Talk:Newmont/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is Wikipedia then a soapbox for one sided portrayal of controversy?

It seems that user Howrealisreal has been using the Wikipedia Wiki for Newmont Mining Corporation for months now to present a one sided portrayal of controversies which exist at a number of the companies operations. When researching Newmont I noticed this and was displeased. The facts I presented are just that, verifiable facts, how is this not neutral?? Yes, it is true that amongst tens of other places these facts are portrayed on Newmont's company website. The mannar in which user Howrealisreal has constructed the environmental controversies section of the Newmont Mining Corporation Wiki does not portray the situation in a balanced and neutral light. dissapointing...

Why do you choose to categorize the section I would like to add to the environmental controversies section as "Mouthpiece for corporate PR" that sounds like you have judge the statements without even considering them... again dissapointing...

The majority of the information that I would like to add is either just scientifically factual or has come from independent audits and assessments of the various controversies. Is it because these independent judgements and facts portray an alternative to what user Howrealisreal has written that they are not allowed? Is it because they are used by the company to defend itself against illogical ad-hominum attacks?

I will read the wikipedia documents you made reference to and attempt to learn how I should portray these facts as an alternative to the one sided portrayal of the current controversies.

Thanks Jentry 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)JentryJentry 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to reprint subjectivly biased information cut and pasted from the Newmont website. The content you added does not have any references, and also was in html format, both of which are not preferred for Wikipedia. Although Newmont Mining Corporation presents the information on their website as facts, it is obvious that it is nothing more than unsourced POV statements that even the company acknowledges it is attempting to use to fix its "negative image problems". If you want to do research on Newmont Mining, I would suggest that you find some better sources (other than the biased website mouthpiece of the corporate interest), like objective scholarly peer-reviewed scientific journals, and then re-write the material you find in your own words with references. As for the environmental controversy, I believe that it is written in a neutral light (including just the facts of the reports, attributed quotes from newspapers, & the fact that some charges brought against Newmont were dropped...) Seems to me, the only side of the controversy that you want in the article is no side, exhibited by your first edit to the article when you completely censored out material that was collaborated on by many users. Wikipedia cannot allow one person's dissent to hijack an entire article. If you have any comments on specifically what you find to be violating the NPOV policy in the article, indicate them here and I will be more than happy to help compromise. Thank you. --Howrealisreal 14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Cut and pasted information from a copyrighted website is never going to be acceptable on Wikipedia. You may quote brief portions, or you may paraphrase information, but a cut and paste job of copyrighted material isn't going to be left in any article about anything. 2) Jentry, if there are items you specifically dispute, say which they are, and propose an alternative or some kind of extra information you feel would make it fairer. We can even take it paragraph by paragraph if you feel it necessary. Wikipedia functions on consensus-building, and the ultimate goal here is for everyone to be satisfied with the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Friedman and Kate, thank you for assisting in my education of what Wikipedia is, and is not, I am admittedly new to this medium and find it intriguing. I still do not however believe, as you say, that the controversies are presented in a neutral light... three of your four references function by the way, and the Jarkata Post does not have a reputation of being fair and balanced. I accept your challenge to conduct more research and help you build paragraph by paragraph a more comprehensive portrayal of the controversies you list. Jentry 19:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How then does this look Paragraph by Paragraph, Pardon the HTML...

(Comments in red)

In Indonesia, where about thirty percent of Newmont's revenue is produced, the corporation became involved in a controversy pitting their historical mining methods against the Indonesian Environment Ministry and an emerging grassroots environmental activism movement.

(Minor changes in word choices in first paragraph)

In August 2004, a US$543 million lawsuit was filed against Newmont by local villagers who claim that pollution caused by the company's mining activities has caused serious illnesses and other health problems, including skin disease, tumors, birth defects, and a decline in fish stocks. At around the same time, the mine was shut down as planned because its reserves were depleted.

Independent Studies by the World Health Organization [1] and Australia’s Premier Government Laboratory CSIRO[2] among others showed that the root cause of the illnesses and other health problems, including skin disease, tumors, and birth defects, was not related to Newmont’s Mining Operations or Methods but instead the villagers poor hygiene, sanitation, poverty, and substandard living conditions including the villagers use of the bay as their area of refuse disposal and bathing area simultaneously. These maladies are unfortunately common amongst the coastal communities of Indonesia.

The US$543 million lawsuit was soon thereafter dropped by the villagers.

At Newmont’s new operations the company now conducts medical surveys of villagers in the area to establish baseline data on the health of the population surrounding its operations. (Rebecca Bream and Shawn Donnan, Financial Times, 18 Nov 2005, page 32)

In November 2004, an independent report found that sediment and fish in Buyat Bay, located in North Sulawesi province, were contaminated with Mercury and Arsenic as a result of mining at Minahsa Raya. In particular, the report indicates Newmont's use of submarine tailings waste disposal methods, which are illegal in the United States. Newmont vehemently denies the findings of this report, which contradicts its own studies, and reports released by Indonesia's former environmental minister. They claim that the decline in public health is as a result of poor sanitation and substandard living conditions. [2]

(Which unbiased independent report that you mention in the above eliminated paragraph presents findings that are diametrically opposite of those presented by CSIRO and the WHO?)

In addition to the suit brought by the villagers over this situation a separate US$133 million dollar civil suit was raised by the Indonesian Government against Newmont’s local subsidiary PTNMR. In summary, the Court agreed with PTNMR’s position that the Government should be bound by its contractual commitment to resolve disputes through conciliation or arbitration. Noting that the Con¬tract of Work binds all parts of the Indonesian Government, that PTNMR has contractual obligations to comply with environmental laws and regulations, and acknowledging that Indonesian law recog¬nizes the enforceability of arbitration agreements, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Executive director of Greenlaw Indonesia, Andri Akbar Chaniago, said that the verdict was obscure because the substance of the lawsuit was not about the dispute between the Indonesian government and the company, but about the company's violation of the country's environmental regulations. [4] Environmental activists are contemplating an appeal.

This statement is just as biased as a quote from Newmont’s CEO, I believe it should be removed or an oppssing statement of opinion and subjectivity allowed, i am sure I can reference one from a similiar source)

The ruling by the South Jakarta district court has no impact on an additional criminal trial for the company's top local executive, American Richard Ness, on charges stemming from the same allegations. His trial began in Manado in August 2005. If convicted, Ness faces up to 10 years in prison, and the company faces a US$68,000 fine. Though Mr. Ness has been detained for some time the government of Indonesia still has not explained to him why he is being accused or what laws he has broken [5]

(There is also other information of more encyclopedic quality and less centered on the controversies I would like to add to the Newmont Mining Corporation Wiki over the coming months while ensuring that the controversies section remains balanced and the information there is complete and accurate.)

I await your comments

Jentry 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you've done. It's easiest to just take it a paragraph at a time; more gets confusing and rather, well, unreadable. Let's do this, see below. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Workshop

In Indonesia, where about thirty percent of Newmont's revenue is produced, the corporation became involved in a controversy pitting their mining operations against the Indonesian Environment Ministry and an emerging grassroots environmental activism movement.

Proposed changes:

Comments:

1. My initial comment is that this says there was a controversy but not what the controversy was about. We should try to get to what the controversy was sooner than this. On the "controversy" section overall, my general impression is that too much text is devoted to this series of incidents; it can be pruned significantly while retaining the salient points. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I am happy to scratch the first paragraph entirely, the only reason I left it in my proposed changes is because I never wrote it in the first place. It is fine with me if it begins with in August 2004.... because the controversy that is mentioned centers around three lawsuits that were brought against the company and its employees of which, two have been dropped and only one remains. Jentry 09:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, where did our discussion go, I am assuming you are Americans and must have been celebrating the Holidays but I would like to resume productive discussion about my suggestions above it's been five days now with no comments from the administrator or Mr. Friedman ... Jentry 00:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've encouraged him to come comment on the paragraph above. With his agreement we can move on to the next paragraph. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry for holding up the works here. It is true, I was out of town for Thanksgiving and I've also been quite busy filing paperwork so I can graduate from college in the next couple weeks. Anyway, I am committed to working with you guys to get to some sort of compromise about the environmental controversy section that does not sway the perspective too far to either side. I have no problem with eliminating the short blurb in the beginning and starting with "In August 2004..." if you both think that is better. I will note however, that after briefly reviewing the reports you included at the BuyatBayFacts.com website that it is nothing but a front for Newmont Mining. If you click over to that site and see the "About Us" section, it will clearly indicate that the site is maintained by the minining company in their attempts to clean up their negative image. I again would like to express to you, Mr. Jentry, that your research will never be taken seriously by me when it is underwritten by the Big Mining industry. Lastly, Mr. Friedman is my father, you can call me Jeremy if you want. And who might you be? Newmont's CEO? --Howrealisreal 00:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, so next paragraph;

In August 2004, a US$543 million lawsuit was filed against Newmont by local villagers who claim that pollution caused by the company's mining activities has caused serious illnesses and other health problems, including skin disease, tumors, birth defects, and a decline in fish stocks. At around the same time, the mine was shut down as planned because its reserves were depleted.

Now I am presented with a conflict in taking the discussion paragraph by paragraph for I am only comfortable with this paragraph if a fair response is allowed after its inclusion...

To speak to Jeremy's comments, yes it is true that the buyatbayfacts site is maintained by Newmont Mining Corporation, but the reports there consist of independent third party research from world renowned institutes such as the World Health Organization and CSIRO, My links and citations are to the independent reports by these organizations. If you can find these reports in there entirety on the internet on a more neutral site than the buyatbayfacts site then I would be happy to link to the reports in that fashion. I looked to the entities themselves, but as yet, have been unable to find the complete text of the actual reports. If your concern is deeper than the reports and with the actual organizations then we have a larger problem of how we will resolve the debate over weather or not the WHO and CSIRO are reputable research organizations ... (Kate, what do we do if this is the case?) Unfortunatly your continued Ad-Hominem attacks on Newmont Mining Corporation are not helping me maintain a productive discussion... I understand you dislike the "BigMining" but unfortunatly do not think that is pertinent to the discussion of the Wiki for Newmont Mining Corporation. So again Jeremy and Kate I await your response and continued discussion and advice as how to proceed. I hope you had a plesant holiday and Jeremy I congratulate you on your upcoming graduation from Pace. As for me, though I imagine that it would be a fascinating job, I am unfortunatly not Newmont's CEO, just ... Jentry... Jentry 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, at this point, may I ask what is the current status regarding these lawsuits? There were several filed -- three? -- two were dismissed, and one is still active? Or? Please fill me in briefly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, it is to the best of my knowledge that only one lawsuit remains, although some of the others that have been dismissed may be appealed. Now to move away from brevity for a moment:

Jentry, this is not about whether or not I like or dislike "BigMining". As a scientist, it is my goal in life to investigate and understand the ecology of anthropogenic activity. As a member of the scientific community, facing a controversial issue like the ecotoxicity of gold mining, I have to say that I am not persuaded by the evidence Newmont has presented on their front website cleverly named "BuyatBayFacts". Although a pejorative term (and I'm sorry if this comes across as ad-hominem), studies like those of the WHO and CSIRO are considered "junk science". But again, it is not my personal opinion that counts. Take, for example, the November 8th, 2004 article entitled INDONESIA: Report Heightens Pollution Dispute with Newmont Mining by Jane Perlez in the New York Times, which explains that the CSIRO report was "paid for by Newmont Mining" and also includes testimony from Robert E. Moran, an independent American hydrogeologist, and Emil Salim, a former minister of environment, among others, that derides the WHO and other Newmont endorsed findings. Enter "Hilmi Salim, the coordinator of the center for natural resources at Padjadjaran University, [who] said Newmont was 'hiding the dark side and only showing the white side,' by emphasizing data that supported its case, particularly on water quality standards, while ignoring data that showed pollution, like those on the sediment." A press release for the governmental report can be found here. If you want a diversity of sources, a 2003 report by the Indonesian Forum for the Environment found that NMR's tailings contain four times the government-allowed level of cyanide and high levels of mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. A team of researchers led by Dr. Ir. Rizal Max Rompas, toxicologist at Sam Ratulangi University, North Sulawesi also found similar results in 1999; the amount of toxic compounds in the area exceeded the legal threshold. But the report's recommendation that the tailings disposal system be evaluated and redesigned was ignored by both NMR and the Indonesian government. I have many other reports and news articles, like a study that talks about Newmont's use of Submarine Tailings Disposal methods (that are illegal in the United States via the Clean Water Act, and the rest of the developed world) specially in Indonesia, and how they promised in an Environmental Impact Assessment that they would dump their toxic runoff from the mine at least 82 meters below sea level before researchers later found tailings a mere 20 meters below the surface of Buyat Bay. But, to make this briefer, as I've already written a lot, I will save those for later... --Howrealisreal 18:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Let's try to stay on topic for the moment. And thank you both for trying to adhere to civility policies. It can be difficult when you feel as if you're on polar opposites of an issue. My current inclination is to start considering how to address these lawsuits in a fair and evenhanded way. My first thought is that we should have a general paragraph of introduction (Three lawsuits were filed), but that it should mostly focus on the lawsuit that remains. (Three lawsuits were filed -- two of which were dropped -- and one remains (details). The two lawsuits, having been dropped, make them less appropriate for extensive inclusion in the article. After all, anyone may sue for anything, and if the lawsuits were dropped then they're no longer being pursued (appeals notwithstanding -- at the point at which those appeals are filed then it again becomes more relevant). I'll do some research and see if I can't help steer discussions here in a more informed fashion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. I've done a bit of research. My initial impression is that the social issues around gold mining in general are more interesting -- and possibly more encyclopedic -- than a lawsuit filed against a company. Anybody can sue for anything, and I have removed information about lawsuit filings from other articles for this very reason. But because this has some international and social implications I would not go that route with this article. However, I'm going to propose significantly trimming the information on these lawsuits, since they have yet to be decided. Much of the trimming here is removing information that, it seems to me, is essentially re-arguing the case (which is useless and, moreover, beyond the scope of the article, since it's been dismissed). Maybe it would be better in an article like Dirty Gold Controversy or something like that, where a multitude of information can be brought together, for surely Newmont isn't the only gold company under the microscope. My suggested wording:

In August 2004, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment filed a $543 million (U.S.) civil lawsuit against Newmont, claiming waste from the company's Minahasa Raya mine polluted Buyat Bay, causing nearby villagers to become seriously ill and contaminating local fish stocks. Newmont denied the allegations, arguing that the illnesses had more to do with poor hygiene and poverty. On November 15, 2005, an Indonesian court dismissed the suit on technical grounds, saying the government had breached the terms of its contract with Newmont when it took legal action before seeking arbitration. Environmentalists are urging the suit be appealed.

Though the civil suit was dismissed, there is still pending a criminal suit against Newmont's top U.S. executive in Indonesia, Richard Ness, on charges stemming from the same allegations. His trial began in August 2005 — if convicted, Ness faces up to 10 years in prison, and the company faces a $68,000 (U.S.) fine.

Comments? · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate, it sounds good to me. I'm beginning to think that less is more for the environmental controversy section, especially given the Wikipedia limitations on original research. As an alternative, I think your wording would be supplemented by some external links to Newmont sites, environmental activist sites, and maybe some newspaper articles on the topic. That way readers can get aquatinted with the subject and then we can point them in the direction of other sources if they want to do further research. It also prevents Wikipedia from specifically taking a side on the issue, keeping with the NPOV policy. Jentry has been missing from these last few comments, but I think perhaps this compromise will acceptable for all of us. Thank you for your guidance. --Howrealisreal 19:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect?

This has been going for ten days. Ready to do some editing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jentry hasn't answered the compromise language yet, but I think this is probably okay to unprotect for now. I'll unprotect. Thank you Tony. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

On unexpected business travel, will return and comment more on Mon. I like Kates suggestions of starting an additional article to voice the "Dirty Gold" concerns... I agree with Jeremy's suggestions of adding external links to a myriad of sites on both sides fo the gulf to allow readers to make their own educated determinations. Jentry 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I am very pleased with this entire experience, it was productive and I believe the Newmont Wiki is better for it. I think the current page represents a decent encyclopedic entry for the corporation. I will from time to time add informataion to the Wiki and I welcome continued healthy discussion as we have had over the past few weeks. 69.4.4.200 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Jentry 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected, and thoughts from an administrator

Protected to work out the dispute. I would remind Jentry and the other anon user that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy. It's also not a mouthpiece for corporate PR. I'll be watching discussions here and interjecting guidance when I feel it needed. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Why is there no mention of the controversy that surrounds this company in the opening paragraph? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy, its also not a platform for Newmont's PR. I think we owe it to readers to write a balanced article on Newmont. This means telling all sides of the story Bartlantz 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

a PR page

Whoa, what happened to this page? From the discussion it seemed like things were resolved but now it's just a boring page devoid of any context or mention of the widespread controversy Newmont's practices has brought up all over the world.

Can we revert this back to one of the versions people on the discussion list agreed represented both sides of the issue in an accurate and fair manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.146.60 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrmichelle happened to this page. I smell a rat. Looks like a pretty cynical attempt at P.R. and reads like a stock prospectus. For now, I'm just going to stick the controversies section back in...but if somebody wants to revert to an earlier version--pre-Mrmichelle--they'll hear no complaint from me.Staple 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Equity Ounce

"Equity ounce" is an obscure term which is not defined on this page. A Google search "define:equity ounce" returns nothing. There is no Wiktionary entry.

Can someone define this term for me? Thanks. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Equity ounces are ounces of gold attributable to a company according to its interest in the mine, e.g. if you own 25% of a mine producing 100,000 ounces p.a., 25,000 'Equity Ounces' are attributable to you.Egoli (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Batu Hijau

There is important news—culminating today—with long-term implications for Newmont's activities in Indonesia. Anyone care to update?

• Selamat, Fawziah; Pranasidhi, Edhi (March 4, 2008). "Jakarta, Newmont Take Fight to U.N." The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2009.
• "Indonesia's Investment Minefield". The Wall Street Journal. March 5, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2009.
• "No Extension for Newmont Unit". The Wall Street Journal. Reuters. February 15, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2009.
• Wright, Tom (April 2, 2009). "Panel Affirms Newmont's Right to Run Indonesian Mine". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2009.

Bongomatic 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on it--kelapstick (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I could use some advice from people who have worked on making this article more encyclopedic

I'm working on the article Red Back Mining a gold producer. I have included lots of references but once I convice on user that the template they added is unecessary another user comes along and inserts more templates. It's getting ridiculous. I'd also like to know if production data that all major news outlets report, but is coming from the company itself is alright to include. I thought it was because any information that goes back more than a couple years about a companies production, most of the time the data originated from the same kind of sources I'm using (it was reported but news outlets do not dispute it and some include it in their headline without saying where the information came from.) because a couple years have gone by they don't say that it was the company that reported it in the first place. there is some production data that I've added that I'd like to keep. some people I've asked about it say it's alright with the references some don't.Grmike (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)grmike

Why doesn't anyone mention the dispute over the Conga mine in Peru? What's with section 4. Sustainability?????

I mean this section 4 it reads as pure copy paste PR, it's not relevant, it's not informative, it does not belong on wikipedia by any means.

And well the dispute regarding the conga mine in peru certainly deserves its attentnion as well as many other notable matters regarding this company and its activities in peru. What's wrong with wikipedia?Arcorpalladian (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious NPOV problems in Controversies section

Many of these appear to be written by anti-mining activists, with little or no attention to Nemont's side of the stories. I'll try to get back to this later. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference problems

There are a lot of reference problems to include missing information. Can someone look at this? Otr500 (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing information under "Yanacocha Mine, Peru" section

I plan on adding to the "Yanachocha Mine, Peru" section under "Controversies". This section only discusses political controversies and neglects to mention local protests that have arisen as a result of environmental degradation and its consequences. I plan to elaborate more on this aspect of Newmont’s mining activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sraman195 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Newmont Mining Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126094618/http://newmont.com/about/history to http://www.newmont.com/about/history
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.viewresources.com.au/announcements/15.06.04AcquiresBronzewing.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911130252/http://minedexext.doir.wa.gov.au/minedex/external/common/appMain.jsp to http://minedexext.doir.wa.gov.au/minedex/external/common/appMain.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.viewresources.com.au/bronzewing.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610230132/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45618 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45618

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Newmont pulls out of Hope Bay project

Hope Bay project sold. Newmont sells project to Quadra FNX, after investing $800 million at Hope Bay.

An IP removed mention of the project. Not sure if it's worth mentioning the de-accession. It was a substantial investment by Newmont. Not clear what Newmont's carried interest is, but likely substantial --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newmont Mining Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916043652/http://beyondthemine.com/2010/people/programs/employee_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_benefits/ to http://www.beyondthemine.com/2010/people/programs/employee_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_benefits/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061220/1/45khc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928013529/http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press591.htm to http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press591.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand and Indonesia under "Operations and major projects"

Hi, Wikipedia. Newmont no longer owns or operates mines in New Zealand or Indonesia. Would the community consider moving those sections to the Former operations section of the entry and condensing where relevant (I'd be happy to make suggestions)?

For context:

• Newmont reached a tentative deal to sell its Waihi assets, to OceanaGold Corp., in spring 2015. The sale was completed in October 2015. OceanGold continues to operate the site. Current ownership is also reflected on the Martha Mine's own Wikipedia entry.
• Newmont announced its $1.3 billion sale of the Batu Hijau mine, to PT Amman Mineral Internasional, in June 2016. The sale was completed in the fourth quarter of that year as announced by Newmont and reported by Reuters. PT Amman Mineral Nusa Tenggara continues to operate the mine.

Thanks for considering. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 10-NOV-2018

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  10:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Quarterly versus annual results

There are a number of dated references to quarterly earnings on this page. Because of the nature of the gold market (fluctuating prices, for example) and the frequency of quarterly earnings (the information is dated quickly), would the community be comfortable replacing quarterly results with current annual results going forward? K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia. Does the community have any thoughts on my above query? K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 10-NOV-2018

• The policies and guidelines which determine the suitability of content in Wikipedia are governed by WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT.
• The determination of whether the content meets those rules is best discovered through examination of the proposed content itself, which should be accompanied by the properly formatted markup reflecting the changes as well as the references for each change.
• The fact that similar-type information already exists in the article is a good indicator that subsequent information in the same vein will be approved.

 Spintendo  10:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 14-NOV-2018

{{edit COI|R}}

I'd like to propose this edit in keeping with my above query. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Replace the fourth sentence in the entry with this sentence that reflects on annual results, rather than quarterly:

In 2017, Newmont produced 5.65 million ounces of gold at all-in sustaining costs of US$924 per ounce. The company reported adjusted net income of $780 million for the year, and further reduced net debt down to US$0.8 billion.

Further Waihi and Batu Hijau clarifications

Thank you for the above edit. The Operations and major projects section still describes Batu Hijau in the present tense, however. Can we eliminate these four paragraphs, no. 2.5 under that section, and replace the final bullet under Former operations with this content (recast in past tense)?

• Waihi: In 2002, Newmont acquired the Martha Mine and Favona mine in New Zealand, as part of its acquisition of Normandy Mining. Newmont sold those assets in October 2015.
• Batu Hijau: Newmont operated the Batu Hijau mine on the island of Sumbawa in the Indonesia in the province of West Nusa Tenggara through its subsidiary company P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara, a joint venture between Newmont, Sumitomo Corporation and P.T. Pukuafu Indah. Newmont discovered Batu Hija, a large porphyry copper/gold deposit, in 1990. Development and construction activities began in 1997 and start-up occurred in late 1999. In 2010, Batu Hijau produced 542 million pounds of copper (269 million attributable pounds) and 737,000 ounces of gold (364,000 attributable ounces). On December 31, 2010, it reported 3,760 million pounds of copper reserves and 3.7 million ounces of gold reserves. In 2016, Newmont announced a $1.3 billion sale of Batu Hijau to PT Amman Mineral Internasional (PTAMI).

At the same time, the third paragraph from the existing entry could move to the Batu Hijau section of Controversies:

In 2008, the Indonesian government threatened to terminate the contract of P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara after accusing it of failing to meet its divestment obligations. On April 1, 2009, international arbitrators and its partner sided with Newmont rejecting Jakarta's request to have their contract revoked, which would have forced the company to walk away from the property without any compensation. Instead, Newmont was forced to sell a 17% stake in an Indonesian subsidiary within 180 days.

On 6 August 2010, a 5 day long strike, which had completely shut US-based Newmont Mining Corp.’s Batu Hijau mines and operations on Sumbawa Island ended after some 1,500 miners of the PT NNT labour union, affiliated to the Chemical, Energy, Mine Workers’ Union of the Indonesia Workers’ Union, agreed to await an overtime pay judgment from a provincial government. "The dispute started some three weeks after the Manpower and Transmigration Ministry of West Nusa Tenggara Province issued an order that management was in arrears on Rp 126 billion (US$13.8 million) in overtime wages to some 1,919 workers dating back to 2008."

This would make the entry more reflective of current operations without materially changing the entry's content. Thank you for considering. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 13-NOV-2018

  Unable to implement  

1. The Bloomberg reference as the main source of information in the proposed Batu Hijau paragraph is inaccessible. To verify this text, please utilize the |quote= parameter of the citation template by inserting the verbatim text from the source which verifies the claims made in the paragraph.
2. Text found in the third paragraph proposed to be moved to the Batu Hijau section of Controversies is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, text proposed to be added to an article (or in this case, moved within an article) ought to be written using an editor's own words and phrasing. A description of the problematic text may be found here.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 14-NOV-2018

Thank you for your consideration. I've responded to your reply below. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1) I previously asked, The Operations and major projects section still describes Batu Hijau in the present tense, however. Can we eliminate these four paragraphs, no. 2.5 under that section, and replace the final bullet under Former operations with this content (recast in past tense)? Please consider this update with an alternative to the protected Bloomberg source:

• Waihi: In 2002, Newmont acquired the Martha Mine and Favona mine in New Zealand, as part of its acquisition of Normandy Mining. Newmont sold those assets in October 2015.
• Batu Hijau: Newmont operated the Batu Hijau mine on the island of Sumbawa in the Indonesia in the province of West Nusa Tenggara through its subsidiary company P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara, a joint venture between Newmont, Sumitomo Corporation and P.T. Pukuafu Indah. Newmont discovered Batu Hija, a large porphyry copper/gold deposit, in 1990. Development and construction activities began in 1997 and start-up occurred in late 1999. In 2010, Batu Hijau produced 542 million pounds of copper (269 million attributable pounds) and 737,000 ounces of gold (364,000 attributable ounces). On December 31, 2010, it reported 3,760 million pounds of copper reserves and 3.7 million ounces of gold reserves. In 2016, Newmont finalized a $1.3 billion sale of Batu Hijau to PT Amman Mineral Internasional (PTAMI).

2) Here is alternative phrasing for the requested Controversies edit:

In 2008, the Indonesian government threatened to terminate the contract of P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara after accusing it of failing to meet its divestment obligations. On April 1, 2009, international arbitrators and its partner sided with Newmont rejecting Jakarta's request to have their contract revoked, which would have forced the company to walk away from the property without any compensation. Instead, Newmont was forced to sell a 17% stake in an Indonesian subsidiary within 180 days.

In August 2010, Batu Hijau workers went on strike, claiming unpaid overtime. Previously, the provincial Manpower and Transmigration Ministry ordered the mine to pay Rp 126 billion (US$13.8 million) in overtime for 1,919 worksers, some dating back two years. Additional strikes over working shifts occured throughout 2011.

On 6 August 2010, a 5 day long strike, which had completely shut US-based Newmont Mining Corp.’s Batu Hijau mines and operations on Sumbawa Island ended after some 1,500 miners of the PT NNT labour union, affiliated to the Chemical, Energy, Mine Workers’ Union of the Indonesia Workers’ Union, agreed to await an overtime pay judgment from a provincial government. "The dispute started some three weeks after the Manpower and Transmigration Ministry of West Nusa Tenggara Province issued an order that management was in arrears on Rp 126 billion (US$13.8 million) in overtime wages to some 1,919 workers dating back to 2008." — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 14-NOV-2018

  Edit request declined  

1. The only source used for the proposed Batu Hijau paragraph is one connected to the industry. When discussing this level of company-related minutiae regarding the mine, the source should be unconnected to the subject, otherwise the article becomes a collection of industry reported and covered information, per WP:BALASP.
2. The insufficiently paraphrased text has not been altered. This text needs to be written using an editor's own words and phrasing.

Regards,  Spintendo  18:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 14-NOV-2018

In response. Thank you for the consideration. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

1) With non-industry sources:

• Waihi: In 2002, Newmont acquired the Martha Mine and Favona mine in New Zealand, as part of its acquisition of Normandy Mining. Newmont sold those assets in October 2015.
• Batu Hijau: Newmont operated the Batu Hijau mine on the island of Sumbawa in the Indonesia in the province of West Nusa Tenggara through its subsidiary company P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara, a joint venture between Newmont, Sumitomo Corporation and P.T. Pukuafu Indah. Newmont discovered Batu Hija, a large porphyry copper/gold deposit, in 1990. Development and construction activities began in 1997 and start-up occurred in late 1999. In 2010, Batu Hijau produced 542 million pounds of copper (269 million attributable pounds) and 737,000 ounces of gold (364,000 attributable ounces). On December 31, 2010, it reported 3,760 million pounds of copper reserves and 3.7 million ounces of gold reserves. In 2016, Newmont sold Batu Hijau to PT Amman Mineral Internasional (PTAMI) for US$1.3 billion.

2 That may have been a faulty edit on my part. The second paragraph here is intended to replace the existing paragraph, and eliminate the highlighted copy you flagged with Earwig. The third paragrpah can simply be removed.

In 2008, the Indonesian government threatened to terminate the contract of P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara after accusing it of failing to meet its divestment obligations. On April 1, 2009, international arbitrators and its partner sided with Newmont rejecting Jakarta's request to have their contract revoked, which would have forced the company to walk away from the property without any compensation. Instead, Newmont was forced to sell a 17% stake in an Indonesian subsidiary within 180 days.

In August 2010, Batu Hijau workers went on strike, claiming unpaid overtime. Previously, the provincial Manpower and Transmigration Ministry ordered the mine to pay Rp 126 billion (US$13.8 million) in overtime for 1,919 worksers, some dating back two years. Additional strikes over working shifts occured throughout 2011.

References

The paragraph regarding Batu Hijau has been reworded to indicate past tense.  Spintendo  21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Annual results in opening section

I'd like to propose this edit in keeping with a request above. Apologies for misunderstanding convention previously. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Replace the fourth sentence in the entry with this sentence that reflects on annual results, rather than quarterly:

In 2017, Newmont produced 5.65 million ounces of gold at all-in sustaining costs of US$924 per ounce. The company reported adjusted net income of $780 million for the year, and further reduced net debt down to US$0.8 billion.

References

Reply 14-NOV-2018

  Edit request implemented  

• Recent financial results are not germane to the article's lead section, so this information was placed in the main body of text.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Newmont sold Red Lake in 2019

https://www.kitco.com/news/2019-11-25/Newmont-Goldcorp-sells-Red-Lake-for-375-million-plus-100-million-in-contigencies.html

2601:282:1200:4AE0:6D45:58C2:DD2F:BE1B (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Neil Moloney (I work for Newmont) 30 JUN 2020

Sale of Red Lake Mine

Here is a request to remove the Red Lake Mine operation from the operations and projects wikitable given its sale by Newmont on March 31, 2020.

| Red Lake Mine | Canada | 100% | Underground | Gold | 276,000 | 2.05 million |-

Works pat (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Earlier, non-gold history of Newmont

I wish somebody would write up some sections on the earlier, non-gold history of Newmont and its various predecessors and operations, e.g. Vanadium Corporation of America was acquired by Foote Mineral in the late 1960s, which in turn was acquired by Newmont, I think in the 1970s? Apparently the various non-gold operations were all spun off later, but sadly, this Wikipedia article does not cover that. Bhami (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Máxima Acuña

This article does rural latin america a disservice in not mentioning the controversies regarding Acuña's farm and the allegations of human rights violations against the Newmont Corporation and the Peruvian government. The article seems somewhat biased in other aspects and is arguably misinforming in that regard. 32.217.125.69 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Address

Newmont has moved HQ to 6900 E Layton Ave, Denver, CO 80237 Nmoloney1968 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)