XML 122 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Labor Union Contracts The Company maintains a labor agreement in South America with Sindicato de Trabajadores Mineros de la Empresa Minera Manquiri S.A. at the San Bartolomé mine in Bolivia. The San Bartolomé mine labor agreement, which became effective January 28, 2010, does not have a fixed term and is in effect for 2014. As of December 31, 2013, approximately 10.4% of the Company’s worldwide labor force was covered by collective bargaining agreements. We cannot predict whether this agreement will be renewed on similar terms or at all, whether future labor disruptions will occur or, if disruptions do occur, how long they will last. Kensington Production Royalty On July 7, 1995, Coeur, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Coeur Alaska, Inc., acquired the 50% ownership interest of Echo Bay Exploration Inc., or Echo Bay, giving Coeur 100% ownership of the Kensington property. Coeur Alaska is obligated to pay Echo Bay, a subsidiary of Kinross Gold Corporation, a scaled net smelter return royalty on 1.0 million ounces of future gold production after Coeur Alaska recoups the $32.5 million purchase price and its construction and development expenditures incurred after July 7, 1995 in connection with placing the property into commercial production. The royalty ranges from 1% at gold prices of $400 per ounce to a maximum of 2.5% at gold prices above $475 per ounce, with the royalty to be capped at 1.0 million ounces of production. No royalty has been paid to date. Rochester Production Royalties The Company acquired the Rochester property from ASARCO, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico SA de CV, in 1983. The Company is obligated to pay a net smelter royalty interest to ASARCO when the market price of silver equals or exceeds $23.60 per ounce up to a maximum rate of 5% with the condition that Rochester achieves positive cash flow for the applicable year. If cash flow at Rochester is negative in any calendar year, the maximum royalty payable is $250,000. Royalty (income) expense was ($1.5) million, $3.5 million, and $2.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. Commencing January 1, 2014, Coeur Rochester is obligated to pay a 3.4% net smelter returns royalty on up to 39.4 million silver equivalent ounces produced and sold from a portion of the Rochester mine, payable in cash on a quarterly basis. For each calendar quarter, the royalty will be payable on the actual sales prices received at the time of sale (exclusive of gains or losses associated with trading activities), less refining costs, of gold and silver produced and sold from the applicable portions of the Rochester mine. Payments on the royalty obligation will occur quarterly reducing the carrying amount of the royalty liability and changes in silver and gold prices will result in the recognition of mark-to-market gains or losses in Fair value adjustments, net, in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss). Palmarejo Gold Production Royalty On January 21, 2009, Coeur Mexicana entered into a gold production royalty transaction with Franco-Nevada Corporation under which Franco-Nevada purchased a royalty covering 50% of the life of mine gold to be produced from its Palmarejo silver and gold mine in Mexico. The royalty agreement provides for a minimum obligation to be paid monthly on a total of 400,000 ounces of gold, or 4,167 ounces per month over an initial eight-year period. Please see Note 12 -- Derivative Financial Instruments for further discussion on the royalty obligation. Sites Related to Callahan Mining Corporation In 1991, the Company acquired all of the outstanding common stock of Callahan Mining Corporation. The Company has received requests for information or notices of potential liability from state or federal agencies with regard to Callahan's operations at sites in Maine, Colorado and Washington. The Company did not make any decisions with respect to generation, transport or disposal of hazardous waste at these sites. Therefore, the Company believes that it is not liable for any potential cleanup costs either directly as an operator or indirectly as a parent. To date, none of these agencies have made any claims against the Company or Callahan for cleanup costs at these sites. The Company anticipates that further agency interaction may be possible with respect to these sites. Callahan operated a mine and mill in Brooksville, Maine from 1968 until 1972 and subsequently disposed of the property. In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, made a formal request to the Company for information regarding the site. The site was placed on the National Priorities List on September 5, 2002, and the Maine Department of Transportation, a partial owner of the property, signed a consent order in 2005. In January 2009, the EPA and the State of Maine made additional formal requests to the Company for information relating to the site, to which the Company responded. The first phase of cleanup at the site began in April 2011. The Van Stone Mine in Stevens County, Washington consists of several parcels of land and was mined from 1926 until 1993 by multiple owners. Callahan sold its parcel in 1990. In February 2010, the State of Washington Department of Ecology notified Callahan that it, among others, is a potentially liable person (PLP) under Washington law. Asarco LLC ("Asarco"), an affiliate of American Smelting and Refining Company, which developed the mill on the site in 1951, settled for $3.5 million. Another potentially liable person, Vaagen Brothers, signed a consent order which allows access to the site for a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Neither the Company nor Callahan has received any further notices from the Washington Department of Ecology. On June 5, 2012, Asarco filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against five named defendants, including Callahan, seeking contribution for the $3.5 million settlement. Callahan filed a response and defense to the lawsuit on December 11, 2012 and does not believe it has any liability to Asarco. The Court has set a trial date for September 22, 2014. On January 23, 2013, the Court entered an Order dismissing one of the five named defendants from the lawsuit as a result of the parties reaching a settlement. Callahan controlled the Akron Mine located in Gunnison County, Colorado under lease and option agreements with several owners from 1937-1960. In December 2003, the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) made a formal request for information to the Company for information regarding the site, to which the Company responded. In February 2007, the USFS made a formal request for information to Callahan for information regarding the site, to which Callahan responded. In April 2013, the USFS made a formal request for information to the Company regarding the site, to which the Company responded on June 10, 2013. In November 2013, the USFS made a formal request for additional information to the Company regarding the site, to which the Company responded on January 21, 2014. Bolivian Temporary Restriction on Mining above 4,400 Meters On October 14, 2009, the Bolivian state-owned mining organization, COMIBOL, announced by resolution that it was temporarily suspending mining activities above the elevation of 4,400 meters above sea level while stability studies of Cerro Rico mountain are undertaken. The Company holds rights to mine above this elevation under valid contracts with COMIBOL as well as under authorized contracts with local mining cooperatives that hold their rights under contract themselves with COMIBOL. The Company temporarily adjusted its mine plan to confine mining activities to the ore deposits below 4,400 meters above sea level and timely notified COMIBOL of the need to lift the restriction. The Cooperative Reserva Fiscal, with which the Company has one of those contracts, subsequently interpreted the COMIBOL resolution and determined that the Huacajchi deposit was not covered by such resolution. In March 2010, the Cooperative Reserva Fiscal notified COMIBOL that, based on its interpretation, it was resuming mining of high grade material above the 4,400 meter level in the Huacajchi deposit. In December 2011, the Cooperative Reserva Fiscal sent a similar notification to COMIBOL with respect to a further area above the 4,400 meter level known as Huacajchi Sur. Based on these notifications and on the absence of any objection from COMIBOL, the Company resumed mining operations at the San Bartolomé mine on the Huacajchi deposit and Huacajchi Sur during 2012. Mining in other areas above the 4,400 meter level continues to be suspended. The partial suspension may reduce production until the Company is able to resume mining above 4,400 meters generally. It is uncertain at this time how long the suspension will remain in place. In addition, it is possible that COMIBOL may decide that the Company's operations at the Huacajchi deposit or Huacajchi Sur are subject to the COMIBOL resolution, which may force the Company to ultimately cease mining at such deposits. If COMIBOL objects to the Company mining at the Huacajchi deposit or Huacajchi Sur or if the other restrictions are not lifted, the Company may need to write down the carrying value of the asset. It is also uncertain if any new mining or investment policies or shifts in political attitude may affect mining in Bolivia. Appeal of Plan of Operations Amendment at Rochester in Nevada The Rochester property is the subject of an administrative appeal filed by Great Basin Resource Watch (“GBRW”) with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”). This appeal challenges the decision of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) to approve a plan of operations amendment permitting resumed mining in the existing mine pit and construction of a new heap leach pad. GBRW asserts that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) required an Environmental Impact Statement for the plan of operations amendment, as opposed to the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) that was prepared. GBRW further alleges that BLM violated the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (“FLPMA”) by failing to avoid unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands. Because GBRW did not seek a stay of BLM's decision, operations are proceeding as approved. Coeur was granted intervenor status in the appeal and is actively participating in its resolution. The BLM and Coeur assert that the EA complies with NEPA and that BLM complied with FLPMA by, among other things, requiring mitigation of any possible future effects on water quality. BLM filed a Supplemental Briefing on March 1, 2012 regarding additional analysis conducted by the BLM further supporting and strengthening BLM and Coeur's positions that the EA complies with NEPA. The Company cannot predict whether this will result in further briefing with the IBLA, when the IBLA will rule on the appeal or what impact, if any, an adverse ruling may have on Rochester's operations. Settlement of Unpatented Mining Claims Dispute at Rochester in Nevada In the second quarter of 2013, Coeur Rochester settled all claims associated with a dispute involving ownership of unpatented mining claims surrounding the Coeur Rochester operation and, in connection therewith, agreed to make a one-time $10.0 million cash payment and granted the 3.4% net smelter returns royalty described above under "Rochester Production Royalties." The above settlement resulted in a $32.0 million charge in the second quarter of 2013.

X
- 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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration