| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 26 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 segments are identified in Note 3 . Except as noted in this paragraph, all of the Company’s commitments and contingencies specifically described herein relate to the Corporate and Other reportable segment. The Yanacocha matters relate to the South America reportable segment. The PTNNT matters relate to the Asia Pacific reportable segment. The Fronteer matters relate to the North America reportable segment.
Environmental Matters
The Company’s mining and exploration activities are subject to various laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment. These laws and regulations are continually changing and are generally becoming more restrictive. The Company conducts its operations so as to protect the public health and environment and believes its operations are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in all material respects. The Company has made, and expects to make in the future, expenditures to comply with such laws and regulations, but cannot predict the full amount of such future expenditures.
Estimated future reclamation costs are based principally on legal and regulatory requirements. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , $1,611 and $1,497 , respectively, were accrued for reclamation costs relating to currently or recently producing mineral properties in accordance with asset retirement obligation guidance. The current portions of $36 and $42 at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , respectively, are included in Other current liabilities .
In addition, the Company is involved in several matters concerning environmental obligations associated with former mining activities. Generally, these matters concern developing and implementing remediation plans at the various sites involved. The Company believes that the related environmental obligations associated with these sites are similar in nature with respect to the development of remediation plans, their risk profile and the compliance required to meet general environmental standards. Based upon the Company’s best estimate of its liability for these matters, $163 and $192 were accrued for such obligations at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , respectively. These amounts are included in Other current liabilities and Reclamation and remediation liabilities . Depending upon the ultimate resolution of these matters, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the liability for these matters could be as much as 137% greater or 0% lower than the amount accrued at September 30, 2015 . The amounts accrued are reviewed periodically based upon facts and circumstances available at the time. Changes in estimates are recorded in Reclamation and remediation in the period estimates are revised.
Details about certain of the more significant matters involved are discussed below.
Newmont USA Limited - 100% Newmont Owned
Ross-Adams Mine Site. By letter dated June 5, 2007, the U.S. Forest Service notified Newmont that it had expended approximately $0.3 in response costs to address environmental conditions at the Ross-Adams mine in Prince of Wales, Alaska, and requested Newmont USA Limited pay those costs and perform an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to assess what future response activities might need to be completed at the site. Newmont intends to vigorously defend any formal claims by the EPA. Newmont has agreed to perform the EE/CA. Newmont cannot reasonably predict the likelihood or outcome of any future action against it arising from this matter.
Other Legal Matters
Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. (“Yanacocha”) - 51.35% Newmont Owned
Choropampa . In June 2000, a transport contractor of Yanacocha spilled approximately 151 kilograms of elemental mercury near the town of Choropampa, Peru, which is located 53 miles (85 kilometers) southwest of the Yanacocha mine. Elemental mercury is not used in Yanacocha’s operations but is a by-product of gold mining and was sold to a Lima firm for use in medical instruments and industrial applications. A comprehensive health and environmental remediation program was undertaken by Yanacocha in response to the incident. In August 2000, Yanacocha paid under protest a fine of 1,740,000 Peruvian soles (approximately $0.5) to the Peruvian government. Yanacocha has entered into settlement agreements with a number of individuals impacted by the incident. As compensation for the disruption and inconvenience caused by the incident, Yanacocha entered into agreements with and provided a variety of public works in the three communities impacted by this incident. Yanacocha cannot predict the likelihood of additional expenditures related to this matter.
Additional lawsuits relating to the Choropampa incident were filed against Yanacocha in the local courts of Cajamarca, Peru, in May 2002 by over 900 Peruvian citizens. A significant number of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits entered into settlement agreements with Yanacocha prior to filing such claims. In April 2008, the Peruvian Supreme Court upheld the validity of these settlement agreements, which the Company expects to result in the dismissal of all claims brought by previously settled plaintiffs. Yanacocha has also entered into settlement agreements with approximately 350 additional plaintiffs. The claims asserted by approximately 200 plaintiffs remain. In 2011, Yanacocha was served with 23 complaints alleging grounds to nullify the settlements entered into between Yanacocha and the plaintiffs. Yanacocha has answered the complaints and the court has dismissed several of the matters and the plaintiffs have filed appeals. All appeals were referred to the Civil Court of Cajamarca, which affirmed the decisions of the lower court judge. The plaintiffs have filed appeals of such orders before the Supreme Court. Some of these appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court in favor of Yanacocha, and others are pending resolution. Yanacocha will continue to vigorously defend its position. Neither the Company nor Yanacocha can reasonably estimate the ultimate loss relating to such claims.
Administrative Actions . The Peruvian government agency responsible for environmental evaluation and inspection, Organismo Evaluacion y Fiscalizacion Ambiental (“OEFA”), conducts periodic reviews of the Yanacocha site. In 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the first quarter of 2015, OEFA issued notices of alleged violations of OEFA standards to Yanacocha and Conga relating to past inspections. Total fines for all outstanding OEFA alleged violations remain dependent upon the number of units associated with the alleged violations. In the first quarter of 2015, the water authority of Cajamarca issued notices of alleged regulatory violations. The alleged OEFA violations currently range from zero to 100,120 units and the water authority alleged violations range from zero to 20,000 units, with each unit having a potential fine equivalent to approximately $.00130 ( $0 to $156 ). Yanacocha and Conga are responding to all notices of alleged violations, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the agency allegations.
During the first quarter, the Peruvian government agency responsible for certain environmental regulations, Ministry of the Environment ("MINAM"), issued proposed in-stream water quality criteria pursuant to which MINAM may require mining companies, including Yanacocha, to comply. These criteria would modify the in-stream water quality criteria, pursuant to which Yanacocha has been designing water treatment processes and infrastructure, with a compliance deadline of December 2015. The proposed criteria may require additional and potentially different water treatment infrastructure from that required under the December 2015 compliance deadline. Yanacocha appealed for an extension to the December 2015 compliance deadline for these previously announced in-stream water quality criteria and the mining counsel rejected the appeal finding that the legal article provides for compliance by December 2015. However, the mining council decision included a finding that it is not possible for mining companies to comply with the MINAM modified requirements by December 2015. Yanacocha filed an appeal of the decision of the mining council in court. Yanacocha is currently assessing redesign and treatment options in connection with the recently proposed criteria. Those redesign and enhanced treatment options may result in increased costs and require additional time for implementation. If Yanacocha is unsuccessful in appealing or meeting the requirements by the deadlines, it could result in potential fines and penalties relating to intermittent non-compliant exceedances, permitting delays or impacts to operations. See Item 1A, Risk Factors for a description of risks relating to hazards and uncertainties associates with mining and compliance with increasing environmental regulations.
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 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: 1) plaintiffs had not exhausted previous administrative proceedings; 2) the directorial resolution approving the Conga EIA is valid, and was not challenged when issued in the administrative proceedings; 3) there was inadequate evidence to conclude that the Conga Project is a threat to the constitutional right of living in an adequate environment, and; 4) 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 will answer the claim. Neither the Company nor Yanacocha can reasonably predict the outcome of this litigation.
PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (“PTNNT”) – 31.5% Newmont Owned
Divestiture: Under the Batu Hijau Contract of Work, beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2010, a portion of PTNNT’s shares were required to be offered for sale, first, to the Indonesian government or, second, to Indonesian nationals, equal to the difference between the following percentages and the percentage of shares already owned by the Indonesian government or Indonesian nationals (if such number is positive): 23% by March 31, 2006; 30% by March 31, 2007; 37% by March 31, 2008; 44% by March 31, 2009; and 51% by March 31, 2010. As PT Pukuafu Indah (“PTPI”), an Indonesian national, owned a 20% interest in PTNNT at all relevant times, in 2006, a 3% interest was required to be offered for sale and, in each of 2007 through 2010, an additional 7% interest was required to be offered (for an aggregate 31% interest). The price at which such interests were offered for sale to the Indonesian parties was the fair market value of such interest considering PTNNT as a going concern, as agreed with the Indonesian government. Following certain disputes and an arbitration with the Indonesian government, in November and December 2009, sale agreements were concluded pursuant to which the 2006, 2007 and 2008 shares were sold to PT Multi Daerah Bersaing (“PTMDB”), the nominee of the local governments, and the 2009 shares were sold to PTMDB in February 2010, resulting in PTMDB owning a 24% interest in PTNNT.
On December 17, 2010, the Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources, acting on behalf of the Indonesian government, accepted the offer to acquire the final 7% interest in PTNNT. Subsequently, the Indonesian government designated Pusat Investasi Pemerintah (“PIP”), an agency of the Ministry of Finance, as the entity that will buy the final stake. On May 6, 2011, PIP and the foreign shareholders entered into a definitive agreement for the sale and purchase of the final 7% divestiture stake, subject to receipt of approvals from certain Indonesian government ministries. Subsequent to signing the agreement, a disagreement arose between the Ministry of Finance and the Indonesian parliament in regard to whether parliamentary approval was needed to allow PIP to make the share purchase. In July 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled that parliament approval is required for PIP to use state funds to purchase the shares, which approval has not yet been obtained. Further disputes may arise in regard to the divestiture of the 2010 shares.
Administrative Claim: On April 8, 2015, PTNNT received a summons for a hearing in Jakarta State Administrative Court in which PTNNT learned that two individual plaintiffs of NTB Province filed a claim with the Jakarta State Administrative Court against the Director General of Mineral and Coal of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia (“MEMR”). The claim alleges that the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between MEMR and PTNNT dated September 3, 2014, and the subsequent granting of an export permit violated Indonesian legal principles of good governance. The administrative claim requests suspension and annulment of the MOU and export permits. PTNNT intervened into the case. On September 16, 2015, the panel of judges made a finding in favor of MEMR and PTNNT.
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 that Aurora would commence uranium mining in Labrador by 2013, that this was a firm date, that Fronteer was not aware of any obstacle to doing so, that Aurora faced no serious environmental issues in Labrador and that Aurora’s competitors faced greater 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 NMC, 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 the same allegations contained in the New York lawsuit with claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. NWG seeks disgorgement of profits since the close of the NWG deal on September 24, 2007 and punitive damages.
Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome.
Other Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has minimum royalty obligations on one of its producing mines in Nevada for the life of the mine. Amounts paid as a minimum royalty (where production royalties are less than the minimum obligation) in any year are recoverable in future years when the minimum royalty obligation is exceeded. Although the minimum royalty requirement may not be met in a particular year, the Company expects that over the mine life, gold production will be sufficient to meet the minimum royalty requirements. Minimum royalty payments payable are $30 in 2015 , $32 in 2016 through 2019 and $190 thereafter.
As part of its ongoing business and operations, the Company and its affiliates are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit and bank guarantees as financial support for various purposes, including environmental reclamation, exploration permitting, workers compensation programs and other general corporate purposes. At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 , there were $1,954 and $1,865 , respectively, of outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and bank guarantees. The surety bonds, letters of credit and bank guarantees reflect fair value as a condition of their underlying purpose and are subject to fees competitively determined in the market place. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that the Company addresses through its ongoing operations. As the specific requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instrument cancels and/or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure. Generally, bonding requirements associated with environmental regulation are becoming more restrictive. However, the Company believes it is in compliance with all applicable bonding obligations and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements through existing or alternative means, as they arise.
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. |
