| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General Estimated losses from contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the contingency and estimated range of loss, if determinable, is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. Operating Segments The Company’s operating and reportable segments are identified in Note 3. Except as noted in this paragraph, all of the Company’s commitments and contingencies specifically described herein are included in Corporate and Other. The Yanacocha matters relate to the South America reportable segment. The Newmont Ghana Gold and Newmont Golden Ridge matters relate to the Africa reportable segment. The Mexico tax matter relates to the North America reportable segment. Environmental Matters Refer to Note 5 for further information regarding reclamation and remediation. Details about two significant matters are discussed below. Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. - 51.35% Newmont Owned In early 2015 and again in June 2017, the Peruvian government agency responsible for certain environmental regulations, the Ministry of the Environment (“MINAM”), issued proposed modifications to water quality criteria for designated beneficial uses which apply to mining companies, including Yanacocha. These criteria modified the in-stream water quality criteria pursuant to which Yanacocha has been designing water treatment processes and infrastructure. In December 2015, MINAM issued the final regulation that modified the water quality standards. These Peruvian regulations allow time to formulate a compliance plan and make any necessary changes to achieve compliance. In February 2017, Yanacocha submitted a modification to its previously approved compliance achievement plan to the Mining Ministry (“MINEM”). The Company did not receive a response or comments to this submission until April 2021 and is now in the process of updating its compliance achievement plan to address these comments. During this interim period, Yanacocha separately submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) modification considering the ongoing operations and the projects to be developed and obtained authorization from MINEM for such projects. This authorization included a deadline for compliance with the modified water quality criteria by January 2024. Consequently, part of the Company response to MINEM will include a request for an extension of time for coming into full compliance with the new regulations. In the event that MINEM does not grant Yanacocha an extension of the previously authorized timeline for, and agree to, the updated compliance achievement plan, fines and penalties relating to non-compliance may result beyond January 2024. The Company currently operates five water treatment plants at Yanacocha that have been and currently meet all currently applicable water discharge requirements. The Company is currently conducting detailed studies to better estimate water management and other closure activities that will ensure water quality and quantity discharge requirements, including the modifications promulgated by MINAM, as referenced above, will be met. This also includes performing a comprehensive update to the Yanacocha reclamation plan to address changes in closure activities and estimated closure costs while preserving optionality for potential future projects at Yanacocha. These ongoing studies, which will extend beyond the current year, were progressed in the third quarter of 2021 as the study team continued to evaluate and revise assumptions and estimated costs of potential changes to the reclamation plan. The potential changes are currently undergoing review and remain subject to revision, therefore, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a change to the reclamation obligation as of September 30, 2021. However, based on the work progressed in the third quarter and the resulting preliminary findings, the Company currently expects to make revisions to the reclamation plan that, should these findings be confirmed, would result in material increases to the cost of water treatment plant construction, water treatment operating costs and other costs associated with the closure plan. In conjunction with the Company’s annual update process for all asset retirement obligations, the Company expects to record an adjustment to the Yanacocha reclamation liability in the fourth quarter of 2021 based on the planned progress of the closure studies. As related activities are progressed, it is expected that the preliminary findings, if confirmed, could result in a material increase in the reclamation obligation at Yanacocha of up to approximately $1.6 billion, primarily related to the upfront construction of water treatment plants and the related annual operating costs assumed over the extended closure period, with a corresponding non-cash charge to reclamation expense related to operations no longer in production. Dawn Mining Company LLC (“Dawn”) - 58.19% Newmont Owned Midnite mine site and Dawn mill site . Dawn previously leased an open pit uranium mine, currently inactive, on the Spokane Indian Reservation in the State of Washington. The mine site is subject to regulation by agencies of the U.S. Department of Interior (the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). As per the Consent Decree approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on January 17, 2012, the following actions were required of Newmont, Dawn, the Department of the Interior and the EPA: (i) Newmont and Dawn would design, construct and implement the cleanup plan selected by the EPA in 2006 for the Midnite mine site; (ii) Newmont and Dawn would reimburse the EPA for its past costs associated with overseeing the work; (iii) the Department of the Interior would contribute a lump sum amount toward past EPA costs and future costs related to the cleanup of the Midnite mine site; (iv) Newmont and Dawn would be responsible for all future EPA oversight costs and Midnite mine site cleanup costs; and (v) Newmont would post a surety bond for work at the site. During 2012, the Department of Interior contributed its share of past EPA costs and future costs related to the cleanup of the Midnite mine site in a lump sum payment of $42, which Newmont classified as restricted assets with interest on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for all periods presented. In 2016, Newmont completed the remedial design process (with the exception of the new water treatment plant (“WTP”), which was awaiting the approval of the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit). Subsequently, the new NPDES permit was received in 2017 and the WTP design commenced in 2018. The EPA is assessing the WTP design. Newmont continues to manage the remediation project during the 2021 construction season. The Dawn mill site is regulated by the Washington Department of Health and is in the process of being closed. Remediation at the Dawn mill site began in 2013. The Tailing Disposal Area 1-4 reclamation earthworks component was completed during 2017 with the embankment erosion protection completed in the second quarter of 2018. The remaining closure activity will consist primarily of addressing groundwater issues and evaporating the remaining balance of process water on site. The remediation liability for the Midnite (Dawn) mine site is approximately $175 at September 30, 2021. Other Legal Matters Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. - 51.35% Newmont Owned Administrative Actions . The Peruvian government agency responsible for environmental evaluation and inspection, Organismo Evaluación y Fiscalización Ambiental (“OEFA”), conducts periodic reviews of the Yanacocha site. From 2011 to the third quarter of 2021, OEFA issued notices of alleged violations of OEFA standards to Yanacocha and Conga relating to past inspections. The water authority that is in charge of supervising the proper water administration has also issued notices of alleged regulatory violations in previous years. The experience with OEFA and the water authority is that in the case of a finding of violation, remedial action is often the outcome rather than a significant fine. The alleged OEFA violations currently active range from zero to 108.11 units and the water authority alleged violations range from zero to 10 units, with each unit having a potential fine equivalent to approximately $.001100 based on current exchange rates, with a total potential fine amount for outstanding matters of $— to $0.13. Yanacocha is responding to all notices of alleged violations, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the agency allegations. Conga Project Constitutional Claim . On October 18, 2012, Marco Antonio Arana Zegarra filed a constitutional claim against the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Yanacocha requesting the Court to order the suspension of the Conga project as well as to declare not applicable the October 27, 2010, directorial resolution approving the Conga project Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”). On October 23, 2012, a Cajamarca judge dismissed the claims based on formal grounds finding that: (i) plaintiffs had not exhausted previous administrative proceedings; (ii) the directorial resolution approving the Conga EIA is valid, and was not challenged when issued in the administrative proceedings; (iii) there was inadequate evidence to conclude that the Conga project is a threat to the constitutional right of living in an adequate environment; and (iv) the directorial resolution approving the Conga project EIA does not guarantee that the Conga project will proceed, so there was no imminent threat to be addressed by the Court. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case. The Civil Court of the Superior Court of Cajamarca confirmed the above mentioned resolution and the plaintiff presented an appeal. On March 13, 2015, the Constitutional Court published its ruling stating that the case should be sent back to the first court with an order to formally admit the case and start the judicial process in order to review the claim and the proofs presented by the plaintiff. Yanacocha has answered the claim. Neither the Company nor Yanacocha can reasonably predict the outcome of this litigation. Yanacocha Tax Dispute. In 2000, Yanacocha paid Buenaventura and Minas Conga S.R.L. a total of $29 to assume their respective contractual positions in mining concession agreements with Chaupiloma Dos de Cajamarca S.M.R.L. The contractual rights allowed Yanacocha the opportunity to conduct exploration on the concessions, but were not a purchase of the concessions. The tax authority alleged that the payments to Buenaventura and Minas Conga S.R.L. were acquisitions of mining concessions requiring the amortization of the amounts under the Peru Mining Law over the life of the mine. Yanacocha expensed the amounts at issue in the initial year since the payments were not for the acquisition of a concession but rather these expenses represented the payment of an intangible and therefore, were amortizable in a single year or proportionally for up to ten years according to Income Tax Law. In 2010, the tax court in Peru ruled in favor of Yanacocha and the tax authority appealed the issue to the judiciary. The first appellate court confirmed the ruling of the tax court in favor of Yanacocha. However, in November 2015, a Superior Court in Peru made an appellate decision overturning the two prior findings in favor of Yanacocha. Yanacocha appealed the Superior Court ruling to the Peru Supreme Court. In January 2019, the Peru Supreme Court issued notice that three judges supported the position of the tax authority and two judges supported the position of Yanacocha. Because four votes are required for a final decision, an additional judge was selected to issue a decision and the parties conducted oral arguments in April 2019. In February 2020, the additional judge ruled in favor of the tax authority, finalizing a decision of the Peru Supreme Court against Yanacocha. As a result of the decision, the company has recognized the amount of $29. However, Yanacocha filed two constitutional actions in 2020 and one additional legal claim in 2021, objecting to potential excessive interest and duplicity of criteria of up to $51, $73.3 and $68.6, respectively. In March 2021, in one of the constitutional actions, Yanacocha’s request for an injunction to suspend the collection of interest was denied. The matter was sent back to the tax authority, which issued a resolution with an update of the total amount due of approximately $80.15. Yanacocha appealed the tax authority’s resolution and, in October 2021, the tax court denied the appeal. As a result, the administrative case went back to SUNAT for collection and the company paid the amount due in October 2021. The company continues to pursue additional legal options and it is not possible to fully predict the outcome of this litigation. Newmont Corporation, as well as Newmont Canada Corporation, and Newmont Canada FN Holdings ULC – 100% Newmont Owned Kirkland Lake Gold Inc. (“Kirkland”) owns certain mining and mineral rights in northeastern Ontario, Canada, referred to here as the Holt-McDermott property, on which it suspended operations in April 2020. A subsidiary of the Company has a retained royalty obligation (“Holt royalty obligation”) to Royal Gold, Inc. (“Royal Gold”) for production on the Holt-McDermott property. In August 2020, the Company and Kirkland signed a Strategic Alliance Agreement (the “Kirkland Agreement”). As part of the Kirkland Agreement, the Company purchased an option (the “Holt option”) for $75 from Kirkland for the mining and mineral rights subject to the Holt royalty obligation. The Company has the right to exercise the Holt option and acquire ownership to the mineral interests subject to the Holt royalty obligation in the event Kirkland intends to resume operations and process material subject to the obligation. Kirkland has the right to assume the Company’s Holt royalty obligation at any time, in which case the Holt option would terminate. On August 16, 2021, International Royalty Corporation (“IRC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal Gold, filed an action in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against Newmont Corporation, Newmont Canada Corporation, Newmont Canada FN Holdings ULC, and Kirkland. IRC alleges the Kirkland Agreement is oppressive to the interests of Royal Gold under the Nova Scotia Companies Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, and that, by entering into the Kirkland Agreement, Newmont breached its contractual obligations to Royal Gold. IRC seeks declaratory relief, and $350 in alleged royalty payments that it claims Newmont expected to pay under the Holt royalty obligation, but for the Kirkland Agreement. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome. NWG Investments Inc. v. Fronteer Gold Inc. In April 2011, Newmont acquired Fronteer Gold Inc. (“Fronteer”). Fronteer acquired NewWest Gold Corporation (“NewWest Gold”) in September 2007. At the time of that acquisition, NWG Investments Inc. (“NWG”) owned approximately 86% of NewWest Gold and an individual named Jacob Safra owned or controlled 100% of NWG. Prior to its acquisition of NewWest Gold, Fronteer entered into a June 2007 lock-up agreement with NWG providing that, among other things, NWG would support Fronteer’s acquisition of NewWest Gold. At that time, Fronteer owned approximately 47% of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. (“Aurora”), which, among other things, had a uranium exploration project in Labrador, Canada. NWG contends that, during the negotiations leading up to the lock-up agreement, Fronteer represented to NWG, among other things, that Aurora would commence uranium mining in Labrador by 2013, that this was a firm date, that Aurora faced no current environmental issues in Labrador and that Aurora’s competitors faced delays in commencing uranium mining. NWG further contends that it entered into the lock-up agreement and agreed to support Fronteer’s acquisition of NewWest Gold in reliance upon these purported representations. On October 11, 2007, less than three weeks after the Fronteer-NewWest Gold transaction closed, a member of the Nunatsiavut Assembly introduced a motion calling for the adoption of a moratorium on uranium mining in Labrador. On April 8, 2008, the Nunatsiavut Assembly adopted a three-year moratorium on uranium mining in Labrador. NWG contends that Fronteer was aware during the negotiations of the NWG/Fronteer lock-up agreement that the Nunatsiavut Assembly planned on adopting this moratorium and that its adoption would preclude Aurora from commencing uranium mining by 2013, but Fronteer nonetheless fraudulently induced NWG to enter into the lock-up agreement. On September 24, 2012, NWG served a summons and complaint on the Company, and then amended the complaint to add Newmont Canada Holdings ULC as a defendant. The complaint also named Fronteer Gold Inc. and Mark O’Dea as defendants. The complaint sought rescission of the merger between Fronteer and NewWest Gold and $750 in damages. In August 2013 the Supreme Court of New York, New York County issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens. Subsequently, NWG filed a notice of appeal of the decision and then a notice of dismissal of the appeal on March 24, 2014. On February 26, 2014, NWG filed a lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Fronteer Gold Inc., Newmont Mining Corporation, Newmont Canada Holdings ULC, Newmont FH B.V. and Mark O’Dea. The Ontario complaint is based upon substantially the same allegations contained in the New York lawsuit with claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. NWG seeks disgorgement of profits since the close of the NWG deal on September 24, 2007 and damages in the amount of C$1,200. Newmont, along with other defendants, served the plaintiff with its statement of defense on October 17, 2014. Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and Newmont Golden Ridge Limited - 100% Newmont Owned On December 24, 2018, two individual plaintiffs, who are members of the Ghana Parliament (“Plaintiffs”), filed a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ghana. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Statement of Plaintiff’s Case outlining the details of the Plaintiff’s case and subsequently served Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (“NGGL”) and Newmont Golden Ridge Limited (“NGRL”) along with the other named defendants, the Attorney General of Ghana, the Minerals Commission of Ghana and 33 other mining companies with interests in Ghana. The Plaintiffs allege that under article 268 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana that the mining company defendants are not entitled to carry out any exploitation of minerals or other natural resources in Ghana, unless their respective transactions, contracts or concessions are ratified or exempted from ratification by the Parliament of Ghana. Newmont’s current mining leases are both ratified by Parliament; NGGL June 13, 2001 mining lease, ratified by Parliament on October 21, 2008, and NGRL January 19, 2010 mining lease; ratified by Parliament on December 3, 2015. The writ alleges that any mineral exploitation prior to Parliament ratification is unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs seek several remedies including: (i) a declaration as to the meaning of constitutional language at issue; (ii) an injunction precluding exploitation of minerals for any mining company without prior Parliament ratification; (iii) a declaration that all revenue as a result of violation of the Constitution shall be accounted for and recovered via cash equivalent; and (iv) an order that the Attorney General and Minerals Commission submit all un-ratified mining leases, undertakings or contracts to Parliament for ratification. Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Goldcorp, Inc. - 100% Newmont Owned Shareholder Action. On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.’s public disclosure concerning the Peñasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario). By a consent order, the latter lawsuit proceeded, and the former action has been stayed. The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who acquired Goldcorp Inc.’s securities in the secondary market during an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016. An amended complaint was filed in the active lawsuit, which removed the individual defendants, and requested leave of the Court to pursue only the statutory cause of action. In July of 2021, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to discontinue the active lawsuit. The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Mexico Tax Matter Tax Reassessment from Mexican Tax Authority . During 2016, the Mexican Tax Authority issued reassessment notices to several of Goldcorp, Inc.’s Mexican subsidiaries. Topics under dispute generally involve transfer pricing, deductibility of mine stripping costs, and gain recognized on certain asset sales. The Company has made significant progress in reaching resolution with the Mexican Tax Authority on these matters. In the second quarter of 2019, a number of issues were settled, resulting in a $96 payment, which was fully accrued in the financial statements. In the first quarter of 2020, further settlement was reached for an immaterial amount, with dialogue continuing in an effort to resolve the outstanding reassessment. Additionally, the Company continues to work through several audits in which observation letters have been received from the Mexican Tax Authority. The outcome of the remaining disputes is not readily determinable but could have a material impact on the Company. The Company believes that its tax positions are valid and intends to vigorously defend its tax filing positions. Other Commitments and Contingencies Newmont is from time to time involved in various legal proceedings related to its business. Except in the above described proceedings, management does not believe that adverse decisions in any pending or threatened proceeding or that amounts that may be required to be paid by reason thereof will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. In connection with our investment in Galore Creek, Newmont will owe NovaGold Resources Inc. $75 upon the earlier of approval to construct a mine, mill and all related infrastructure for the Galore Creek project or the initiation of construction of a mine, mill or any related infrastructure. The amount due is non-interest bearing. The decision for an approval and commencement of construction is contingent on the results of a prefeasibility and feasibility study, neither of which have occurred. As such, this amount has not been accrued. Deferred payments to Barrick of $127 and $156 as of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, are to be satisfied through funding a portion of Barrick’s share of project expenditures at the Norte Abierto project. These deferred payments to Barrick are included in Other current liabilities and Other non-current liabilities . |
