| 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 CC&V matter and 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 certain significant matters are discussed below. Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. - 100% 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 MINEM. The Company did not receive a response or comments to this submission until April 2021. 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. In May 2022, Yanacocha submitted a proposed modification to this plan requesting an extension of time for coming into full compliance with the new regulations by January 2027. 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 noncompliance 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 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, continue to evaluate and revise assumptions and estimated costs of changes to the reclamation plan. While certain estimated costs remain subject to revision, the Company’s asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2021 included updates primarily to the expected construction of two water treatment plants, a related increase in the annual operating costs over the extended closure period, and initial consideration of known risks (including the associated risk that these water treatment estimates could change in the future as more work is completed). However, these and other additional risks and contingencies that are the subject of ongoing studies could result in future material increases to the reclamation obligation at Yanacocha, including, but not limited to, the impact of inflationary pressures and supply chain disruptions on existing cost estimates, a comprehensive review of the Company's tailings storage facility management, review of Yanacocha’s water balance and storm water management system, and review of post-closure management costs. The ongoing studies, which are progressing in 2022, are intended to evaluate and further understand these risks and determine what, if any, additional modification may be required to the reclamation plan. The Company expects these studies to extend beyond the current year, and as a result, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the impacts these risks, if realized, may have on the reclamation obligation as of September 30, 2022. 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 2022 based on engineering progress for the water treatment plants. As related engineering activities have progressed, we are currently evaluating certain estimates for impacts of further design considerations, recent inflation and supply chain disruptions on the estimated construction costs for the water treatment plants as well as post-closure management costs. These potential changes are currently undergoing review and remain subject to significant revision, but if confirmed, could result in a material increase in the reclamation obligation at Yanacocha in the fourth quarter of 2022 with a corresponding non-cash charge to reclamation expense related to operations no longer in production. Yanacocha experienced heavy rainfall in early 2022, above average historical levels, which resulted in significant water balance stress and required active emergency management. Yanacocha has been in communication with Organismo Evaluación y Fiscalización Ambiental (“OEFA”), under MINAM, and local government regarding the emergency measures undertaken and contingency planning. Yanacocha was able to prevent any offsite release of untreated water, but did need to accumulate untreated water in mine pits. If accumulation in pits or other emergency measures are deemed a violation of existing permits, it could result in fines and penalties for unauthorized discharge. Such fines and penalties, if ultimately assessed, are currently unknown and otherwise cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Extended periods of rainfall, more extreme storm events or increased overall rainfall beyond historical or planned levels may also result in flooding or stress of mine pits and maintenance and storage facilities (e.g., tailings water), unpermitted off-site discharges, delays to planned study work, increased cost related to water infrastructure adjustments and potential negative impacts to permitting and operations. Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company LLC - 100% Newmont Owned In December 2021, Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company LLC (“CC&V”, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company) entered into a Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) with the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the “Division”) with a mutual objective of resolving issues associated with the new discharge permits issued by the Division in January 2021 for the historic Carlton Tunnel. The Carlton Tunnel was a historic tunnel completed in 1941 with the purpose of draining the southern portion of the mining district, subsequently consolidated by CC&V. CC&V has held discharge permits for the Carlton Tunnel since 1983, but the January 2021 new permits contained new water quality limits. The Settlement Agreement, once implemented through permit modification applications, would involve installation of interim passive water treatment and ongoing monitoring over the next three years, and then more long-term water treatment installed with target compliance by November 2027. The Company is currently considering various interim passive water treatment options, with related studies expected to be progressed in 2022, and based on an evaluation of those options, a remediation liability of $10 was recorded as of December 31, 2021. If one of these passive water treatment options is determined not to be a viable long-term water treatment strategy, CC&V may be required to develop and implement alternative remediation plans for water discharged from the Carlton Tunnel. Depending on the remediation plans that may ultimately be agreed with the Division, a material adjustment to the remediation liability may be required. 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 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. In 2016, Newmont completed the remedial design process, with the exception of the new WTP design which was awaiting the approval of the new NPDES permit. Subsequently, the new NPDES permit was received in 2017 and the WTP design commenced in 2018. The EPA completed their assessment and approval of the WTP design in 2021 and Newmont has selected contractors for the construction of the new water treatment plant and effluent pipeline. Construction of the effluent pipeline began in 2021, and construction of the new WTP began in 2022. The Dawn mill site is regulated by the Washington Department of Health and is in the process of being closed in accordance with the federal Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, and associated Washington state regulations. 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 activities will consist primarily of finalizing an Alternative Concentration Limit application submitted in 2020 to the Washington Department of Health to address groundwater issues, and also evaporating the remaining balance of process water at the site. The remediation liability for the Midnite mine site and Dawn mill site is approximately $151, assumed 100% by Newmont, at September 30, 2022. Other Legal Matters Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. - 100% 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. There are no current alleged OEFA violations and the water authority alleged violations range from zero to 10 units, with each unit having a potential fine equivalent to approximately $.001110 based on current exchange rates, with a total potential fine amount for outstanding matters of $— to $0.01. 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 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. 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. Kirkland filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case against it, which the court granted in October 2022. 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, 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 Parliamentary 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 Parliamentary 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. 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 the Company's 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 $122 and $124 as of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, 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 . |
