The uneasy marriage between two of the world’s biggest gold miners has boiled over in Nevada, where Newmont is accusing Barrick of mishandling their shared operations and tilting the playing field in favor of Barrick’s own Fourmile project.
Newmont says it has formally put Barrick on notice for default under the Nevada Gold Mines joint venture agreement and has kicked off audits to dig into how people, money and other resources have been deployed. For a partnership that dominates a huge slice of Nevada’s mining economy, this is not a minor spat over spreadsheets.
Newmont’s filing spells out the grievances
According to a filing with the SEC, Newmont told Barrick and the Nevada Gold Mines board on Jan. 26 that it had “identified evidence of mismanagement,” including the diversion of personnel, spending and other resources in a way that benefited Fourmile. On Feb. 3, Newmont followed up with a formal notice of default under the joint venture agreement.
The filing says Newmont is now using its contractual inspection and audit rights to probe what happened and warned that the alleged conduct could have a “material adverse effect” on its stake in the venture. Newmont is casting the move as both a governance clean‑up effort and an opening salvo aimed at forcing operational fixes.
Newmont presses for joint venture protections
In a Feb. 9 statement, Newmont said any transaction involving Nevada Gold Mines must “respect the protections” built into the joint venture documents. The company framed its actions as an effort to halt what it calls a multi‑year slide in performance at Nevada Gold Mines.
Newmont stressed that it is focused on operational remedies rather than racing straight into headline‑grabbing litigation, while still reserving its contractual rights around asset transfers, disclosures and funding. The timing is not accidental. Barrick is working to bundle a suite of North American assets into a separate vehicle, and anything that touches Nevada Gold Mines is now under a brighter spotlight.
Fourmile sits at the center of the clash
Barrick has been talking up Fourmile as a key growth engine. In its recent results, Barrick said declared resources at Fourmile had grown substantially and that drilling spend at the project will jump in 2026.
Barrick has also flagged plans to contribute its North American assets, including its Nevada interests and Fourmile, into a NewCo as part of a planned IPO. How Fourmile’s work programs and costs intersect with the shared Nevada operations is exactly what has Newmont worried about resource allocation and how the whole package gets valued.
Inside the Nevada joint venture rules
The Nevada joint venture, created in 2019, gives Barrick day‑to‑day operating control while Newmont holds a 38.5 percent economic interest. Board seats are allocated in proportion to ownership, so most operational decisions are made by majority vote.
The parties’ implementation documents also set out formal notice‑of‑default and cure procedures that apply to disputes over funding, transfers and management. Those mechanics will determine whether Newmont’s move becomes a negotiable warning that leads to tweaks in how the mine is run, or the opening step in an enforcement process that could involve deeper audits, remedial measures or even arbitration.
Market message and Nevada’s stake in the fight
Analysts say the public showdown raises fresh questions about governance and valuation for investors and could complicate, or at least slow down, Barrick’s effort to spin out its North American assets into a new vehicle. The fallout would not stay on Wall Street. Nevada Gold Mines is one of the state’s heavyweight employers and a crucial customer for local suppliers and a major source of tax revenue, so protracted disruption could hit the region’s economy in very real ways.
Mining.com reported that Barrick did not immediately respond to requests for comment as the companies traded filings and statements.
For now, Newmont says it intends to keep working with Barrick to improve performance at Nevada Gold Mines, even as it warns in its filings that unresolved disputes could have a “material adverse effect” on its interest. Investors and locals alike will be watching the next wave of regulatory filings, board disclosures and earnings‑call remarks to see whether this feud gets patched up in the boardroom or moves further into formal remedies.
