XML 31 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2022
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: ​ Environmental matters: ​ The Company has established comprehensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize the impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions, among others. ​ Environmental capital investments in the first quarter of 2022 and 2021 were as follows (in millions): ​
​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | ​
​ |  | 2022 |  | 2021
Peruvian operations | ​ | $ | 1.4 | ​ | $ | 0.1
Mexican operations | ​ |  | 12.6 | ​ |  | 5.4
​ | ​ | $ | 14.0 | ​ | $ | 5.5
​ Peruvian operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. The Peruvian government, through the Ministry of Environment (“MINAM”) conducts annual audits of the Company’s Peruvian mining and metallurgical operations. Through these environmental audits, matters related to environmental obligations, compliance with legal requirements, atmospheric emissions, effluent monitoring and waste management are reviewed. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. Peruvian law requires that companies in the mining industry provide assurances for future mine closure and remediation. In accordance with the requirements of this law, the Company’s closure plans were approved by MINEM. See Note 8 “Asset retirement obligation” for further discussion of this matter. ​ Air Quality Standards (“AQS”): In June 2017, MINAM enacted a supreme decree that defined new AQS for daily sulfur dioxide in the air. As of March 31, 2022, the Company maintains a daily average level of µg/m3 of SO2, lower than those required by the new AQS. ​ Soil Environmental Quality Standards (“SQS”): In 2013, the Peruvian government enacted Soil Quality Standards. In accordance with the regulatory requirements of the law, the Company prepared Soil Decontamination Plans (“SDP”) for environmentally impacted sites at each of its operation units (Toquepala, Cuajone and Ilo) with the assistance of consulting companies. The costs of these SDPs are not material, either individually or in aggregated form, for the financial statements of the Company. ​ Climate change: On April 17, 2018, the Peruvian government enacted Law N. 30754, establishing a Climate Change Framework. This law establishes that it is in the national interest to promote public and private investments in climate change management. The law proposes creating an institutional framework to address climate change in Peru, and outlines new measures, particularly with respect to climate change mitigation. For example, it includes provisions addressing an increase in carbon capture and use of carbon sinks, afforestation and reforestation practices; land use changes; and sustainable systems of transportation, solid waste management, and energy systems. This is the first Latin American climate change framework law to incorporate obligations from the Paris Agreement. Regulations to this law were enacted by Supreme Decree 013-2019 published on December 31, 2019, and are applicable to all Peruvian institutions and agencies. It is expected that further Peruvian regulations will be applicable to non-governmental entities. However, no carbon pricing mechanism is currently applicable to the Company’s operations in Peru. Mexican operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Mexican federal, state and municipal environmental laws, to Mexican official standards, and to regulations for the protection of the environment, including regulations relating to water supply, water quality, air quality, noise levels and hazardous and solid waste. ​ The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. It may also initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent shutdown of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. ​ In 2011, the General Law was amended to provide an individual or entity the ability to challenge administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment as long as it can be argued that the harm may be caused. Additionally, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were enacted in 2011, and established three categories of collective actions under which a group of 30 or more individuals may be considered sufficient to prove a “legitimate interest” to file civil actions for injuries arising out of alleged violations of environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition laws. The group can seek restitution or economic compensation for the alleged injuries or suspension of the activities which allegedly caused the injuries in question. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm. ​ In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. This law establishes general guidelines for actions to be considered likely to cause environmental harm. If a possible determination regarding harm occurs, environmental clean-up and remedial actions sufficient to restore environment to a pre-existing condition should be taken. If restoration is not possible, compensation measures must be provided. Criminal penalties and monetary fines may be imposed under this law. ​ On February 2019, the Mexican Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of an ecological tax on extractive activities conducted in the state of Zacatecas, which taxes environmental remediation actions, emissions of certain gases to the atmosphere, emissions of polluting substances to the soil or water, and waste storage within the state. The Company has determined that this new environmental regulation will have no impact on its financial position. ​ Guaymas sulfuric acid spill: On July 9, 2019, there was an incident at the Company´s Marine Terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, that caused the discharge of approximately three cubic meters of sulfuric acid into the sea in the industrial port area. ​ The Guaymas bay has an estimated water volume of 340 million cubic meters. The spill, upon entering in contact with the sea’s alkaline conditions, led to quick dilution of the discharge. Thus, the sulfuric acid was naturally and immediately neutralized. As a result, the discharge was considered harmless; the report from the Ministry of Navy found that neither the flora nor fauna of the port area were affected. ​ On July 10, 2019, PROFEPA made a first inspection of the area, concluding that the Company executed all the appropiate procedures in order to contain the discharge, and no reference was made to the existence of negative impacts on the environment resulting from the incident. ​ On Friday, July 19, 2019, PROFEPA revisited the facilities to carry out a second inspection and declared a partial temporary shutdown that only affected the storage process and transportation of sulfuric acid at the terminal, arguing the absence of an authorization of environmental impact. It is important to note that these facilities have been in operation since 1979, prior to the 1988 Mexican General Law of Ecological Balance and the Protection of the Environment. Companies that were operating before the aforementioned law are exempt from the permit requirement. In addition, in 2009, PROFEPA awarded a certification of “Clean Industry and Environmental Quality” to the facility which was subsequently renewed four times (for a two-year period each time). ​ The Company filed a lawsuit against the closure, which was dismissed by a ruling on August 25, 2021. This ruling has been challenged through a motion to reopen the case, which was submitted on September 28, 2021. On January 4, 2022, the challenge was resolved. The authority imposed two fines and ruled that the temporary closure would remain in place until the environmental impact statement is obtained. The Company intends to appeal this ruling ​ The Company is not aware of the reasons or causes for this partial and temporary closure, but will continue working with the environmental authorities to provide assurance that the operation is in strict compliance with environmental regulations. The Company expects the environmental authorities to suspend the partial temporary shutdown, once their concerns are resolved. Currently, the Company does not expect any impact on its operations. As of March 31, 2022, the matter is pending resolution. ​ Climate change: Several taxes are applicable to the Company’s mining operations in Mexico, including federal and state fossil fuel taxes, and the requirements associated with Mexico’s emission trading scheme. These taxes range from $2.5/tCO2 to $12.5/tCO2, approximately. These refer to regional taxes applicable in the States of Baja California and Zacatecas, as well as a federal tax linked to Mexico’s carbon market system which is currently in its pilot phase. The requirements associated with this scheme are currently applicable only to two business units, the metallurgic and lime plants in Sonora, which generate annual GHG emissions levels above the threshold of 100,000 tCO2e per year contemplated by the scheme. These business units are required to report and verify their emissions once a year with average costs of less than $6,000 per unit. Units that emit more than 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (all our Mexican units) are required to report their emissions to the National Emissions Registry (RENE) every year and to verify the reported emissions every three years. As a result, the Company’s total annual compliance costs related to climate change regulations in Mexico were not material to the Company. ​ The Company has also been participating in Mexico’s “GHG Program” since its inception in 2005, which is a voluntary initiative for the registry and reporting of greenhouse gases emissions. ​ The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with environmental, mining and other applicable laws and regulations. The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will have no material adverse effects on the Company’s business, properties, or operating results. ​ Litigation matters: ​ Peruvian operations: ​ The Tia Maria Mining Project ​ There are five lawsuits filed against the Peruvian Branch of the Company related to the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits seek (i) to declare null and void the resolution that approved the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project; (ii) the cancellation of the project and the withdrawal of mining activities in the area; (iii) to declare null and void the mining concession application for the Tia Maria project; and (iv) to declare null and void the resolution that approved the construction license. The lawsuits were filed by Messrs. Jorge Isaac del Carpio Lazo (filed May 22, 2015), Ernesto Mendoza Padilla (filed May 26, 2015), Juan Alberto Guillen Lopez (filed June 18, 2015), Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo (filed April 30, 2015), and Gobierno Regional de Arequipa (filed December 16, 2019). ​ The del Carpio Lazo case was rejected by the court of first instance on November 14, 2016. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Superior Court on January 3, 2017. On January 9, 2018, the lawyers of both parties presented their respective positions before the Appellate Court. On March 8, 2018, the Appellate Court issued its final decision, which upheld the first instance court´s ruling. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. On January 21, 2022, the Supreme Court rejected the extraordinary appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the case has concluded in favor of SCC’s Peruvian Branch. ​ The Mendoza Padilla case was initially rejected by the lower court on July 8, 2015. This ruling was confirmed by the Superior Court on June 14, 2016. On July 12, 2016, the case was appealed before the Constitutional Court. On November 20, 2018, the Constitutional Court reversed the previous decisions and remanded the case to the lower court for further action. In the third quarter of 2020, the Company was notified that the complaint had been reinstated. The Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the lower court issued a resolution, considering the complaint answered. On September 27, 2021, the Court ordered to temporarily archive the case. As of March 31, 2022, the case remains pending resolution. ​ The Guillen Lopez case is currently before the lower court. Oral arguments took place on July 19, 2019,. On January 7, 2020, the Judge decided to suspend the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazo case is concluded. On March 3, 2022, SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court that the del Carpio Lazo case had concluded. As of March 31, 2022, the case remains pending resolution. ​ The Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo case is currently before the lower court. On May 2016, the Company was included in the process, after the Ministry of Energy and Mines filed a civil complaint. On March 6, 2019, the Company was formally notified of the lawsuit and answered the complaint on March 20, 2019. On July 8, 2019, the Company requested the suspension of the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazo case is concluded. On March 3, 2022, SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court that the del Carpio Lazo case had concluded. As of March 31, 2022, the case remains pending resolution. ​ The Gobierno Regional de Arequipa case is currently before the lower court. The Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. On February 8, 2021, the Judge decided to suspend the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazo case is concluded. On March 24, 2022, SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court that the del Carpio Lazo case had concluded. As of March 31, 2022, the case remains pending resolution. ​ The Company asserts that these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. The potential contingency amount for these cases cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. ​ Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”) ​ In 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has, since 1995, constructed and operated the tailings dams with proper governmental authorization. Following a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court included MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending resolution without further developments. ​ SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it. The amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. ​ Mexican operations: ​ The Accidental Spill at Buenavista Mine of 2014 ​ In relation to the 2014 accidental spill of copper sulfate solution at a leaching pond in the Buenavista mine, the following legal procedures are pending against the Company: ​ On August 19, 2014, PROFEPA, as part of the administrative proceeding initiated after the spill, announced the filing of a criminal complaint against Buenavista del Cobre S.A. de C.V. (“BVC”), a subsidiary of the Company, in order to determine those responsible for environmental damages. During the second quarter of 2018, the criminal complaint was dismissed. This decision was appealed and was pending resolution as of March 31, 2022. ​ Through the first half of 2015, six collective action lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Mexico City and Sonora against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking economic compensation, clean up and remedial activities in order to restore the environment to its pre-existing conditions. Three of the collective action lawsuits have been dismissed by the court. As of March 31, 2022, three lawsuits are still pending: two were filed by Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa, A.C. and one by Defensa Colectiva, A.C., requesting precautionary measures in the construction of facilities to monitoring public health services and prohibiting the closure of the Rio Sonora Trust. ​ Similarly, during 2015, eight civil action lawsuits were filed against BVC in the state courts of Sonora seeking damages for alleged injuries and for moral damages as a consequence of the spill. The plaintiffs in the state court lawsuits are: Jose Vicente Arriola Nunez et al; Santana Ruiz Molina et al; Andres Nogales Romero et al; Teodoro Javier Robles et al; Gildardo Vasquez Carvajal et al; Rafael Noriega Souffle et al; Grupo Banamichi Unido de Sonora El Dorado, S.C. de R.L. de C.V; and Marcelino Mercado Cruz. In 2016, three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages, were filed by Juan Melquicedec Lebaron; Blanca Lidia Valenzuela Rivera et al and Ramona Franco Quijada et al. In 2017, BVC was served with thirty-three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages. The lawsuits were filed by Francisco Javier Molina Peralta et al; Anacleto Cohen Machini et al; Francisco Rafael Alvarez Ruiz et al; Jose Alberto Martinez Bracamonte et al; Gloria del Carmen Ramirez Duarte et al; Flor Margarita Sabori et al; Blanca Esthela Ruiz Toledo et al; Julio Alfonso Corral Dominguez et al; Maria Eduwiges Bracamonte Villa et al; Francisca Marquez Dominguez et al; Jose Juan Romo Bravo et al; Jose Alfredo Garcia Leyva et al; Gloria Irma Dominguez Perez et al; Maria del Refugio Romero et al; Miguel Rivas Medina et al; Yolanda Valenzuela Garrobo et al; Maria Elena Garcia Leyva et al; Manuel Alfonso Ortiz Valenzuela et al; Francisco Alberto Arvayo Romero et al; Maria del Carmen Villanueva Lopez et al; Manuel Martin Garcia Salazar; Miguel Garcia Arguelles et al; Dora Elena Rodriguez Ochoa et al; Honora Eduwiges Ortiz Rodriguez et al; Francisco Jose Martinez Lopez et al; Maria Eduwiges Lopez Bustamante; Rodolfo Barron Villa et al, Jose Carlos Martinez Fernandez et al, Maria de los Angeles Fabela et al; Rafaela Edith Haro et al; Luz Mercedes Cruz et al; Juan Pedro Montaño et al; and Juana Irma Alday Villa. In the first quarter of 2018, BVC was served with another civil action lawsuit, claiming similar damages. The lawsuit was filed by Alma Angelina Del Cid Rivera et al. In the last quarter of 2018, BVC was served with other three civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages. These lawsuits were filed by Los Corrales de la Estancia, S.C. de R.L.; Jose Antonio Navarro; Jesus Maria Peña Molina, et al; these actions were dismissed by the court, because they have expired. As of March 31, 2022, forty-five cases remain pending resolution. ​ In 2015, four constitutional lawsuits (juicios de amparo) were filed before Federal Courts against various authorities and against a subsidiary of the Company, arguing; (i) the alleged lack of a waste management program approved by SEMARNAT; (ii) the alleged lack of a remediation plan approved by SEMARNAT with regard to the August 2014 spill; (iii) the alleged lack of community approval regarding the environmental impact authorizations granted by SEMARNAT to one subsidiary of the Company; and (iv) the alleged inactivity of the authorities with regard to the spill in August 2014. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are: Francisca Garcia Enriquez, et al filed two lawsuits, Francisco Ramon Miranda, et al and Jesus David Lopez Peralta et al. In the third quarter of 2016, four additional constitutional lawsuits, claiming similar damages were filed by Mario Alberto Salcido et al; Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; Martin Eligio Ortiz Gamez et al; and Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame et al. In the third quarter of 2017, BVC was served with another constitutional lawsuit filed by Francisca García Enriquez et al. In 2018, BVC was served with two additional constitutional lawsuits that were filed against SEMARNAT by Norberto Bustamante et al. With regard to the constitutional lawsuit filed by Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; in which it was claimed the lack of community approval regarding the authorization granted by SEMARNAT to build the new BVC tailings dam, on September 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a resolution establishing that such authorization was granted to BVC in compliance with the applicable legislation. However, SEMARNAT must carry out a public meeting to inform the community of the technical aspects required to build the dam, potential impacts and prevention measures. This public meeting will have no material effects to BVC’s operations. SEMARNAT has carried out the consultation ordered by the Supreme Court. As a result, it has informed the corresponding Judge its compliance with the resolution, in which BVC was required to implement additional measures of environmental impact prevention, such as: (i) the building of at least three monitoring wells downstream from the curtain of the contingency dam in a period of six months; (ii) monitoring of the groundwater level and water quality every six months; (iii) carrying out rain collection work in order to restore water to the Sonora River basin, with six months granted to present the execution program; (iv) determine the location of wildlife conservation and protection areas and define the need to establish biological corridors; (v) obtain photographic or videographic evidence every six months; (vi) submitting to SEMARNAT two years before the closure and abandonment of the site, or earlier if necessary, the closure program that includes the cleaning and restoration of the soil including Mexican regulation NOM-141; (vii) include the measures in the Environmental Monitoring Program according to the environmental components impacted; and (viii) hiring an external environmental consultant to validate compliance with the current and new conditions imposed. The foregoing does not impact BVC’s operations. Additionally, the lawsuits filed by Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame and Norberto Bustamante have been dismissed and closed without prejudice to the Company. As of March 31, 2022, the remaining cases were still pending resolution. ​ It is currently not possible to determine the extent of the damages sought in these state and federal lawsuits but the Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit. Accordingly, the Company is vigorously defending against them. Nevertheless, the Company believes that none of the legal proceedings resulting from the spill, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. ​ Corporate operations: ​ Carla Lacey, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation ​ In April 2019, a derivative lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain current and former Directors, and Grupo Mexico in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to certain construction contracts, contracts for the purchase and sale of minerals, and transportation contracts entered into between the Company’s subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico. ​ In October 2019, the plaintiff amended the complaint to include claims related to certain administrative services contracts between the Company’s subsidiaries and Grupo Mexico. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the construction, mineral, transportation, and administrative services contracts were unfair as a result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company’s charter. The amended complaint also added Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) as a defendant, alleging that AMC breached its fiduciary duties as a controlling stockholder of the Company. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages. In January 2020, the Company, the current and former Directors, and Grupo Mexico responded to the complaint by filing motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed a brief in response to the motions on March 13, 2020. On July 16, 2020, the Court denied the motions to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Directors. On October 6, 2020, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims against Grupo Mexico for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 11, 2021, the Court granted the Directors’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The Court also granted AMC’s motion to dismiss all claims against AMC other than those related to the mineral contracts. ​ On July 12, 2021, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to Court approval. On September 29, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release with the Court. On February 1, 2022, the Judge approved the settlement and awarded certain fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys. The Judge’s order for this decision was registered on February 2, 2022. Under applicable law, there was a 30-day period for parties to appeal the Judge's order. This period expired on March 4, 2022, and therefore the Judge's order is considered final. ​ ​ Labor matters: ​ Peruvian operations: 72.8% of the Company's 4,675 Peruvian employees were unionized at March 31, 2022. Currently, there are six separate unions, none of which represents the majority of workers, as defined by current Peruvian labor legislation. ​ During 2021, the Company decided to hold talks with the six unions to sign collective agreements prior to their effective dates. As a result, between June and December 2021, the Company signed collective agreements with the six unions with durations between three to six years. All of them granted annual salary increases of 5%. Additionally, each agreement granted, among other things, a signing bonus of between S/45,000 (approximately $12,159) and S/90,000 (approximately $22,318), depending on the duration of the agreement. A long-term agreement bonus of S/10,000 (approximately $2,702) was granted to the union that signed a six-year extension of the collective bargaining agreement. All these concepts were recorded as labor expense. ​ As of March 31, 2022, the Company has no pending negotiations with Peruvian unions. ​ Mexican operations: In recent years, the Mexican operations have experienced a positive improvement in their labor environment, as workers opted to change their affiliation from the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalurgicos y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (the “National Mining Union”) to other less politicized unions. The workers of the San Martin mine were on strike since July 2007. On February 28, 2018, the striking workers of the San Martín mine of IMMSA held an election to vote on the union that would hold the collective bargaining agreement at the San Martín mine. The Federacion Nacional de Sindicatos Independientes (the National Federation of Independent Unions) won the vote by a majority. Nevertheless, the vote was challenged by the National Mining Union. On June 26, 2018, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board issued a ruling recognizing the election results. Due to the agreement between workers and the Company to end the protracted strike, on August 22, 2018, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board authorized the restart of operations of the San Martín mine. Such authorization was challenged by the National Mining Union. On April 4, 2019, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board recognized, once again, the election results from February 28, 2018, by which the National Federation of Independent Unions won by a majority. In the last quarter of 2019, a Federal Court issued a resolution that established that the Labor Court should analyze the list of workers with the right to vote in the union election. The Company and the National Federation of Independent Unions challenged such determination before the Supreme Court of Justice. Such challenges were dismissed by the Supreme Court. As a consequence, on September 6, 2021, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board issued a new resolution determining that, based on the documents submitted by the National Federation of Independent Unions and given the status of the strike until 2018, it was not possible to create a registry of workers holding a right to vote. Therefore, in case of a strike, any economic collective proceedings shall remain suspended. The Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board shall decide on the request of the majority of workers to end the strike, despite the opposition of the National Mining Union. The Company expects that the conflict will be solved in accordance with the legal framework set by labor authorities and that any actions taken will respect the workers’ will. ​ As of March 31, 2022, the Company had completed most of the rehabilitation plan to restore operations at the San Martin mine, at a total expense of approximately $90.5 million; the mine has since reached full operating capacity. ​ In the case of the Taxco mine, its workers have been on strike since July 2007. After several legal procedures, in August 2015, the Supreme Court decided to assert jurisdiction over the case and to rule on it directly. As of March 31, 2022, the case was pending resolution without further developments. ​ It is expected that operations at the Taxco mine will remain suspended until the labor issues are resolved. In view of the lengthy strike, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of the Taxco mine to ascertain whether impairment exists. The Company concluded that there is a non-material impairment of the assets located at this mine. ​ In 2020, a small group of workers at the Charcas mine claimed an additional workers’ participation payment and a minor incident was reported. This claim lacked legal basis given that the Company had already completely fulfilled said obligation with the workers in question. Consequently, the Company took legal action and through conciliation and mediation with labor authorities, the incident concluded with no further repercussions for the Company. ​ Other legal matters: ​ The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. ​ ​ Other commitments: ​ Peruvian Operations: ​ Tia Maria ​ On August 1, 2014, the Company received final approval for Tia Maria´s Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”). On July 8, 2019, the Company received the construction permit for this 120,000 ton annual SX-EW copper greenfield project with a total capital budget of $1,400 million. This permit was obtained after completing an exhaustive review process, complying with all established regulatory requirements and addressing all observations raised. ​ On July 15, 2019, anti-mining groups staged a violent demonstration affecting economic as well as other activities in the Islay province. These actions were followed by the filing of three complaints, sponsored by groups opposing the Tia Maria project, with the Mining Council, which is the Peruvian administrative authority responsible for ruling on these complaints. The Mining Council temporarily suspended the construction permit on August 8, 2019. On October 7, 2019, as part of the process, the Mining Council conducted a hearing to hear the complaints and the Company´s position. On October 30, 2019, the Mining Council of the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines ratified the construction permit for the Tia Maria project. ​ The Company has been working to promote the welfare of the Islay province population. As part of these efforts, the Company has implemented social programs in education, healthcare and productive development to improve the quality-of-life in the region. The Company also has promoted agricultural and livestock activities in the Tambo Valley and supported growth in manufacturing, fishing and tourism in Islay. ​ During the construction and operation phase, the Company will make it a priority to hire local labor to fill the 9,000 jobs (3,600 direct and 5,400 indirect) that the Company expects to generate during Tia Maria’s construction phase. When operating, the Company expects Tia Maria to directly employ 600 workers and indirectly provide jobs for another 4,200. Additionally, from day one of its operations, the Company will generate significant contributions to revenues in the Arequipa region via royalties and taxes. ​ Tia Maria´s project budget is approximately $1.4 billion, of which $332.3 million had been invested as of March 31, 2022. This project will use state-of-the-art SX-EW technology with the highest international environmental standards. SX-EW facilities are the most environmentally friendly in the industry as they do not require a smelting process and therefore, do not release any emissions into the atmosphere. ​ Michiquillay ​ In June 2018, the Company signed a contract for the acquisition of the Michiquillay copper project in Cajamarca, Peru, at a purchase price of $400 million. Michiquillay is a world-class mining project with estimated inferred mineral resources of 2,288 million tonnes with an estimated copper grade of 0.43%. It is expected to produce 225,000 tonnes of copper per year (along with by-products of molybdenum, gold and silver) for an initial mine life of more than 25 years. ​ On September 3, 2021, the Company signed a social agreement with the Michiquillay community. On October 1, 2021, the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines approved the semi-detailed environmental impact study for the project. Additionally, on November 12, 2021, the Company signed a Social Agreement with the Encañada Community. These events will allow the Company to initiate an in-depth exploration program in the second quarter of 2022. ​ The main commitments signed by the Company in the social agreements with the Michiquillay project communities are related to providing support for agricultural and livestock activities, economic development of local initiatives, and social programs in favor of education, water management, waste disposal, and healthcare for vulnerable groups. ​ The Company paid $12.5 million at the signing of the contract. In June 2021, the Company made an additional payment of $12.5 million. The balance of $375.0 million will be paid if the Company decides to develop the project, which is not a present obligation. Corporate Social Responsibility ​ The Company has a corporate social responsibility policy to maintain and promote the continuity of its mining operations and obtain the best results. The main objective of this policy is to integrate the Company´s operations with local communities in the areas of influence of its operations by creating permanent positive relationships to develop optimum social conditions and promote sustainable development in the area. Accordingly, the Company has made the following commitments: ​ Tacna Region: In connection with the Toquepala concentrator expansion, the Company has committed to funding various social and infrastructure improvement projects in Toquepala’s neighboring communities. The total amount committed for these purposes is S/445.0 million (approximately $120.2 million). In relation to this commitment, the Company has recently completed the construction of a school with an investment of S/18.8 million (approximately $5.1 million), has co-financed the construction of the Cularjahuira dam for S/15.6 million (approximately $4.2 million) and is preparing the study of engineering for the Callazas dam for S/2.6 million (approximately $0.7 million). ​ As the Toquepala expansion project has been completed, the Company considers that these commitments constitute present obligations of the Company and consequently has recorded a liability of $34.6 million in its condensed consolidated financial statements as of March 31 2022. ​ In addition, the Company has committed S/70.3 million (approximately $19.0 million) for the construction of a high-performance school in the Tacna region under the “social investment for taxes” (obras por impuestos) program, which allows the Company to use these amounts as an advance payment of taxes. ​ Moquegua Region: In the Moquegua region, the Company participates in a “development roundtable” with local municipal authorities and community representatives to discuss social needs and to determine the ways that the Company can contribute to sustainable development in the region. Currently, the roundtable is discussing the creation of a Moquegua Region Development Fund, for which the Company has offered a contribution of S/1,000 million (approximately $270.2 million). While final funding is not yet settled, the Company has committed to contribute S/108.4 million (approximately $29.3 million) as an advance, which is being utilized to fund an educational project. In addition, there is a commitment to finance the construction of a residual water treatment plant in Ilo for S/79.9 million (approximately $21.6 million), to build three schools in Moquegua for S/15.9 million (approximately $4.3 million) and to build tracks and sidewalks in Pacocha for S/6.4 million (approximately $1.7 million). ​ In addition, the Company has committed S/100.4 million (approximately $27.1 million) to build two infrastructure projects in the Moquegua region under the “social investment for taxes” (obras por impuestos) program, which allows the Company to use these amounts as an advance payment of taxes. ​ Power purchase agreements ​
● | Electroperu S.A.: In June 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120 megawatts (“MW”) with the state power company Electroperu S.A., under which Electroperu S.A. began supplying energy for the Peruvian operations for twenty years starting on April 17, 2017.
​
● | Kallpa Generacion S.A. (“Kallpa”): In July 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120MW with Kallpa, an independent Israeli owned power company, under which Kallpa will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for ten years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2027. In May 2016, the Company signed an additional power purchase agreement for a maximum of 80MW with Kallpa, under which Kallpa began supplying energy for the Peruvian operations related to the Toquepala Expansion and other minor projects starting on May 1, 2017 and ending on October 31, 2029.
​ Mexican operations: ​ Power purchase agreements ​
● | MGE: In 2012, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with MGE, an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply power to some of the Company’s Mexican operations through 2032. For further information, please see Note 5 “Related party transactions”.
​
● | Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I. de C.V.: In 2013, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I. de C.V. a windfarm energy producer that is an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply power to some of the Company´s Mexican operations. For further information, please see Note 5 “Related party transactions”.
​
● | Parque Eolico de Fenicias, S. de R.L. de C.V.: On February 20, 2020, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with Parque Eolico de Fenicias, S. de R.L. de C.V., and indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply 611,400 MWh of power per year to some of the Company´s Mexican operations for 20 years. This agreement is expected to begin in July 2022.
​ Corporate operations: ​ Commitment for capital projects ​ As of March 31, 2022, the Company had committed approximately $369.2 million to the development of its capital investment projects at its operations. ​ Tax contingency matters:Tax contingencies are provided for under ASC 740-10-50-15 Uncertain tax position (see Note 4 “Income taxes”).

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration