CONTINGENCIES

Environmental. FCX subsidiaries are subject to various national, state and local environmental laws and regulations that govern emissions of air pollutants; discharges of water pollutants; generation, handling, storage and disposal of hazardous substances, hazardous wastes and other toxic materials; and remediation, restoration and reclamation of environmental contamination. FCX subsidiaries that operate in the U.S. also are subject to potential liabilities arising under CERCLA and similar state laws that impose responsibility on current and previous owners and operators of a facility for the remediation of hazardous substances released from the facility into the environment, including damages to natural resources, in some cases irrespective of when the damage to the environment occurred or who caused it. Remediation liability also extends to persons who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances or transported the hazardous substances to a disposal site selected by the transporter. These liabilities are often shared on a joint and several basis, meaning that each responsible party is fully responsible for the remediation, if some or all of the other historical owners or operators no longer exist, do not have the financial ability to respond or cannot be found. As a result, because of FCX’s acquisition of FMC in 2007, many of the subsidiary companies FCX now owns are responsible for a wide variety of environmental remediation projects throughout the U.S., and FCX expects to spend substantial sums annually for many years to address those remediation issues. Certain FCX subsidiaries have been advised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and various state agencies that, under CERCLA or similar state laws and regulations, they may be liable for costs of responding to environmental conditions at a number of sites that have been or are being investigated to determine whether releases of hazardous substances have occurred and, if so, to develop and implement remedial actions to address environmental concerns. FCX is also subject to claims where the release of hazardous substances is alleged to have damaged natural resources (NRD) and to litigation by individuals allegedly exposed to hazardous substances. As of December 31, 2016, FCX had more than 100 active remediation projects, including NRD claims, in 26 U.S. states.

A summary of changes in estimated environmental obligations for the years ended December 31 follows:



	2016			2015			2014
Balance at beginning of year	$	1,215		$	1,174		$	1,167
Accretion expense^a	81			78			77
Additions	26			33			16
Reductions^b	(43		)	(3		)	(6		)
Spending	(58		)	(67		)	(80		)
Balance at end of year	1,221			1,215			1,174
Less current portion	(129		)	(100		)	(105		)
Long-term portion	$	1,092		$	1,115		$	1,069


a.	Represents accretion of the fair value of environmental obligations assumed in the 2007 acquisition of FMC, which were determined on a discounted cash flow basis.


b.	Reductions primarily reflect revisions for changes in the anticipated scope and timing of projects and other noncash adjustments.

Estimated future environmental cash payments (on an undiscounted and unescalated basis) total $129 million in 2017, $108 million in 2018, $90 million in 2019, $95 million in 2020, $103 million in 2021 and $1.8 billion thereafter. The amount and timing of these estimated payments will change as a result of changes in regulatory requirements, changes in scope and timing of remediation activities, the settlement of environmental matters and as actual spending occurs.

At December 31, 2016, FCX’s environmental obligations totaled $1.2 billion, including $1.1 billion recorded on a discounted basis for those obligations assumed in the FMC acquisition at fair value. On an undiscounted and unescalated basis, these obligations totaled $2.3 billion. FCX estimates it is reasonably possible that these obligations could range between $2.1 billion and $2.6 billion on an undiscounted and unescalated basis.

At December 31, 2016, the most significant environmental obligations were associated with the Pinal Creek site in Arizona; the Newtown Creek site in New York City; historical smelter sites principally located in Arizona, Kansas, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania; and uranium mining sites in the western U.S. The recorded environmental obligations for these sites totaled $1.1 billion at December 31, 2016. FCX may also be subject to litigation brought by private parties, regulators and local governmental authorities related to these historical sites. A discussion of these sites follows.

Pinal Creek. The Pinal Creek site was listed under the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ) Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund program in 1989 for contamination in the shallow alluvial aquifers within the Pinal Creek drainage near Miami, Arizona. Since that time, environmental remediation was performed by members of the Pinal Creek Group (PCG), consisting of FMC Miami, Inc. (Miami), a wholly owned subsidiary of FCX, and two other companies. Pursuant to a 2010 settlement agreement, Miami agreed to take full responsibility for future groundwater remediation at the Pinal Creek site, with limited exceptions. Remediation work consisting of both capping (earthwork) and groundwater extraction and treatment continues and is expected to continue for many years in the future.

Newtown Creek. From the 1930s until 1964, Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation (PDRC), a subsidiary of FCX, operated a copper smelter, and from the 1930s until 1984 operated a copper refinery, on the banks of Newtown Creek (the creek), which is a 3.5-mile-long waterway that forms part of the boundary between Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. Heavy industrialization along the banks of the creek and discharges from the City of New York’s sewer system over more than a century resulted in significant environmental contamination of the waterway. In 2010, EPA notified PDRC, four other companies and the City of New York that EPA considers them to be PRPs under CERCLA. The notified parties began working with EPA to identify other PRPs, and EPA proposed that the notified parties perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at their expense and reimburse EPA for its oversight costs. EPA is not expected to propose a remedy until after the RI/FS is completed. Additionally, in 2010, EPA designated the creek as a Superfund site, and in 2011, PDRC and five other parties entered an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to perform the RI/FS to assess the nature and extent of environmental contamination in the creek and identify potential remedial options. The parties' RI/FS work under the AOC and their efforts to identify other PRPs are ongoing. The draft RI was submitted to EPA in November 2016, and the draft FS is expected to be submitted to EPA in late 2019. Remedial design could possibly begin in 2022, with the actual remediation construction starting several years later. The actual costs of fulfilling this remedial obligation and the allocation of costs among PRPs are uncertain and subject to change based on the results of the RI/FS, the remediation remedy ultimately selected by EPA and related allocation determinations. The overall cost and the portion ultimately allocated to PDRC could be material to FCX and significantly exceed the amount currently reserved for this contingency.

Historical Smelter Sites. FCX subsidiaries and their predecessors at various times owned or operated copper, zinc and lead smelters or refineries in states including Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. For some of these former processing sites, certain FCX subsidiaries have been advised by EPA or state agencies that they may be liable for costs of investigating and, if appropriate, remediating environmental conditions associated with these former processing facilities. At other sites, certain FCX subsidiaries have entered into state voluntary remediation programs to investigate and, if appropriate, remediate onsite and offsite conditions associated with the facilities. The historical processing sites are in various stages of assessment and remediation. At some of these sites, disputes with local residents and elected officials regarding alleged health effects or the effectiveness of remediation efforts have resulted in litigation of various types, and similar litigation at other sites is possible.

From 1920 until 1986, United States Metal Refining Company (USMR), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, owned and operated a copper smelter and refinery in the Borough of Carteret, New Jersey. Since the early 1980s, the site has been the subject of environmental investigation and remediation, primarily under the supervision of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. On January 30, 2017, a class action titled Juan Duarte, Betsy Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural Guardians Juan Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty Nobles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United States Metals Refining Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No. 734-17, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey against USMR, FCX, and Amax Realty Development, Inc. The suit alleges that USMR generated and disposed of smelter waste at the site and allegedly released contaminants onsite and offsite through discharges to surface water and air emissions over a period of decades and seeks unspecified damages for economic losses, including loss of property value, medical monitoring, punitive damages and other damages. FCX intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Uranium Mining Sites. During a period between 1940 and the early 1970s, certain FCX subsidiaries and their predecessors were involved in uranium exploration and mining in the western U.S., primarily on federal and tribal lands in the Four Corners region of the southwest. Similar exploration and mining activities by other companies have also caused environmental impacts warranting remediation, and EPA and local authorities are currently evaluating the need for significant cleanup activities in the region. To date, FCX has undertaken remediation work at a limited number of sites associated with these predecessor entities. During 2014, FCX initiated reconnaissance work at a limited number of historic mining sites on federal lands, which continued in 2016; approximately 50 percent of FCX's known federal sites have been initially evaluated. FCX expects to increase those activities over the next several years in order to identify sites for possible future investigation and remediation. During 2014, FCX also initiated discussions with federal and tribal representatives regarding a potential phased program to investigate and remediate historic uranium sites on tribal lands in the Four Corners region. FCX continued discussions through 2016 with the Department of Justice regarding the federal government's share of liability on tribal lands. In January 2017, the Department of Justice, EPA, Navajo Nation, and two FCX-related subsidiaries reached an agreement regarding the financial contribution of the U.S. Government and the FCX subsidiaries and the scope of the environmental investigation and remediation work for the cleanup of 94 former uranium mining sites on tribal lands. The settlement terms are outlined in a proposed Consent Decree that was filed on January 17, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court. Under the Consent Decree, which the government valued at over $600 million, FCX will perform the environmental investigation and remediation work at 94 sites, and the United States will contribute $335 million into a trust fund to cover the government’s initial share of the costs. The program is expected to take more than 20 years to complete.

AROs. FCX’s ARO estimates are reflected on a third-party cost basis and are based on FCX’s legal obligation to retire tangible, long-lived assets. A summary of changes in FCX’s AROs for the years ended December 31 follows:



	2016				2015			2014
Balance at beginning of year	$	2,771			$	2,744		$	2,316
Liabilities incurred	12				97			429			^a
Settlements and revisions to cash flow estimates, net	529			^b	(66		)	56
Accretion expense	137				131			116
Dispositions	(626		)	^c	—			(61		)
Spending	(188		)		(132		)	(101		)
Other	—				(3		)	(11		)
Balance at end of year	2,635				2,771			2,744
Less current portion	(240		)		(172		)	(189		)
Long-term portion	$	2,395			$	2,599		$	2,555


a.	Primarily reflects updates to the closure approach to reclaim an overburden stockpile in Indonesia.


b.	Revisions to cash flow estimates were primarily related to revised estimates for an overburden stockpile in Indonesia and at certain oil and gas properties.


c.	Primarily reflects the sale of certain oil and gas properties.

ARO costs may increase or decrease significantly in the future as a result of changes in regulations, changes in engineering designs and technology, permit modifications or updates, changes in mine plans, changes in drilling plans, settlements, inflation or other factors and as reclamation spending occurs. ARO activities and expenditures for mining operations generally are made over an extended period of time commencing near the end of the mine life; however, certain reclamation activities may be accelerated if legally required or if determined to be economically beneficial. The methods used or required to plug and abandon non-producing oil and gas wellbores, remove platforms, tanks, production equipment and flow lines, and restore wellsites could change over time.

Financial Assurance. New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and other states, as well as federal regulations governing mine operations on federal land, require financial assurance to be provided for the estimated costs of mine reclamation and closure, including groundwater quality protection programs. FCX has satisfied financial assurance requirements by using a variety of mechanisms, primarily involving parent company performance guarantees and financial capability demonstrations, but also including trust funds, surety bonds, letters of credit and other collateral. The applicable regulations specify financial strength tests that are designed to confirm a company’s or guarantor’s financial capability to fund estimated reclamation and closure costs. The amount of financial assurance FCX is required to provide will vary with changes in laws, regulations, reclamation and closure requirements, and cost estimates. At December 31, 2016, FCX’s financial assurance obligations associated with these U.S. mine closure and reclamation/restoration costs totaled $1.1 billion, of which $687 million was in the form of guarantees issued by FCX and financial capability demonstrations of FCX. At December 31, 2016, FCX had trust assets totaling $173 million (included in other assets), which are legally restricted to be used to satisfy its financial assurance obligations for its mining properties in New Mexico. In addition, FCX has financial assurance obligations for its oil and gas properties associated with plugging and abandoning wells and facilities totaling $704 million. Where oil and gas guarantees associated with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management do not include a stated cap, the amounts reflect management's estimates of the potential exposure.

New Mexico Environmental and Reclamation Programs. FCX’s New Mexico operations are regulated under the New Mexico Water Quality Act and regulations adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC). In connection with discharge permits, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has required each of these operations to submit closure plans for NMED’s approval. The closure plans must include measures to assure meeting applicable groundwater quality standards following the closure of discharging facilities and to abate groundwater or surface water contamination to meet applicable standards. In 2013, the WQCC adopted Supplemental Permitting Requirements for Copper Mining Facilities, which became effective on December 1, 2013, and specify closure requirements for copper mine facilities. The rules were adopted after an extensive stakeholder process in which FCX participated and were jointly supported by FCX and NMED. The rules are currently being challenged in the New Mexico Supreme Court by certain environmental organizations and the New Mexico Attorney General. Finalized closure plan requirements, including those resulting from application of the 2013 rules or the application of different standards if the rules are invalidated by the New Mexico Supreme Court, could result in material increases in closure costs for FCX's New Mexico operations.

FCX’s New Mexico operations also are subject to regulation under the 1993 New Mexico Mining Act (the Mining Act) and the related rules that are administered by the Mining and Minerals Division (MMD) of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. Under the Mining Act, mines are required to obtain approval of plans describing the reclamation to be performed following cessation of mining operations. At December 31, 2016, FCX had accrued reclamation and closure costs of $471 million for its New Mexico operations. As stated above, additional accruals may be required based on the state’s periodic review of FCX’s updated closure plans and any resulting permit conditions, and the amount of those accruals could be material.

Arizona Environmental and Reclamation Programs. FCX’s Arizona properties are subject to regulatory oversight in several areas. ADEQ has adopted regulations for its aquifer protection permit (APP) program that require permits for, among other things, certain facilities, activities and structures used for mining, leaching, concentrating and smelting, and require compliance with aquifer water quality standards at an applicable point of compliance well or location during both operations and closure. The APP program also may require mitigation and discharge reduction or elimination of some discharges.

An application for an APP requires a proposed closure strategy that will meet applicable groundwater protection requirements following cessation of operations and an estimate of the cost to implement the closure strategy. An APP may specify closure requirements, which may include post-closure monitoring and maintenance. A more detailed closure plan must be submitted within 90 days after a permitted entity notifies ADEQ of its intent to cease operations. A permit applicant must demonstrate its financial ability to meet the closure costs approved by ADEQ. In 2014, the state enacted legislation requiring closure costs for facilities covered by APPs to be updated no more frequently than every five years and financial assurance mechanisms to be updated no more frequently than every two years. While some closure cost updates have occurred in the normal course as modifications to APPs, ADEQ has not yet formally notified FCX regarding the timetable for updating other closure cost estimates and financial assurance mechanisms for FCX's Arizona mine sites. In 2016, ADEQ approved a closure plan update for Sierrita, which resulted in increased closure costs. FCX may be required to begin updating its closure cost estimates at other Arizona sites in 2017.

Portions of Arizona mining facilities that operated after January 1, 1986, also are subject to the Arizona Mined Land Reclamation Act (AMLRA). AMLRA requires reclamation to achieve stability and safety consistent with post-mining land use objectives specified in a reclamation plan. Reclamation plans must be approved by the State Mine Inspector and must include an estimate of the cost to perform the reclamation measures specified in the plan along with financial assurance. During 2016, Safford submitted an update to its reclamation plan, which increased its reclamation costs. FCX will continue to evaluate options for future reclamation and closure activities at its operating and non-operating sites, which are likely to result in adjustments to FCX’s ARO liabilities, and those adjustments could be material. At December 31, 2016, FCX had accrued reclamation and closure costs of $316 million for its Arizona operations.

Colorado Reclamation Programs. FCX's Colorado operations are regulated by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (Reclamation Act) and regulations promulgated thereunder. Under the Reclamation Act, mines are required to obtain approval of plans for reclamation of lands affected by mining operations to be performed during mining or upon cessation of mining operations. During 2016, at the request of the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining & Safety (DRMS), the Climax mine submitted a revised cost estimate for its current reclamation plan, which is not expected to materially change the closure plan cost. As of December 31, 2016, FCX had accrued reclamation and closure costs of $66 million for its Colorado operations.

Chilean Reclamation and Closure Programs. In July 2011, the Chilean senate passed legislation regulating mine closure, which establishes new requirements for closure plans. FCX's El Abra operation submitted updated closure cost estimates based on the existing approved closure plan in November 2014, which were approved in August 2015. At December 31, 2016, FCX had accrued reclamation and closure costs of $55 million for its El Abra operation.

Peruvian Reclamation and Closure Programs. Cerro Verde is subject to regulation under the Mine Closure Law administered by the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines. Under the closure regulations, mines must submit a closure plan that includes the reclamation methods, closure cost estimates, methods of control and verification, closure and post-closure plans, and financial assurance. The latest closure plan and cost estimate for the Cerro Verde mine expansion were submitted to the Peruvian regulatory authorities in November 2013, which were approved in August 2014. At December 31, 2016, Cerro Verde had accrued reclamation and closure costs of $114 million.

Indonesian Reclamation and Closure Programs. The ultimate amount of reclamation and closure costs to be incurred at PT-FI’s operations will be determined based on applicable laws and regulations and PT-FI’s assessment of appropriate remedial activities in the circumstances, after consultation with governmental authorities, affected local residents and other affected parties and cannot currently be projected with precision. Some reclamation costs will be incurred during mining activities, while the remaining reclamation costs will be incurred at the end of mining activities, which are currently estimated to continue for approximately 25 years. During 2014, PT-FI updated its closure approach for an overburden stockpile, which resulted in an increase in the ARO of $403 million. At the end of 2016, PT-FI revised its estimates for the overburden stockpile to address ongoing erosion that occurred during 2016, a design change that increased the volume and updated cost estimates reflecting more recent productivity and costs at the overburden stockpile, which resulted in an increase in the ARO of $372 million. At December 31, 2016, PT-FI had accrued reclamation and closure costs of $998 million.

PT-FI has designated a cash fund ($22 million balance at December 31, 2016, which is included in other assets) to pay mine closure and reclamation costs or satisfy a portion of Indonesian financial requirements.

In December 2009, PT-FI submitted its revised mine closure plan to the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources for review and addressed comments received during the course of this review process. In December 2010, the Indonesian government issued a regulation regarding mine reclamation and closure, which requires a company to provide a mine closure guarantee in the form of a time deposit placed in a state-owned bank in Indonesia. In accordance with its COW, PT-FI is working with the Department of Energy and Mineral Resources to review these requirements, including discussion of other options for the mine closure guarantee.

Oil and Gas Properties. Substantially all of FM O&G's oil and gas leases require that, upon termination of economic production, the working interest owners plug and abandon non-producing wellbores, remove equipment and facilities from leased acreage, and restore land in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws. Following several sales transactions in 2016, FM O&G remaining operating areas include the GOM shelf, offshore California, the Gulf Coast and the Rocky Mountain area as of December 31, 2016. FM O&G AROs cover approximately 600 wells and 134 platforms and other structures. At December 31, 2016, FM O&G had accrued $589 million associated with its AROs.

Litigation. FCX is involved in numerous legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business or are associated with environmental issues arising from legacy operations conducted over the years by FMC and its affiliates as discussed in this note under “Environmental.” FCX is also involved periodically in reviews, inquiries, investigations and other proceedings initiated by or involving government agencies, some of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. Management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of any legal proceeding will have a material adverse effect on FCX's financial condition, although individual outcomes could be material to FCX's operating results for a particular period, depending on the nature and magnitude of the outcome and the operating results for the period.

Asbestos Claims. Since approximately 1990, FMC and various subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury either from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in electrical wire products produced or marketed many years ago or from asbestos contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated by FMC affiliates, or from alleged asbestos in talc products. Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts currently known, FCX believes there is a reasonable possibility that losses may have been incurred related to these matters; however, FCX also believes that the amounts of any such losses, individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance, however, that future developments will not alter this conclusion.

Tax and Other Matters. FCX's operations are in multiple jurisdictions where uncertainties arise in the application of complex tax regulations. Some of these tax regimes are defined by contractual agreements with the local government, while others are defined by general tax laws and regulations. FCX and its subsidiaries are subject to reviews of its income tax filings and other tax payments, and disputes can arise with the taxing authorities over the interpretation of its contracts or laws. The final taxes paid may be dependent upon many factors, including negotiations with taxing authorities. In certain jurisdictions, FCX must pay a portion of the disputed amount to the local government in order to formally appeal the assessment. Such payment is recorded as a receivable if FCX believes the amount is collectible.

Cerro Verde Royalty Dispute. SUNAT, the Peru national tax authority, has assessed mining royalties on ore processed by the Cerro Verde concentrator, which commenced operations in late 2006. These assessments cover the period December 2006 to December 2007, each of the years 2008 through 2010, and the period January 2011 to September 2011.

In July 2013, the Peruvian Tax Tribunal issued two decisions affirming SUNAT's assessments for the period December 2006 through December 2008. In September 2013, Cerro Verde filed judiciary appeals related to the assessments because it believes that its 1998 stability agreement exempts from royalties all minerals extracted from its mining concession, irrespective of the method used for processing those minerals. With respect to the judiciary appeal related to assessments for the year 2008, on December 17, 2014, Peru's Eighteenth Contentious Administrative Court, which specializes in taxation matters, rendered its decision upholding Cerro Verde's position and declaring the Tax Tribunal's resolution invalid. On December 31, 2014, SUNAT and the Tax Tribunal appealed this decision. On January 29, 2016, Peru’s Sixth Contentious Administrative Chamber of the Appellate Court nullified the decision of the Eighteenth Contentious Administrative Court. On February 23, 2016, Cerro Verde appealed the decision to the Peruvian Supreme Court. On April 14, 2016, Peru’s Twentieth Contentious Administrative Court, which specializes in taxation matters, rendered its decision upholding the Peruvian Tax Tribunal’s July 2013 decision affirming SUNAT’s assessments for the period December 2006 through December 2007. On May 2, 2016, Cerro Verde appealed this decision to Peru’s Twentieth Contentious Administrative Court.

Although FCX believes Cerro Verde's interpretation of the stability agreement is correct, if Cerro Verde is ultimately found responsible for these assessments, it may also be liable for penalties and interest, which accrues at rates that range from approximately 7 percent to 18 percent based on the year accrued and the currency in which the amounts would be payable.

In October 2013, SUNAT served Cerro Verde with a demand for payment totaling $146 million (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016, including interest and penalties) based on the Peruvian Tax Tribunal’s decisions for the period December 2006 through December 2008. As permitted by law, Cerro Verde requested and was granted an installment payment program that deferred payment for six months and thereafter required 66 equal monthly payments. Through December 31, 2016, Cerro Verde has made payments totaling $96 million (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016) under the installment program, which are included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheets.

In July 2013, a hearing on SUNAT's assessment for 2009 was held, but no decision had been issued by the Peruvian Tax Tribunal for that year. The aggregate amount of the assessment for 2009 totals $80 million (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016), including estimated accumulated interest and penalties.

In April 2016, SUNAT issued assessments for the year 2010 and the period January 2011 to September 2011, which totals $162 million (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016), including estimated accumulated interest and penalties. Cerro Verde has contested the assessments.

SUNAT may make additional assessments for mining royalties and associated penalties and interest for the period from October 2011 through December 2013, which Cerro Verde will contest. No assessments can be issued for years after 2013, as Cerro Verde began paying royalties on all of its production in January 2014 under its new 15-year stability agreement. As of December 31, 2016, FCX estimates the total exposure associated with these mining royalties for the period from December 2006 through December 2013 approximates $544 million (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016), including estimated accumulated interest and penalties. No amounts have been recorded for these assessments as of December 31, 2016, because Cerro Verde believes its 1998 stability agreement exempts it from these royalties and believes any payments will be recoverable.

Other Peruvian Tax Matters. Cerro Verde has also received assessments from SUNAT for additional taxes, penalties and interest related to various audit exceptions for income and other taxes. Cerro Verde has filed or will file objections to the assessments because it believes it has properly determined and paid its taxes.

A summary of these assessments follows:



Tax Year	Tax Assessment		Penalty and Interest Assessment		Total
2002 to 2005	$	16	$	51	$	67
2006	7		49		56
2007	12		18		30
2008	21		13		34
2009	56		48		104
2010	66		98		164
2011, 2014 to 2016	22		3		25
	$	200	$	280	$	480

As of December 31, 2016, Cerro Verde had paid $181 million (included in other assets) on these disputed tax assessments, which it believes is collectible. No amounts have been accrued for these assessments.

Indonesia Tax Matters. PT-FI has received assessments from the Indonesian tax authorities for additional taxes and interest related to various audit exceptions for income and other taxes. PT-FI has filed objections to the assessments because it believes it has properly determined and paid its taxes. A summary of these assessments follows:



Tax Year	Tax Assessment		Interest Assessment		Total
2005	$	103	$	49	$	152
2006	22		10		32
2007	91		44		135
2008	62		52		114
2011	78		13		91
2012	123		—		123
2014	152		—		152
	$	631	$	168	$	799

Required estimated income tax payments for 2014 significantly exceeded PT-FI’s 2014 reported income tax liability, which resulted in a $284 million overpayment. During second-quarter 2016, the Indonesian tax authorities issued tax assessments for 2014 of $156 million and agreed to refund $128 million associated with income tax overpayments made by PT-FI in 2014 (included in income and other tax receivables). PT-FI filed objections for $152 million of the tax assessments in 2016 (included in other assets).

As of December 31, 2016, PT-FI had paid $355 million (of which $331 million was included in other assets) on disputed tax assessments, which it believes are collectible. In addition, PT-FI has $109 million (included in other assets) for overpayments of 2015 income taxes.

In December 2009, PT-FI was notified by Indonesian tax authorities that it was obligated to pay value-added taxes on certain goods imported after the year 2000. In December 2014, PT-FI paid $269 million for value-added taxes for the period from November 2005 through the year 2009 and sought a refund. In March 2016, PT-FI collected a cash refund of $196 million and $38 million was offset against other tax liabilities. The remaining balance of the amount originally paid was reduced by currency exchange and other losses.

PT-FI received assessments from the local regional tax authority in Papua, Indonesia, for additional taxes and penalties related to surface water taxes for the period from January 2011 through December 2016. PT-FI has filed or will file appeals with the Indonesia Tax Court. In January 2017, the Indonesia Tax Court issued a ruling against PT-FI with respect to assessments for additional taxes and penalties for the period from January 2011 through July 2015 in the amount of $376 million (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016, and including $227 million in penalties). The aggregate amount of assessments received from August 2015 through December 2016 was an additional $93 million, including penalties (based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016). PT-FI continues to believe that its COW exempts it from these payments, and that PT-FI has the right to contest these assessments by appeal to the Indonesia Supreme Court and/or by instituting dispute resolution proceedings under the COW. Local regional tax law requires payment of these assessments to be made one month after the written rulings (i.e., March 2017). PT-FI intends to contest these assessments by filing an appeal to the Indonesia Supreme Court, and based on advice from outside legal counsel, believes that it is probable that the Indonesia Supreme Court will hear the appeal and will rule in favor of PT-FI. As of February 24, 2017, PT-FI has not paid and does not intend to pay amounts to the local regional tax authority related to these assessments for additional taxes and penalties. Additionally, PT-FI provided formal notice to the Indonesian government of an impending dispute listing the government's breaches and violations of the COW, including the imposition of surface water taxes in excess of the restriction imposed by the COW. If the local regional tax authority subsequently issues a warning letter and coercive warrant and payment is not made, under the laws in Papua, the local regional tax authority has the legal authority to take certain actions, including expropriation of assets or other measures. PT-FI does not believe that the threat of seizure of PT-FI assets is imminent. If the local regional tax authority were to force PT-FI to make these payments through the threat of expropriation of assets or other measures, such amounts may not be recoverable from the local regional tax authority and may result in a charge to operating income. FCX estimates the total exposure associated with these additional taxes and penalties, based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2016, totals $469 million. No amounts have been recorded for these assessments as of December 31, 2016.

Letters of Credit, Bank Guarantees and Surety Bonds. Letters of credit and bank guarantees totaled $281 million at December 31, 2016, primarily for the Cerro Verde royalty dispute (refer to discussion above), environmental and asset retirement obligations, workers’ compensation insurance programs, tax and customs obligations, and other commercial obligations. In addition, FCX had surety bonds totaling $371 million at December 31, 2016, associated with environmental and asset retirement obligations ($290 million), self-insurance bonds for workers’ compensation ($24 million) and other bonds ($57 million).

Insurance. FCX purchases a variety of insurance products to mitigate potential losses, which typically have specified deductible amounts or self-insured retentions and policy limits. FCX generally is self-insured for U.S. workers’ compensation, but purchases excess insurance up to statutory limits. An actuarial analysis is performed twice a year on the various casualty insurance programs covering FCX's U.S.-based mining operations, including workers’ compensation, to estimate expected losses. At December 31, 2016, FCX's liability for expected losses under these insurance programs totaled $58 million, which consisted of a current portion of $7 million (included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities) and a long-term portion of $51 million (included in other liabilities). In addition, FCX has receivables of $17 million (a current portion of $2 million included in other accounts receivable and a long-term portion of $15 million included in other assets) for expected claims associated with these losses to be filed with insurance carriers.

FCX's oil and gas operations are subject to all of the risks normally incident to the production of oil and gas, including well blowouts, cratering, explosions, oil spills, releases of gas or well fluids, fires, pollution and releases of toxic gas, each of which could result in damage to or destruction of oil and gas wells, production facilities or other property or injury to persons. Although FCX maintains insurance coverage considered to be customary in the oil and gas industry, FCX is not fully insured against all risks either because insurance is not available or because of high premium costs. FCX is self-insured for named windstorms in the GOM. FCX's insurance policies provide limited coverage for losses or liabilities relating to pollution, with broader coverage for sudden and accidental occurrences.