g  

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

 

---

 

Form 10-Q

 

---

(Mark One)

☒QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2015

or

☐TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from              to              

Commission File Number: 001-31240

 

---

 

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

---

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (303) 863-7414

 

---

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12-b2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12-b2 of the Exchange Act).    ☐  Yes    ☒   No

 

There were 529,054,665 shares of common stock outstanding on July 16, 2015.

 

 

 

---

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

---

 

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

ITEM 1.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME  

(unaudited, in millions except per share)

 

 

 

---

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

---

 

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME 

(unaudited, in millions)

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

---

 

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS 

(unaudited, in millions)

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

---

 

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS 

(unaudited, in millions)

 

 

 

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 1     BASIS OF PRESENTATION

 

The interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (“interim statements”) of Newmont Mining Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Newmont” or the “Company”) are unaudited. In the opinion of management, all adjustments and disclosures necessary for a fair presentation of these interim statements have been included. The results reported in these interim statements are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be reported for the entire year. These interim statements should be read in conjunction with Newmont’s Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2014 filed on February 20, 2015 on Form 10-K. The year-end balance sheet data was derived from the audited financial statements and, in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q, certain information and footnote disclosures required by United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted. References to “A$” refer to Australian currency and “NZ$” to New Zealand currency.

 

During the first half of 2015 we received $675 in net proceeds from a common stock issuance.  We intend to use the proceeds from the common stock sale, supplemented with cash from our balance sheet, to fund the acquisition of the Cripple Creek & Victor mine in Colorado from AngloGold Ashanti Limited, which was announced on June 8, 2015.  The purchase price agreed was $820, subject to customary adjustments, plus a 2.5% net smelter return royalty from potential future underground ore. The Company expects to complete the acquisition in the third quarter of 2015.

 

Certain amounts in prior years have been reclassified to conform to the 2015 presentation and were not material to the financial statements.

NOTE 2     SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

 

Risks and Uncertainties

 

As a global mining company, our revenue, profitability and future rate of growth are substantially dependent on prevailing prices for gold, copper and, to a lesser extent, silver. Historically, the commodity markets have been very volatile, and there can be no assurance that commodity prices will not be subject to wide fluctuations in the future. A substantial or extended decline in commodity prices could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, access to capital and on the quantities of reserves that we can economically produce. The carrying value of our property, plant and mine development assets, inventories, stockpiles and ore on leach pads, and deferred tax assets are particularly sensitive to the outlook for commodity prices. A decline in our long term price outlook from current levels could result in material impairment charges related to these assets.

 

In September 2014, PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (“PTNNT”) and the Government of Indonesia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) that resulted in PTNNT receiving a six-month permit to export copper concentrate from the Batu Hijau mine (“Batu Hijau”) that expired in mid-March 2015. On March 30, 2015, the Company received a six-month permit extension to export copper concentrate that expires in late September 2015. Effective with the signing of the MoU, PTNNT agreed to pay certain export duties and royalties. The MoU also outlines terms for the six main elements of the Contract of Work renegotiation, which will be incorporated into an amendment of the Contract of Work. The six areas are: concession area size; royalties, taxes and export duties; domestic processing and refining; ownership divestment; utilization of local manpower, domestic goods and services; and duration of the Contract of Work. Negotiations between PTNNT and the Government of Indonesia to amend the Contract of Work remain on-going. No assurances can be made at this time with respect to the outcome of such negotiations and expiration of the export permit without its renewal may negatively impact future operations and financial results at Batu Hijau. As a result of the on-going Contract of Work renegotiations at Batu Hijau, we have evaluated, and will continue to evaluate, the need for asset impairments, inventory write-downs, tax valuation allowances and other applicable accounting charges due to the

---

 

status of the mine. The total assets at Batu Hijau as of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 were $3,367 and $3,107, respectively.

 

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

 

Stock-based compensation

 

In June 2014, the Financial Accounting Services Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) guidance to resolve the diversity of practice relating to the accounting for stock-based performance awards that the performance target could be achieved after the employee completes the required service period. The update is effective prospectively or retrospectively beginning January 1, 2015. Adoption of the new guidance, effective for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2015, had no impact on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

 

Debt issuance costs

 

In April 2015, ASU guidance was issued related to debt issuance costs. This update simplifies the presentation of debt issuance costs by requiring debt issuance costs to be presented as a deduction from the corresponding debt liability. The update is effective in fiscal years, including interim periods, beginning after December 15, 2015, and early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating this guidance and the impact it will have on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Consolidations

 

In February 2015, ASU guidance was issued related to consolidations. This update makes some targeted changes to current consolidation guidance and impacts both the voting and the variable interest consolidation models. In particular, the update will change how companies determine whether limited partnerships or similar entities are variable interest entities. The update is effective in fiscal years, including interim periods, beginning after December 15, 2016, and early adoption is permitted. We currently consolidate certain variable interest entities and we do not expect the updated guidance to have an impact on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Revenue Recognition

 

In May 2014, ASU guidance was issued related to revenue from contracts with customers. The new standard provides a five-step approach to be applied to all contracts with customers and also requires expanded disclosures about revenue recognition. The ASU is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods and is to be retrospectively applied. Early adoption is not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating this guidance and the impact it will have on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

---

 

NOTE 3    SEGMENT INFORMATION

 

The Company’s reportable segments are based upon the Company’s management structure that is focused on the geographic region for the Company’s operations. In the first quarter of 2015, the Australia/New Zealand and Indonesia geographic regions were combined into one Asia Pacific geographic region. Geographic regions include North America, South America, Asia Pacific, Africa, and Corporate and Other.

 

On June 5, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with OceanaGold Corporation to sell its Waihi mine in New Zealand for approximately $101. As of June 30, 2015, total assets and total liabilities were $125 and $49, respectively.

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 4    RECLAMATION AND REMEDIATION

 

The Company’s Reclamation and remediation expense consisted of:

 

 

 

The following is a reconciliation of Reclamation and remediation liabilities: 

 

 

 

At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, $1,547 and $1,497, respectively, were accrued for reclamation obligations relating to operating properties. In addition, the Company is involved in several matters concerning environmental obligations associated with former, primarily historic, mining activities (non-operating). Generally, these matters concern developing and implementing remediation plans at the various sites involved. At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, $170 and $192, respectively, were accrued for such obligations. These amounts are also included in Reclamation and remediation liabilities.  

 

The current portion of Reclamation and remediation liabilities of $64 and $83 at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, are included in Other current liabilities.

NOTE 5    OTHER EXPENSE, NET

 

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 6    OTHER INCOME, NET

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE 7    INCOME AND MINING TAXES

 

The Company’s income and mining tax expense differed from the amounts computed by applying the United States statutory corporate income tax rate for the following reasons:

 

 

 

A valuation allowance is provided for those deferred tax assets for which it is more likely than not that the related benefits will not be realized. In determining the amount of the valuation allowance, each quarter, the Company considers future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, estimated future taxable income, taxable income in prior carryback year(s), as well as feasible tax planning strategies in each jurisdiction to determine if the deferred tax assets are realizable. If it is determined that the Company will not realize all or a portion of its deferred tax assets, it will place or increase a valuation allowance. Conversely, if determined that it will ultimately be able to realize all or a portion of the related benefits for which a valuation allowance has been provided, all or a portion of the related valuation allowance will be reduced. There are a number of risk factors that could impact the Company’s ability to realize the deferred tax assets.

 

The Company operates in numerous countries around the world and accordingly it is subject to, and pays annual income taxes under the various income tax regimes in the countries in which it operates. Some of these tax regimes are defined by contractual agreements with the local government, and others are defined by the general corporate income tax laws of the country. The Company has historically filed, and continues to file, all required income tax returns and pay the income taxes determined to be due. The tax rules and regulations in many countries are highly complex and subject to interpretation. From time to time the Company is subject to a review of its historic income tax filings and in connection with such reviews, disputes can arise with the taxing authorities over the interpretation or application of certain rules to the Company’s business conducted within the country involved.

 

---

 

At June 30, 2015, the Company’s total unrecognized tax benefit was $399 for uncertain income tax positions taken or expected to be taken on income tax returns. Of this, $81 represents the amount of unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect the Company’s effective income tax rate.

 

As a result of the statute of limitations that expire in the next 12 months in various jurisdictions, and possible settlements of audit-related issues with taxing authorities in various jurisdictions, none of which are individually significant, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the total amount of its net unrecognized income tax benefits will decrease by approximately $50 to $55 in the next 12 months.

NOTE 8    DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

 

Discontinued operations includes a retained royalty obligation (“Holt”) from Holloway Mining Company. Holloway Mining Company, which owned the Holt-McDermott property, was sold to St. Andrew Goldfields Ltd. (“St. Andrew”) in 2006. The Company records adjustments based on short and long-term gold prices, discount rate assumptions and resource estimates published by St. Andrew.

 

During the second quarter and first half of 2015, the Company recorded a benefit of $9 and a benefit of $17, net of tax expense of $4 and expense of $8, respectively. During the second quarter and first half of 2014, the Company recorded a charge of $2 and a charge of $19, net of tax benefit of $1 and benefit of $9, respectively.

 

Net operating cash used in discontinued operations of $6 and $6 in the first half of 2015 and 2014 respectively, relates to payments on the Holt property royalty. 

NOTE 9    NET INCOME (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTERESTS

 

 

 

Newmont has a 51.35% ownership interest in Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. (“Yanacocha”), with the remaining interests held by Compañia de Minas Buenaventura, S.A.A. (43.65%) and the International Finance Corporation (5%). Newmont consolidates Yanacocha due to a majority voting interest.

 

Newmont has a 48.5% effective economic interest in PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (“PTNNT”) with remaining interests held by an affiliate of Sumitomo Corporation of Japan and various Indonesian entities. PTNNT operates the Batu Hijau copper and gold mine in Indonesia.

 

Newmont’s economic ownership interest in TMAC was reduced from 44.69% to 37.79% in January 2015, and to 36.96% in April 2015, due to TMAC’s private placements to raise funds. The remaining interests are held by TMAC management and various outside investors.

 

Newmont consolidates PTNNT and TMAC in its condensed consolidated financial statements as Newmont is the primary beneficiary in both variable interest entities (“VIEs”). On July 7, 2015 TMAC completed an initial public

---

 

offering, and, as a result, Newmont’s economic ownership interest will be reduced to 30.72%. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that this will have on its consolidated financial statements for the third quarter of 2015.

 

The following summarizes the assets and liabilities, inclusive of deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities, of our consolidated VIEs (including noncontrolling interests).

 

 

 

\

 

 

NOTE 10    INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

 

Basic income per common share is computed by dividing income available to Newmont common stockholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted income per common share is computed similarly except that weighted average common shares is increased to reflect all dilutive instruments.

 

 

Options to purchase 2 million and 3 million shares of common stock at average exercise prices of $48 and $48 were outstanding at June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted weighted average common shares because their exercise prices exceeded the average price of the Company’s common stock for the respective periods presented.

 

Newmont is required to settle the principal amount of its 2017 Convertible Senior Note in cash and may elect to settle the remaining conversion premium (average share price in excess of the conversion price), if any, in cash, shares or a combination thereof. The effect of contingently convertible instruments on diluted earnings per share is calculated under the net share settlement method. The conversion price exceeded the Company’s share price for the periods presented, therefore no additional shares were included in the computation of diluted weighted average common shares.

---

 

NOTE 11    EMPLOYEE PENSION AND OTHER BENEFIT PLANS

 

 

 

 

 

In April 2015, the Company approved an amendment to the terms of its Post-Retirement Medical and Life Insurance Plan, effective September 2015. The Company announced this change in June, and as a result, re-measured its other post-retirement benefit plan liability at June 30, 2015. The discount rate used for purposes of the re-measurement was 4.74%. The re-measurement resulted in a decrease of the post-retirement benefit plan liability of $52 ($34, net of tax).

 

 

 

NOTE 12    STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 13    FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING 

 

The following table sets forth the Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis (at least annually) by level within the fair value hierarchy. As required by accounting guidance, assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

 

 

The fair values of the derivative instruments in the table above are presented on a net basis. The gross amounts related to the fair value of the derivatives instruments above are included in the Derivatives Instruments Note. All other fair value disclosures in the above table are presented on a gross basis.

 

In addition to the financial instruments listed in the table above, we hold other financial instruments including receivables, accounts payable and debt. The carrying amounts for receivables and accounts payable approximated their fair value. The estimated fair value of our outstanding debt, exclusive of capital leases, was $6,221 at June 30, 2015 and the outstanding carrying value was $6,369 at June 30, 2015. The estimated fair values of our outstanding debt were determined based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets (Level 2).

 

The following table sets forth a summary of the quantitative and qualitative information related to the unobservable inputs used in the calculation of the Company’s Level 3 financial assets and liabilities at June 30, 2015:

 

 

---

 

The following table sets forth a summary of changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

At June 30, 2015, assets and liabilities classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy represent 1% and 60%, respectively, of total assets and liabilities measured at fair value.

NOTE 14    DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS 

 

The Company’s strategy is to provide shareholders with leverage to changes in gold and copper prices by selling its production at spot market prices. Consequently, the Company does not hedge its gold and copper sales. The Company continues to manage certain risks associated with commodity input costs, interest rates and foreign currencies using the derivative market. All of the derivative instruments described below were transacted for risk management purposes and qualify as cash flow hedges.

 

Cash Flow Hedges

 

The following foreign currency and diesel contracts are designated as cash flow hedges, and as such, the effective portion of unrealized changes in market value have been recorded in Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and are reclassified to income during the period in which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Gains and losses from hedge ineffectiveness are recognized in current earnings. 

 

Foreign Currency Contracts

 

The Company had the following foreign currency derivative contracts outstanding at June 30, 2015:

 

 

 

---

 

Diesel Fixed Forward Contracts

 

The Company had the following diesel derivative contracts in Nevada outstanding at June 30, 2015:

 

 

Derivative Instrument Fair Values

The Company had the following derivative instruments designated as hedges at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014:

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

The following tables show the location and amount of gains (losses) reported in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements related to the Company’s cash flow hedges.

 

 

 

---

 

Based on fair values at June 30, 2015 the amount to be reclassified from Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax to income for derivative instruments during the next 12 months is a loss of approximately $51.

 

Provisional Gold and Copper Sales

 

The Company’s provisional gold and copper sales contain an embedded derivative that is required to be separated from the host contract for accounting purposes. The host contract is the receivable from the sale of the gold and copper concentrates at the prevailing indices’ prices at the time of sale. The embedded derivative, which does not qualify for hedge accounting, is marked to market through earnings each period prior to final settlement.

 

At June 30, 2015, Newmont had gold and copper sales of 210,000 ounces and 133 million pounds priced at an average of $1,173 per ounce and $2.60 per pound, respectively, subject to final pricing over the next several months.

---

 

NOTE 15    INVESTMENTS 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

In February 2015, the Company’s $25 Certificate of Deposit matured.

 

In March 2014, the Company sold its investment in Paladin Energy Ltd. for $25, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $4 recorded in Other income, net. In June 2014, the Company completed the sale of its investment in Leyshon Energy Ltd. for $1, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $1 recorded in Other income, net.

 

During the three months ended and six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company recognized impairments for other-than-temporary declines in value of $16 and $73, respectively, for marketable securities primarily related to its holdings of Regis Resources Ltd. as a result of the continued decline in stock price.

 

The following tables present the gross unrealized losses and fair value of the Company’s investments with unrealized losses that are not deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired, aggregated by length of time that the individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position:

 

 

 

 

 

While the fair value of the Company’s investments in marketable equity securities and auction rate securities are below their respective cost, the Company views these declines as temporary. The Company has the ability and intends to hold its auction rate securities until maturity or such time that the market recovers.

NOTE 16    INVENTORIES 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 17    STOCKPILES AND ORE ON LEACH PADS 

 

 

 

 

 

The Company recorded write-downs of $97 and $44 classified as components of Costs applicable to sales and Depreciation and amortization, respectively, for the first half of 2015 to reduce the carrying value of stockpiles and ore on leach pads to net realizable value. Adjustments to net realizable value are a result of current and prior stripping costs, lower long-term metal prices in relation to the Company’s long term price assumptions and higher estimated future processing costs. Of the write-downs in the first half of 2015, $74 are related to Carlin, $7 to Twin Creeks, $21 to Boddington and $39 to Yanacocha.

---

 

NOTE 18    OTHER ASSETS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE 19    DEBT

 

Scheduled minimum debt repayments are $100 for the remainder of 2015, $212 in 2016, $765 in 2017, $nil in 2018, $1,175 in 2019 and $4,200 thereafter. Scheduled minimum capital lease repayments are $1 in 2015, $3 in 2016 and 2017, $1 in 2018 and 2019 and $3 thereafter.

 

In the first quarter of 2015, the Company made a payment of $200 on the Term Loan Facility, leaving the principal balance at $275 due in 2019. In the second quarter of 2015, the Company paid the remaining outstanding balance of $25 on the Ahafo Project Finance Facility. In the first half of 2015, the Company made debt payments of $55 on the PTNNT Revolving Credit Facility, leaving the principal balance at $500.

 

On March 3, 2015 the Company’s $3,000 Corporate Revolving Credit Facility was amended to extend $2,725 of the facility to March 3, 2020. On June 17, 2015 the Company’s Corporate Revolving Credit Facility was further amended to extend $175 of the facility, not previously extended, to March 3, 2020. The remaining $100 matures on March 31, 2019. Fees and other debt issuance costs related to the extension of the facility were capitalized and will be amortized over the term of the facility. There are no borrowings outstanding under the facility at June 30, 2015.

---

 

NOTE 20    OTHER LIABILITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 21    CHANGES IN EQUITY 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE 22    RECLASSIFICATIONS OUT OF ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

 

NOTE 23    NET CHANGE IN OPERATING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES 

Net cash provided by operations attributable to the net change in operating assets and liabilities is composed of the following:

 

 

 

 

---

 

NOTE 24    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

The following Condensed Consolidating Financial Statements are presented to satisfy disclosure requirements of Rule 3-10(e) of Regulation S-X resulting from the inclusion of Newmont USA Limited (“Newmont USA”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newmont, as a co-registrant with Newmont on debt securities issued under a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed under the Securities Act of 1933 under which securities of Newmont (including debt securities guaranteed by Newmont USA) may be issued (the “Shelf Registration Statement”). In accordance with Rule 3-10(e) of Regulation S-X, Newmont USA, as the subsidiary guarantor, is 100% owned by Newmont, the guarantees are full and unconditional, and no other subsidiary of Newmont guaranteed any security issued under the Shelf Registration Statement. There are no restrictions on the ability of Newmont or Newmont USA to obtain funds from its subsidiaries by dividend or loan.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

---

 

 

---

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

---

 

 

---

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

NOTE 25    COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

 

General

 

The Company follows ASC guidance in accounting for loss contingencies. Accordingly, 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 Yanacocha reportable segment. The PTNNT matters relate to the Asia Pacific reportable segment. The Fronteer matters relate to the Other 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 June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, $1,547 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 $38 and $42 at June 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, $170 and $192 were accrued for such obligations at June 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 131% greater or 1% lower than the amount accrued at June 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 has appealed for an extension to the December 2015 compliance deadline for these previously announced in-stream water quality criteria, which remains pending.  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, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation.

 

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

 

Tax contingencies are provided for in accordance with ASC income tax guidance.

 

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 June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, there were $1,962 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.