COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES i. Commitments Purchase commitments At December 31, 2020, the Company had future purchase commitments of approximately $992.6 million (December 31, 2019 - $1,104.3 million), of which $153.1 million relates to commitments for capital expenditures (December 31, 2019 - $186.6 million). ii. Contingencies General Estimated losses from contingencies are accrued by a charge to earnings when information available prior to the issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is likely that a future event will confirm that an asset has been impaired or a liability incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Other legal matters The Company is from time to time involved in legal proceedings, arising in the ordinary course of its business. Typically, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not, in the opinion of management, materially affect Kinross’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Maricunga regulatory proceedings In May 2015, the Chile environmental enforcement authority (the “SMA”) commenced an administrative proceeding against Compania Minera Maricunga (“CMM”) alleging that pumping of groundwater to support the Maricunga operation had impacted area wetlands and, on March 18, 2016, issued a resolution alleging that CMM’s pumping was impacting the “Valle Ancho” wetland. Beginning in May 2016, the SMA issued a series of resolutions ordering CMM to temporarily curtail pumping from its wells. In response, CMM suspended mining and crushing activities and reduced water consumption to minimal levels. CMM contested these resolutions, but its efforts were unsuccessful and, except for a short period of time in July 2016, CMM’s operations have remained suspended. On June 24, 2016, the SMA amended its initial sanction (the “Amended Sanction”) and effectively required CMM to cease operations and close the mine, with water use from its wells curtailed to minimal levels. On July 9, 2016, CMM appealed the sanctions and, on August 30, 2016, submitted a request to the Environmental Tribunal that it issue an injunction suspending the effectiveness of the Amended Sanction pending a final decision on the merits of CMM’s appeal. On September 16, 2016, the Environmental Tribunal rejected CMM’s injunction request and on August 7, 2017, upheld the SMA’s Amended Sanction and curtailment orders on procedural grounds. On October 9, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Tribunal’s ruling on procedural grounds and dismissed CMM’s appeal. On June 2, 2016, CMM was served with two separate lawsuits filed by the Chilean State Defense Counsel (“CDE”). Both lawsuits, filed with the Environmental Tribunal, alleged that pumping from the Maricunga groundwater wells caused environmental damage to area wetlands. One action relates to the “Pantanillo” wetland and the other action relates to the Valle Ancho wetland (described above). Hearings on the CDE lawsuits took place in 2016 and 2017, and on November 23, 2018, the Tribunal ruled in favor of CMM in the Pantanillo case and against CMM in the Valle Ancho case. In the Valle Ancho case, the Tribunal is requiring CMM to, among other things, submit a restoration plan to the SMA for approval. CMM has appealed the Valle Ancho ruling to the Supreme Court. The CDE has appealed to the Supreme Court in both cases and is asserting in the Valle Ancho matter that the Environmental Tribunal erred by not ordering a complete shutdown of Maricunga’s groundwater wells. The Supreme Court has the discretion to decide whether it will hear any of the appeals and has determined that it will hear the CDE’s appeal in the Pantanillo case. The Supreme Court has not yet determined whether it will hear the appeals in the Valle Ancho case. The timing of any rulings by the Supreme Court on the parties’ respective appeals remains uncertain. Sunnyside litigation The Sunnyside Mine is an inactive mine situated in the so-called Bonita Peak Mining District (“District”) near Silverton, Colorado. A subsidiary of Kinross, Sunnyside Gold Corporation ("SGC"), was involved in operations at the mine from 1985 through 1991 and subsequently conducted various reclamation and closure activities at the mine and in the surrounding area. On August 5, 2015, while working in another mine in the District known as the Gold King, the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) caused a release of approximately three million gallons of contaminated water into a tributary of the Animas River. In the third quarter of 2016, the EPA listed the District, including areas impacted by SGC’s operations and closure activities, on the National Priorities List pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). SGC challenged portions of the CERCLA listing in the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, but SGC’s petition for review was denied, as was its subsequent petition for rehearing. The EPA has notified SGC that SGC is a potentially responsible party under CERCLA and may be jointly and severally liable for cleanup of the District or cleanup costs incurred by the EPA in the District. The EPA may in the future provide similar notification to Kinross, as the EPA contends that Kinross has liability in the District under CERCLA and other statutes. In the second quarter of 2018, the EPA issued to SGC a modified Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Investigation (“the Order”). In the second quarter of 2019, pursuant to the original Order, the EPA issued to SGC a Modified Statement of Work, Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan (together with the Order, the “Modified Order”). The Modified Order significantly altered and expanded upon the work set out under the original Order. In the third quarter of 2019, after consulting with external legal counsel, SGC provided notice to the EPA that the Modified Order is legally indefensible, does not address any imminent hazard and SGC does not intend to comply with the Modified Order. On July 26, 2019, the EPA acknowledged receipt of SGC’s notice of its intention not to comply with the Modified Order. The EPA indicated that it would undertake to complete the work ordered under the Modified Order, and has subsequently completed some of that work. While SGC believes that it has good cause not to comply with the Modified Order, failure to comply with the Modified Order may subject SGC to significant penalties, damages and/or potential reimbursement of the cost of remediation work undertaken by the EPA. In the second quarter of 2016, the State of New Mexico filed a complaint naming the EPA, SGC, Kinross and others alleging violations of CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and claiming negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance and trespass. New Mexico subsequently dropped the RCRA claim. The New Mexico complaint seeks cost recovery, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. In the third quarter of 2016, the Navajo Nation initiated litigation against the EPA, SGC and Kinross, alleging entitlement to cost recovery under CERCLA for past and future costs incurred, negligence, gross negligence, trespass, and public and private nuisance, and seeking reimbursement of past and future costs, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In the third quarter of 2017, the State of Utah filed a complaint, which has been amended to name the EPA, SGC, Kinross and others, alleging negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance, trespass, and violation of the Utah Water Quality Act and the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act. The Utah complaint seeks cost recovery, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, penalties, disgorgement of profits, declaratory, injunctive and other relief under CERCLA, attorney’s fees, and costs. In the third quarter of 2018, numerous members of the Navajo Nation initiated litigation against the EPA, SGC and Kinross, alleging negligence, gross negligence and injury, including great spiritual and emotional distress. The complaint of the Navajo members seeks compensatory and consequential damages, interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The New Mexico, Navajo Nation, Utah and Navajo member cases have been centralized for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. In the third quarter of 2019 (i) the EPA filed a cross claim against SGC and Kinross seeking contribution, including contribution under CERCLA, for any damages awarded to New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, or Utah as well as cost-recovery for the EPA’s response costs and remedial expenses incurred by the EPA in the District pursuant to CERCLA or other laws; (ii) Environmental Restoration, LLC, an EPA contractor, filed a cross claim against SGC seeking contribution under CERCLA and attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (iii) SGC filed a cross claim against the United States and certain contractors of the United States seeking contribution and equitable indemnity and making a due process claim against the United States. In the first quarter of 2020, the Court granted the United States judgment on SGC’s due process cross claim and dismissed it. In the fourth quarter of 2020, SGC and Kinross reached settlements with the Navajo Nation and the State of New Mexico, which settlements will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims by these parties against SGC and Kinross. Although these settlements are not subject to entry of a Consent Decree approving the settlements, a Consent Decree approving the settlements will be lodged with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for public notice and comment. Upon expiration of the comment period, the parties will move the Court for entry of the Consent Decree. Income taxes The Company operates in numerous countries around the world and accordingly is subject to, and pays taxes under the various regimes in countries in which it operates. These tax regimes are determined under general corporate tax laws of the country. The Company has historically filed, and continues to file, all required tax returns and to pay the taxes reasonably determined to be due. The tax rules and regulations in many countries are complex and subject to interpretation. Changes in tax law or changes in the way that tax law is interpreted may also impact the Company’s effective tax rate as well as its business and operations. Kinross’ tax records, transactions and filing positions may be subject to examination by the tax authorities in the countries in which the Company has operations. The tax authorities may review the Company’s transactions in respect of the year, or multiple years, which they have chosen for examination. The tax authorities may interpret the tax implications of a transaction in form or in fact, differently from the interpretation reached by the Company. In circumstances where the Company and the tax authority cannot reach a consensus on the tax impact, there are processes and procedures which both parties may undertake in order to reach a resolution, which may span many years in the future. Uncertainty in the interpretation and application of applicable tax laws, regulations or the relevant sections of Mining Conventions by the tax authorities, or the failure of relevant Governments or tax authorities to honour tax laws, regulations or the relevant sections of Mining Conventions could adversely affect Kinross.

20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

i. Commitments

Purchase commitments

At December 31, 2020, the Company had future purchase commitments of approximately $992.6 million (December 31, 2019 - $1,104.3 million), of which $153.1 million relates to commitments for capital expenditures (December 31, 2019 - $186.6 million).

ii. Contingencies

General

Estimated losses from contingencies are accrued by a charge to earnings when information available prior to the issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is likely that a future event will confirm that an asset has been impaired or a liability incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

Other legal matters

The Company is from time to time involved in legal proceedings, arising in the ordinary course of its business. Typically, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not, in the opinion of management, materially affect Kinross’ financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Maricunga regulatory proceedings

In May 2015, the Chile environmental enforcement authority (the “SMA”) commenced an administrative proceeding against Compania Minera Maricunga (“CMM”) alleging that pumping of groundwater to support the Maricunga operation had impacted area wetlands and, on March 18, 2016, issued a resolution alleging that CMM’s pumping was impacting the “Valle Ancho” wetland. Beginning in May 2016, the SMA issued a series of resolutions ordering CMM to temporarily curtail pumping from its wells. In response, CMM suspended mining and crushing activities and reduced water consumption to minimal levels. CMM contested these resolutions, but its efforts were unsuccessful and, except for a short period of time in July 2016, CMM’s operations have remained suspended. On June 24, 2016, the SMA amended its initial sanction (the “Amended Sanction”) and effectively required CMM to cease operations and close the mine, with water use from its wells curtailed to minimal levels. On July 9, 2016, CMM appealed the sanctions and, on August 30, 2016, submitted a request to the Environmental Tribunal that it issue an injunction suspending the effectiveness of the Amended Sanction pending a final decision on the merits of CMM’s appeal. On September 16, 2016, the Environmental Tribunal rejected CMM’s injunction request and on August 7, 2017, upheld the SMA’s Amended Sanction and curtailment orders on procedural grounds. On October 9, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Tribunal’s ruling on procedural grounds and dismissed CMM’s appeal.

On June 2, 2016, CMM was served with two separate lawsuits filed by the Chilean State Defense Counsel (“CDE”). Both lawsuits, filed with the Environmental Tribunal, alleged that pumping from the Maricunga groundwater wells caused environmental damage to area wetlands. One action relates to the “Pantanillo” wetland and the other action relates to the Valle Ancho wetland (described above). Hearings on the CDE lawsuits took place in 2016 and 2017, and on November 23, 2018, the Tribunal ruled in favor of CMM in the Pantanillo case and against CMM in the Valle Ancho case. In the Valle Ancho case, the Tribunal is requiring CMM to, among other things, submit a restoration plan to the SMA for approval. CMM has appealed the Valle Ancho ruling to the Supreme Court. The CDE has appealed to the Supreme Court in both cases and is asserting in the Valle Ancho matter that the Environmental Tribunal erred by not ordering a complete shutdown of Maricunga’s groundwater wells. The Supreme Court has the discretion to decide whether it will hear any of the appeals and has determined that it will hear the CDE’s appeal in the Pantanillo case. The Supreme Court has not yet determined whether it will hear the appeals in the Valle Ancho case. The timing of any rulings by the Supreme Court on the parties’ respective appeals remains uncertain.

Sunnyside litigation

The Sunnyside Mine is an inactive mine situated in the so-called Bonita Peak Mining District (“District”) near Silverton, Colorado. A subsidiary of Kinross, Sunnyside Gold Corporation ("SGC"), was involved in operations at the mine from 1985 through 1991 and subsequently conducted various reclamation and closure activities at the mine and in the surrounding area. On August 5, 2015, while working in another mine in the District known as the Gold King, the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) caused a release of approximately three million gallons of contaminated water into a tributary of the Animas River. In the third quarter of 2016, the EPA listed the District, including areas impacted by SGC’s operations and closure activities, on the National Priorities List pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). SGC challenged portions of the CERCLA listing in the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, but SGC’s petition for review was denied, as was its subsequent petition for rehearing. The EPA has notified SGC that SGC is a potentially responsible party under CERCLA and may be jointly and severally liable for cleanup of the District or cleanup costs incurred by the EPA in the District. The EPA may in the future provide similar notification to Kinross, as the EPA contends that Kinross has liability in the District under CERCLA and other statutes. In the second quarter of 2018, the EPA issued to SGC a modified Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Investigation (“the Order”). In the second quarter of 2019, pursuant to the original Order, the EPA issued to SGC a Modified Statement of Work, Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan (together with the Order, the “Modified Order”). The Modified Order significantly altered and expanded upon the work set out under the original Order. In the third quarter of 2019, after consulting with external legal counsel, SGC provided notice to the EPA that the Modified Order is legally indefensible, does not address any imminent hazard and SGC does not intend to comply with the Modified Order. On July 26, 2019, the EPA acknowledged receipt of SGC’s notice of its intention not to comply with the Modified Order. The EPA indicated that it would undertake to complete the work ordered under the Modified Order, and has subsequently completed some of that work. While SGC believes that it has good cause not to comply with the Modified Order, failure to comply with the Modified Order may subject SGC to significant penalties, damages and/or potential reimbursement of the cost of remediation work undertaken by the EPA.

In the second quarter of 2016, the State of New Mexico filed a complaint naming the EPA, SGC, Kinross and others alleging violations of CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and claiming negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance and trespass. New Mexico subsequently dropped the RCRA claim. The New Mexico complaint seeks cost recovery, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. In the third quarter of 2016, the Navajo Nation initiated litigation against the EPA, SGC and Kinross, alleging entitlement to cost recovery under CERCLA for past and future costs incurred, negligence, gross negligence, trespass, and public and private nuisance, and seeking reimbursement of past and future costs, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In the third quarter of 2017, the State of Utah filed a complaint, which has been amended to name the EPA, SGC, Kinross and others, alleging negligence, gross negligence, public nuisance, trespass, and violation of the Utah Water Quality Act and the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act.

The Utah complaint seeks cost recovery, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, penalties, disgorgement of profits, declaratory, injunctive and other relief under CERCLA, attorney’s fees, and costs. In the third quarter of 2018, numerous members of the Navajo Nation initiated litigation against the EPA, SGC and Kinross, alleging negligence, gross negligence and injury, including great spiritual and emotional distress. The complaint of the Navajo members seeks compensatory and consequential damages, interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The New Mexico, Navajo Nation, Utah and Navajo member cases have been centralized for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. In the third quarter of 2019 (i) the EPA filed a cross claim against SGC and Kinross seeking contribution, including contribution under CERCLA, for any damages awarded to New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, or Utah as well as cost-recovery for the EPA’s response costs and remedial expenses incurred by the EPA in the District pursuant to CERCLA or other laws; (ii) Environmental Restoration, LLC, an EPA contractor, filed a cross claim against SGC seeking contribution under CERCLA and attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (iii) SGC filed a cross claim against the United States and certain contractors of the United States seeking contribution and equitable indemnity and making a due process claim against the United States. In the first quarter of 2020, the Court granted the United States judgment on SGC’s due process cross claim and dismissed it.

In the fourth quarter of 2020, SGC and Kinross reached settlements with the Navajo Nation and the State of New Mexico, which settlements will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims by these parties against SGC and Kinross. Although these settlements are not subject to entry of a Consent Decree approving the settlements, a Consent Decree approving the settlements will be lodged with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for public notice and comment. Upon expiration of the comment period, the parties will move the Court for entry of the Consent Decree.

Income taxes

The Company operates in numerous countries around the world and accordingly is subject to, and pays taxes under the various regimes in countries in which it operates. These tax regimes are determined under general corporate tax laws of the country. The Company has historically filed, and continues to file, all required tax returns and to pay the taxes reasonably determined to be due. The tax rules and regulations in many countries are complex and subject to interpretation. Changes in tax law or changes in the way that tax law is interpreted may also impact the Company’s effective tax rate as well as its business and operations.

Kinross’ tax records, transactions and filing positions may be subject to examination by the tax authorities in the countries in which the Company has operations. The tax authorities may review the Company’s transactions in respect of the year, or multiple years, which they have chosen for examination. The tax authorities may interpret the tax implications of a transaction in form or in fact, differently from the interpretation reached by the Company. In circumstances where the Company and the tax authority cannot reach a consensus on the tax impact, there are processes and procedures which both parties may undertake in order to reach a resolution, which may span many years in the future. Uncertainty in the interpretation and application of applicable tax laws, regulations or the relevant sections of Mining Conventions by the tax authorities, or the failure of relevant Governments or tax authorities to honour tax laws, regulations or the relevant sections of Mining Conventions could adversely affect Kinross.