003 at a cost of $1 million. | ||
| Forecast production for 2003 for the mines are approximately 381,000 ounces from Kalgoorlie West, 242,000 ounces from Kanowna Belle and 95,000 ounces from Henty at cash costs of $230, $172 and $183 per ounce respectively. As a result of higher depreciation associated with the fair value allocation from the AurionGold acquisition, total unit costs for each of these mines will be approximately $300 per ounce for 2003. The 2003 production forecast and unit cost estimates are based on the mining plans developed by AurionGold prior to its acquisition by Placer Dome and are potentially subject to revision when Placer Dome completes its own strategic business plan for each of the sites. |
South Africa
| • | At the South Deep Mine, Placer Dome’s share of production for 2002 was 14% higher than the prior year due to higher throughput, partially offset by lower grades. Unit cash and total production costs, at $204 and $241 per ounce, respectively, were marginally higher compared with the prior year period, as the costs related to higher throughput and local inflation were partially offset by increased production and the favourable impact of a weakening rand relative to the U.S. dollar, (which, in yearly average terms, declined in value by about 22% from 2001 to 2002). | |
| • | In 2002, construction activity was focused on enhancing underground haulages, ventilation and service infrastructure to accommodate rising production volumes. During the first half of the year, the main shaft was completed to its ultimate depth of 2,990 metres and the new 7,350 tonnes per day mill was commissioned with its first gold poured in June. Equipping of the main shaft is in progress and commissioning is planned for late 2003, with full operation by 2004. The vent shaft is also scheduled for commissioning in the first quarter of 2004. The final year of significant capital expenditures on the new infrastructure will be 2003 as the operation invests $48 million for Placer Dome’s share of capital less any internal cash flow generated by the operation. | |
| • | Placer Dome expects gold production (100%) will gradually ramp up from 460,000 ounces per year in 2003 to 700,000 ounces per year by 2007, averaging 600,000 ounces per year over this five-year period. Beyond 2007, production is expected to exceed 750,000 ounces per year. | |
| • | South Deep success in transitioning to a mechanized operation continues with greater than 50% of production coming from mechanized stopes in the fourth quarter of 2003. One new mechanized fleet will be commissioned in 2003 taking the total fleets in operation to 5. For 2003 greater than 50% of production will be derived from mechanized areas. | |
| • | Over the next five years, Placer Dome expects cash and total costs to average about $145 and $180 per ounce, respectively. Longer term, after full production is achieved, cash and total costs are expected to average about $135 and $175 per ounce, respectively. These unit costs are based on a long term rand to US dollar exchange rate of 11:1, any change from which would have an impact on the unit costs. At December 31, 2002 this exchange rate was approximately 8.6:1. | |
| • | On October 10, 2002, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No. 28, 2002 (the “Act”) was promulgated into law by publication in the South African Government Gazette. The Act will come into operation on a date fixed by the President by proclamation. It is expected that commencement of the Act will not be proclaimed until the related instruments (including regulations, and the Charter and money bill) have been introduced, finalized and brought into operation. (See the Government regulations and changes in legislation heading of the Risks and Uncertainties section of this Management Discussion and Analysis for more information.) | |
| At present, the financial implications of various pieces of the new legislation cannot be assessed, therefore Placer Dome is not in a position to quantify either the increase in costs or the other impacts of the proposed royalty and Charter targets on operations at South Deep. Depending on the final provisions of the new legislation, there is a possibility of a material increase in costs to the operations at South Deep. Placer Dome will continue to monitor closely the progress of the Act and related instruments and assess their impact on current operations and future development at South Deep. |
Chile
| • | At the Zaldívar Mine, copper production in 2002 increased by 6% compared with 2001 due to higher recoveries. In 2003, production is targeted at 311 million pounds (141,200 tonnes), 4% lower than 2002 due primarily to lower grade |
-B-10-
| ore budgeted for the year. Cash and total costs are expected to rise to $0.48 and $0.63 per pound, respectively, reflecting lower production and higher consumables costs. | ||
| • | At the La Coipa Mine, Placer Dome’s share of gold production in 2002 was 95,989 ounces, an increase of 64% compared with 2001 due to higher grades. Silver production in 2002 was 3,595,000 ounces compared to 6,060,000 in 2001, with the decrease being primarily due to the mining of lower grade silver ore in 2002. Cash and total cost per equivalent ounce of gold (calculated using a ratio of the silver market price to gold market price) increased to $224 and $306 from $212 and $297 respectively in 2001 due to the fact that the higher gold grades were more than offset by the lower silver grades. Gold production in 2003 is expected to decrease by 10% from 2002 levels while silver production is expected to increase by 11% to 4,000,000 ounces due to changing grades and recoveries for each metal. Cash cost per equivalent ounce is expected to decrease by 4% from 2002 levels due to an increase in capitalized development work. |
2001 compared with 2000
Mine operating earnings were $286 million in 2001, 32% lower than 2000 due primarily to lower contribution from gold.
Gold operating earnings declined by 30% in 2001 to $237 million compared with 2000 due primarily to a 13% decline in sales revenue. Gold sales revenue was $941 million in 2001 compared with $1,081 million in the prior year reflecting a 7% decline in sales volume and a $20 per ounce decrease in the average realized price. Consolidated gold production declined by 9% to 2,834,000 ounces compared with the prior year with 10 of the twelve consolidated gold mines experiencing lower production. Consolidated cash and total production costs per ounce for the year were $184 and $242, respectively, compared with $181 and $240, respectively, in 2000. Despite the impact of lower production, unit cash costs in 2001 were only slightly higher than last year due primarily to the favourable impact of weaker local currencies against the U.S. dollar, as well as cost cutting and productivity improvements at a number of the operations. For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2001, the Canadian, Australian, Papua New Guinean, Chilean and South African currencies weakened by 6%, 9%, 24%, 15% and 58%, respectively relative to the U.S. dollar.
Copper operating earnings of $59 million in 2001 were 28% lower than 2000 with a 6% improvement in unit total production costs being more than offset by a 15% decline in sales revenue. Copper sales revenue was $291 million compared with $343 million in 2000, reflecting declines of 4% in sales volume and 10% in the average realized price. Consolidated copper production was 417.2 million pounds (189,220 tonnes), 3% down from last year due to lower production from the Zaldívar Mine. Consolidated cash and total production costs per pound of copper were $0.45 and $0.60, respectively, compared with $0.45 and $0.64, respectively, in 2000. The $0.04 per pound decline in unit total production costs in 2001 reflects lower depreciation charges resulting from the 2000 year-end mineral reserve increase at the Zaldívar Mine and the asset write-down at the Osborne Mine.
Consolidated Gold Production Costs per Ounce
Consolidated cash and total production costs per ounce of gold, in accordance
with the Gold Institute Standard, are as follow:
| 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | ||||||||||
| $ | $ | $ | ||||||||||
Direct mining expenses |
163 | 178 | 176 | |||||||||
Stripping and mine development adjustment |
4 | (1 | ) | (2 | ) | |||||||
Third party smelting, refining and transportation costs |
1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
By-product credits |
(1 | ) | (2 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||
Cash operating costs per ounce |
167 | 176 | 173 | |||||||||
Royalties |
10 | 6 | 5 | |||||||||
Production taxes |
3 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
Total cash costs per ounce |
180 | 184 | 180 | |||||||||
Depreciation |
43 | 46 | 37 | |||||||||
Depletion |
10 | 3 | 14 | |||||||||
Reclamation and mine closure |
4 | 9 | 8 | |||||||||
Total production costs per ounce |
237 | 242 | 239 | |||||||||
-B-11-
Consolidated Gold Production Costs per Ounce
Consolidated cash and total production costs per ounce for gold mine operations
have been derived from amounts included in sales revenues, cost of sales and
depreciation and depletion in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings as
follows:
| (in millions of dollars except production and cost per ounce) | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | |||||||||
Cost of sales related to gold operations |
$ | 530 | $ | 561 | $ | 582 | ||||||
By product credits included in sales revenue |
(4 | ) | (4 | ) | (6 | ) | ||||||
Inventory adjustments |
4 | (17 | ) | 2 | ||||||||
Reclamation costs |
(13 | ) | (26 | ) | (25 | ) | ||||||
Other (i) |
(11 | ) | — | — | ||||||||
Gold production costs |
$ | 506 | $ | 514 | $ | 553 | ||||||
Gold produced (000’s ozs.)(i) |
2,814 | 2,792 | 3,066 | |||||||||
Cash production cost per ounce(ii) |
$ | 180 | $ | 184 | $ | 180 | ||||||
Depreciation and depletion related to gold operations |
$ | 147 | $ | 137 | $ | 156 | ||||||
Reclamation costs related to operations |
13 | 26 | 25 | |||||||||