| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 22 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 4 . 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 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.
Reclamation costs are allocated to expense over the life of the related assets and are periodically adjusted to reflect changes in the estimated present value resulting from the passage of time and revisions to the estimates of either the timing or amount of the reclamation costs. Reclamation obligations are based on when the spending for an existing environmental disturbance will occur. The Company reviews, on at least an annual basis, the reclamation obligation at each mine.
Accounting for reclamation obligations requires management to make estimates unique to each mining operation of the future costs the Company will incur to complete the reclamation work required to comply with existing laws and regulations. As mining operations progress over their mine life, the Company is able to more accurately predict the estimated future reclamation costs. Any such changes in future costs, the timing of reclamation activities, or scope could materially impact the amounts charged to earnings for reclamation. Additionally, future changes to environmental laws and regulations could increase the extent of reclamation work required.
In early 2015, the Peruvian government agency responsible for certain environmental regulations, the Ministry of the Environment (“MINAM”), issued proposed water quality criteria for designated beneficial uses which apply to mining companies, including Yanacocha. These criteria would modify 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 and the Company has one year to submit a modification to the previously approved Environmental Impact Assessment which is due February 15, 2017. A total of up to four years are allowed for permitting, detailed engineering, and construction of water treatment facilities required for compliance with the new water quality standards. Yanacocha is currently assessing treatment options in connection with the new water quality standards, which are expected to result in increased costs. If Yanacocha is unsuccessful in designing, constructing and implementing effective treatment options in the next four years, it could result in potential fines and penalties relating to potential intermittent non-compliant exceedances.
In addition to assessing water treatment options to comply with the new water standards described above, the Company is also performing a comprehensive update to the Yanacocha reclamation plan to address stakeholder input and changes in closure activities and estimated closure costs while preserving optionality for potential future projects at Yanacocha.
The revised reclamation plan, once approved, could result in a material increase in the reclamation obligation at Yanacocha. Additionally, increases in the future reclamation costs at Yanacocha could result in a significant increase in all-in sustaining costs per ounce and possibly result in impairments to Yanacocha’s long-lived assets based upon then current mine plans. The Company will continue to advance the update to the Yanacocha reclamation plan and expects to further refine the associated cost estimates in late 2016 in connection with completing the revised Environmental Impact Assessment and our mine planning process.
For a complete discussion of the factors that influence our reclamation obligations and the associated risks, refer to Managements’ Discussion and Analysis of Consolidated Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the heading “Critical Accounting Policies” and refer to Risk Factors under the heading “Mine closure and remediation costs for environmental liabilities may exceed the provisions we have made” for the year ended December 31, 2015 filed February 17, 2016 on Form 10-K.
At June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , $1,593 and $1,553 , 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 $35 and $37 at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , 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, $311 and $318 were accrued for such obligations at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , 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 41% greater or 1% lower than the amount accrued at June 30, 2016 . 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.
Refer to Note 5 for further information regarding reclamation and remediation. Details about certain of the more significant matters are discussed below.
Newmont USA Limited - 100% Newmont Owned
Ross-Adams Mine Site. By letter dated June 5, 2007, the U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) 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 agreed to perform the EE/CA, which has been provided to the USFS. During the first quarter of 2016, the USFS confirmed approval of the EE/CA, and Newmont issued written notice to the USFS certifying that all requirements of the Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“ASAOC”) between the USFS and Newmont have been completed. Newmont anticipates that the USFS will issue an Action Memorandum in the third quarter of 2016 to select the preferred removal action alternative identified in the EE/CA. The ASAOC will be final upon USFS concurrence with the notice of completion and Newmont payment of USFS response costs, which are anticipated to be received from the USFS in the third quarter of 2016. Any future liability associated with the Ross-Adams site would be subject to future negotiations with the USFS. Upon USFS issuing the Action Memorandum, Newmont will resume discussions with another potential responsible party to discuss possible allocation of future costs for implementing the remedy. No assurances can be made at this time with respect to the outcome of such negotiations and Newmont cannot predict the likelihood of additional expenditures related to this matter.
Dawn Mining Company LLC (“Dawn”) - 51% Newmont Owned
Midnite Mine Site and 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 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 other 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. Additionally in 2012, Newmont initiated the remedial design process and subsequently submitted interim process update reports at the 30% design, 60% design and 90% design level of completion, which were approved by the EPA in July 2012, April 2014 and April 2015, respectively. Upon approval by the EPA of the 90% design coupled with the resolution of uncertainties regarding site access and material use, the expected remediation design was reasonably certain and Newmont commissioned an independent cost estimate of the overall project costs based on the 90% design. The remediation liability for the Midnite Mine site and Mill site is approximately $215 at June 30, 2016 .
Other Legal Matters
Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. - 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, 2013, the first quarter of 2015 and second quarter of 2016, OEFA issued notices of alleged violations of OEFA standards to Yanacocha and Conga relating to past inspections. OEFA has resolved some alleged violations with minimal or no findings. 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 40,372 units and the water authority alleged violations range from zero to 20,000 units, with each unit having a potential fine equivalent to approximately $.00118 ( $0 to $71 ). Yanacocha and Conga are 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 not a purchase of the concessions. The tax authority alleges 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 represent the payment of an intangible and therefore, 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 has appealed the Superior Court ruling to the Peru Supreme Court. The potential liability in this matter is in the form of fines and interest in an amount up to $75 . While the Company has assessed that the likelihood of a ruling against Yanacocha in the Supreme Court as remote, it is not possible to fully predict the outcome of this litigation.
PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara – 31.5% Newmont Owned
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, 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 was never obtained. PIP and the foreign shareholders have not further extended the period in the definitive agreement for satisfaction of the conditions. Further disputes may arise in regard to the divestiture of the 2010 shares.
Refer to Note 1 for additional information regarding the anticipated sale of 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, 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 $1.2 billion. 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.
Investigations
We occasionally identify or are apprised of information or allegations that certain employees, affiliates, agents or associated persons may have engaged in unlawful conduct for which we might be held responsible. We are conducting an investigation, with the assistance of outside counsel, relating to certain business activities of the Company and its affiliates and contractors in countries outside the U.S. The investigation includes a review of compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other applicable laws and regulations. The Company is working with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to the investigation. In March 2016, the Company entered into a one -year agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission tolling the statute of limitations relating to the investigation, and in April 2016, entered into a similar agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. As of the filing of these financial statements, we cannot predict the outcome of these matters. Accordingly, no provision with respect to these matters has been made in our consolidated financial statements. See also Item 1A of the Company’s most recent Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on February 17, 2016 under the heading “Our business is subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other extraterritorial and domestic anti-bribery laws, a breach or violation of which could lead to civil and criminal fines and penalties, loss of licenses or permits and other collateral consequences and reputational harm.”
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. Royalty payments payable, net of recoverable amounts, are $28 in 2016 , $30 in 2017 , $30 in 2018 , $33 in 2019 , $35 in 2020 and $19 thereafter.
On June 25, 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of the remaining 33.33% interest in Boddington from AngloGold Ashanti Australia Limited (“AngloGold”). Consideration for the acquisition consisted of $982 and a contingent royalty capped at $100 , equal to 50% of the average realized operating margin (Revenue less Costs applicable to sales on a by-product basis), if any, exceeding $600 per ounce, payable quarterly beginning in the second quarter of 2010 on one -third of gold sales from Boddington. At the acquisition date, the Company estimated the fair value of the contingent consideration at $62 . At June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the estimated fair value of the unpaid contingent consideration was approximately $12 and $10 , respectively. Changes to the estimated fair value resulting from periodic revaluations are recorded to Other expense, net . This contingent royalty is capped at $100 in aggregate payments, of which $72 has been paid to date. The Company has made no payments during 2016 and 2015 ; however, we expect $2 to be paid in the next 12 months. The range of remaining undiscounted amounts the Company could pay is between $0 and $28 .
Discontinued operations include a retained royalty obligation (“Holt”) to Holloway Mining Company. Holloway Mining Company, which owned the Holt-McDermott property, was sold to St. Andrew Goldfields Ltd. (“St. Andrew”) in 2006. In January 2016, St. Andrew was acquired by Kirkland Lake Gold Inc. In 2009, the Superior Court issued a decision finding Newmont Canada Corporation (“Newmont Canada”) liable for a sliding scale royalty on production from the Holt property, which Newmont Canada appealed. In May 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court ruling finding Newmont liable for the sliding scale royalty, which equals 0.013% of net smelter returns multiplied by the quarterly average gold price, minus a 0.013% of net smelter returns. There is no cap on the sliding scale royalty and it will increase or decrease with changes in gold price, discount rate and gold production scenarios. At June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , the estimated fair value of the Holt sliding scale royalty was $200 and $129 , respectively. Changes to the estimated fair value resulting from periodic revaluations are recorded to Income (loss) from discontinued operations . During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 , the Company recorded a loss of $27 (net of a tax benefit of $12 ) and a loss of $53 (net of a tax benefit of $23 ), respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 , the Company recorded a gain of $9 (net of tax expense of $4 ) and a gain of $17 (net of tax expense of $8 ), respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 , the Company paid $5 and $6 , respectively, related to the royalty.
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 June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 , there were $2,164 and $2,060 , 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. |
