<PAGE>
SCHEDULE 14A
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
Filed by the Registrant [_]
Filed by party other than the Registrant [X]
Check the appropriate box:
[_] Preliminary Proxy Statement
[_] Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-
6(e)(2))
[_] Definitive Proxy Statement
[_] Definitive Additional Materials
[X] Soliciting Material Pursuant to Rule 14a-11(c) or Rule 14a-12
SANTA FE PACIFIC GOLD CORPORATION
-----------------------------------------------------
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION
-----------------------------------------------------
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
[X] No fee required.
[_] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rule 0-11.
(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the
filing fee is calculated and show how it is determined):
(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
(5) Total fee paid:
[_] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
[_] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule
0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid
previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number,
or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
(1) Amount Previously Paid:
(2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
(3) Filing Party: Same as above
(4) Date Filed:
<PAGE>
[Slide Presentation given by Newmont Mining Corporation
beginning on January 7, 1997]
[Slide 1]
NEWMONT + SANTA FE
THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR
SHAREHOLDER VALUE
[Miniaturized reproduction of graph depicted in slide number 31.]
This presentation is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to
buy securities of any of the companies to which this presentation relates.
Statements contained in this presentation which are not historical facts are
"forward-looking statements" as defined in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from
estimated results. Such risks and uncertainties are described in filings made
with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the companies to which this
presentation relates.
<PAGE>
[Slide 2]
THE OFFER
0.40 NEM for each share of Santa Fe
= $16.50 per Santa Fe share as of 1/6/97
= $4.63 or 39% increase from Santa Fe's price on 12/4/96
Homestake offer at 1.115 = $14.63 on 1/6/97
. Tax-free exchange
. Pooling of interests
. No further due diligence
. One-time transaction costs
-2-
<PAGE>
[Slide 3]
THE OFFER
. Accretive for Newmont shareholders at current gold prices
- reserves and earnings in first year
- production and cash flow in second year
. Exchange offer for all Santa Fe shares, filed with SEC 1/7/97
. Requested Santa Fe Board to terminate Homestake merger agreement
. Will solicit proxies against Homestake merger
-3-
<PAGE>
[Slide 4]
NEWMONT + SANTA FE:
LARGEST GOLD COMPANY IN NORTH AMERICA
. Reserves approaching 50 million ounces
. Production increasing almost 1 million ounces by 1999
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1996E 1997E 1998E 1999E
----- ----- ----- -----
3.1 3.6 3.8 4.0 (mm ozs)
</TABLE>
. Total cash costs under $215/ounce through 1998
. More than $50 million annual cost savings
. Exciting exploration potential
-4-
<PAGE>
[Slide 5]
A STORY OF THREE COMPANIES: SANTA FE
. Unrealized potential
. Lackluster performance
. Minimal grassroots exploration
. Limited international experience
. Principal assets
- Twin Creeks and Lone Tree mines
- 1.5 million acres in northern Nevada
. Board of Directors sought merger partner
-5-
<PAGE>
[Slide 6]
A STORY OF THREE COMPANIES: HOMESTAKE
. History of disappointing results
. Declining production and high costs
. Limited exploration success
. Minimal operating experience in Nevada
. Few synergies with Santa Fe's operations
. Proposed merger would double outstanding shares
-6-
<PAGE>
[Slide 7]
A STORY OF THREE COMPANIES: NEWMONT
. History of sustained growth
. Global leadership in exploration, technology and production
. Proven capabilities in processing complex ores
. Production growth and declining costs
. Discovered largest gold districts in North and South America
. Thirty-year operating history in Nevada
. The best fit to maximize value from Santa Fe's assets
-7-
<PAGE>
[Slide 8]
A STORY OF THREE COMPANIES: CONCLUSION
. Santa Fe + Homestake = Status Quo
. Santa Fe + Newmont = Sustained Profitable Growth
-8-
<PAGE>
[Slide 9]
WHY NEWMONT IS THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR SHAREHOLDER VALUE
. Our prospects for growth are better
. Our costs are lower
. Our synergies are superior
. Rerating based on size alone is a myth
. Our transaction is accretive to Newmont shareholders; Homestake dilutes its
shareholders' wealth
. We will continue to enjoy a strong financial position
-9-
<PAGE>
[Slide 10]
NEWMONT OFFERS BEST FIT FOR NEVADA OPERATIONS
[Map of Nevada showing locations of Newmont, Santa Fe and Homestake operations.]
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
12/31/95 Production
Nevada Percent (mm oz.)
Reserves Reserves ------------
(mm oz.) in Nevada 1996E 1997E
-------- --------- ----- -----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Newmont
Carlin 20.9 73% 1.7 1.8
11 mines
Santa Fe
4 mines 16.8 94% 0.7 0.9
Homestake
Interest in 3 mines 3.5 16% 0.1 0.1
</TABLE>
-10-
<PAGE>
[Slide 11]
DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO PRODUCE NEVADA RESERVES
[Pie charts showing the following information:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
MM oz. Refractory (%) Oxide (%)
------ -------------- ---------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
1995 Reserves
Newmont 20.9 65% 35%
Santa Fe 16.8 70% 30%
1996 Production
Newmont 1.7 35% 65%
Santa Fe 0.7 22% 78%]
</TABLE>
-11-
<PAGE>
[Slide 12]
SUCCESSFULLY MANAGING CARLIN'S TRANSITION
[Bar graph reflecting the following information:
Mine Source
----------------
Underground Open Pit
000 ozs 000 ozs
----------- --------
1991 -- 1,577
1992 -- 1,599
1993 -- 1,674
1994 17 1,538
1995 123 1,512
1996 250 1,425
1997E 300 1,500]
-12-
<PAGE>
[Second bar graph of slide 12 reflecting the following information:
Processing Method
------------------------
Oxide Oxide
Bioleach Roaster Leach Mill
000 ozs 000 ozs 000 ozs 000 ozs
-------- ------- ------- -------
1991 -- -- 433 1,143
1992 -- -- 566 1,033
1993 -- -- 611 1,063
1994 -- 45 654 856
1995 5 354 642 634
1996 20 550 455 650
1997E 35 725 400 640]
Newmont's Proven Capabilities:
. Expanding underground production
. Processing complex ores
. Managing costs
. Developing reserves and production
-13-
<PAGE>
[Slide 13]
NEWMONT + SANTA FE:
JOINT PROPERTY & FACILITIES
[Map of North Central Nevada depicting the locations of Newmont's and Santa Fe's
processing facilities (operating, planned or under construction and
decommissioned) relative to Santa Fe's mineral rights and Newmont's Nevada
property.]
-14-
<PAGE>
[Slide 14]
NEWMONT + SANTA FE =
$50 MILLION IN ANNUAL COST SAVINGS*
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Newmont Santa Fe Total Synergies
------- -------- ----- ---------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
(millions)
Nevada Operations $410 $314 $724 ($13)
- Consolidation of staffs
- Centralized purchasing
- Improved equipment utilization
Exploration & Development 76 33 109 (30)
- Refocus efforts
G&A 51 17 68 (13)
Total Cash Savings 56 6.2%
Accounting
- Mine development costs (7)
Pre-tax P&L Savings $49
</TABLE>
- --------------------
*Estimated 1998 costs
-15-
<PAGE>
[Slide 15]
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE VALUE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Newmont Santa Fe Timetable
- ------- ----------- ---------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Gold Quarry LEFT ARROW Mule Canyon ore Immediate
Gold Quarry RIGHT ARROW Ore control Immediate
robotics lab analyses
Carlin roaster LEFT ARROW Twin Creeks 1-3 years
concentrate
Bioleach technology RIGHT ARROW 4.2mm ozs. 3-4 years
low-grade
refractory ore
at Twin Creeks
North Area LEFT ARROW Twin Creeks 3-4 years
mineralization flotation
</TABLE>
-16-
<PAGE>
[Slide 16]
NEVADA EXPLORATION PROPERTIES
Santa Fe : 1,500,000 acres
Newmont : 500,000 acres
[Map of North Central Nevada reflecting respective acreage of Santa Fe, Newmont
and Homestake exploration properties.]
-17-
<PAGE>
[Slide 17]
NEVADA GOLD DEPOSITS 200+ MM OZ. OF GOLD
[Map showing the locations and sizes of various gold deposits in
Nevada and depicting an area described as "North Central Nevada" as containing
165 million ounces of gold deposits. The map also shows that the >5 million
ounce gold deposits located in the following locations are contained within the
North Central Nevada region: Twin Creeks; Getchell mine; Pipeline; Gold Quarry
mine; Goldstrike mine; and Jerritt Canyon Joint Venture.]
>5 MM oz Gold Deposits
- --------------------
1. Twin Creeks
2. Getchell mine
3. Comstock
4. Goldfield
5. Round Mountain mine
6. Pipeline
7. Gold Quarry mine
8. Goldstrike mine
9. Jerritt Canyon Joint Venture
-18-
<PAGE>
[Slide 18]
NORTH CENTRAL NEVADA GOLD TRENDS
[Map of North Central Nevada depicting the location of certain gold "trends,"
gold deposits in and around those trends and areas accounting for more than 10
million ounces of combined gold production, reserves and resources. The map
depicts the relative location to each other of, and the combined production,
reserves and resources attributable to, each of the Carlin Trend (101 million
ounces), the Twin Creeks-Lone Tree-Trenton Trend (>45 million ounces), the
Cortez-Pipeline-Battle Mountain Trend (>20 million ounces) and the Independence
Trend (15 million ounces).]
-19-
<PAGE>
[Slide 19]
GOLD TRENDS AND HOST ROCKS
[Map of North Central Nevada depicting (1) the locations of the Carlin Trend,
the Pipeline-Cortez-Battle Mountain Trend and the Twin Creeks-Lone Tree-Trenton
Trend, (2) the location of gold deposits in and around those trends, (3) the
location of certain areas accounting for more than 10 million ounces of combined
gold production, reserves and resources and (4) the rock forms residing in the
identified gold trends.]
-20-
<PAGE>
[Slide 20]
EXPLORATION PRIORITIES
[Map depicting substantially similar information as that contained in slide
number 18 and overlaying thereon a depiction of those areas within Santa Fe's
mineral rights that Newmont will seek to explore if Newmont acquires Santa
Fe. Newmont's exploration priorities are categorized according to the time
frame after acquisition (i.e., up to three years, two to four years and three to
five years) in which Newmount would seek to explore such areas.]
-21-
<PAGE>
[Slide 21]
NEWMONT'S STRATEGIC EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT PLAN
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Area Time(yrs) $/Year(MM) Ounces(MM)
- ------------------- --------- ----------- --------------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Development Targets
- -------------------
Twin Creeks - 1 - 5 $ 10.0 1 - 1.5/Year
Lone Tree -
Trenton Deposits
Exploration Targets*
- -------------------
Priority 1
Twin Creeks - 0.5 - 2.5 $ 5.0 3 - 4
Lone Tree -
Trenton District
SE Cortez -
Pipeline District 1 - 3 2.5 2 - 3
Priority 2
Exploration Targets
Priority 1
Twin Creeks - 2 - 4 2.0 1.5 - 2.0
Trenton Region
Priority 3
Twin Creeks - 3-5 0.5 0.5 - 1.0
Trenton Border ------ ----------
10.0 7.0 - 10.0
</TABLE>
* Exploration Summary: 5 Years / $50MM / 7-10MM oz / $5-$8/oz Discovered
-22-
<PAGE>
[Slide 22]
CUMULATIVE OUNCES FROM NEW CARLIN DISCOVERIES: $7 PER OUNCE
[Graph showing Newmont's cumulative exploration budget and discovered ounces
in the Carlin Trend as follows:
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996E
---- ---- ---- ---- -----
(amounts in millions)
Cumulative Exploration Budget $8.8 $19.4 $31.6 $40.7 $50.3
Cumulative Discovered Ounces 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 7.5]
-23-
<PAGE>
[Slide 23]
COMPARING THE BIDDERS
. Exploration expenditures
. Exploration success
. Reserves
. Production
. Cash costs
. Profitability
. Stock price
. Total return
Which stock would you rather own?
-24-
<PAGE>
[Slide 24]
COMMITMENT TO EXPLORATION
[Graph comparing exploration expenditures of each of Newmont and Homestake
as follows:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996E
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
(in millions)
Newmont $38.369 $47.229 $54.654 $56.312 $72.357 $66.742 $75.545
Homestake $50.695 $47.440 $27.798 $17.457 $21.347 $27.541 $38.000]
Total Expenditures
------------------
Newmont $411 million
Homestake $230 million
Newmont invested 79%
more in its future
-25-
<PAGE>
[Slide 25]
NEWMONT'S EXPLORATION SUCCESS: 1986-1996
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Reserve Additions Ounces(MM)
- ----------------- ----------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Discovered: Nevada Post 29.5
Carlin Underground
Deep Star
Rain Underground
Hardie Footwall
Foreign Yanacocha, Peru (38%) 4.0
Minahasa, Indonesia (80%)
Acquired: Uzbekistan Zarafshan (50%) 4.3
---------
37.8
Discoveries Not Included in Reserves
- ------------------------------------
Nevada Leeville (60%) 4.5
Turf
Goldbug
Foreign Yanacocha, Peru (38%) 8.2
Batu Hijau, Indonesia (45%)
La Herradura, Mexico (44%) ------
12.7
</TABLE>
-26-
<PAGE>
[Slide 26]
EXPLORATION SUCCESS = RESERVE GROWTH
[Graph presenting total proven and probable gold reserves at year end as
follows:
1985 1990 1995
---- ---- ----
(millions of ounces)
Newmont 8.8 18.9 28.8
Homestake 10.5 13.8 21.5]
Reserve additions net of mine depletion
Newmont 20 million ounces
Homestake 11 million ounces
-27-
<PAGE>
[Slide 27]
NEWMONT WILL PRODUCE
2.2 MILLION MORE OUNCES
[Graph comparing gold production by Newmont and Homestake as follows:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996E 1997E
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
Newmont (millions of ounces)
Production 1.68 1.58 1.60 1.70 1.67 1.87 2.25 2.47
Homestake
Production 1.18 1.05 1.85 1.83 1.61 1.63 1.69 1.63]
-28-
<PAGE>
[Slide 28]
CASH COSTS PER OUNCE -
$46 NEWMONT ADVANTAGE
[Graph comparing average cash cost per ounce of gold for Newmont and Homestake
as follows:
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996E 1997E
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
(dollars per ounce)
Newmont 204 187 196 197 202 210 218 200
Homestake 247 269 246 229 252 257 250 242]
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Avg. Cash Cost/Ounce
- ----------------------------
<S> <C>
Homestake $248
Newmont 202
----
Difference $ 46
</TABLE>
-29-
<PAGE>
[Slide 29]
NEWMONT EARNS $920 MILLION MORE
[Graph showing net income (loss) from continuing operations for Newmont and
Homestake as follows:
Net Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations
--------------------------------------------
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996E
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
(dollars in millions)
Newmont 168.5 94.3 90.6 94.7 76.1 112.6 92.0
Homestake 4.2 (207.8) (175.8) 52.5 78.0 30.3 30.0]
Total Profit*
- ------------
Newmont $729 million
Homestake ($189 million)
Profit*/Ounce
- -------------
Newmont $59
Homestake ($17)
* Net income from continuing operations
-30-
<PAGE>
[Slide 30]
STOCK PRICE - IT'S PERFORMANCE THAT COUNTS
[Graph reflecting indexed weekly stock prices for each of Newmont and Homestake,
as well as the S&P Gold Mining Index, with January 1, 1990 as a base. The graph
shows that Newmont's stock price increased 23% through December 4, 1996 and
Homestake's declined 25% over the same period as compared to an increase of 6%
in the S&P Gold Mining Index over the same period.]
-31-
<PAGE>
[Slide 31]
INDEXED TOTAL RETURN PUTS NEWMONT ON TOP
[Graph comparing total return through December 4, 1996 on an investment of $100
in the Common Stock of each of Homestake, Santa Fe and Newmont to the
performance of the London P.M. Gold Index with June 15, 1994 as a base.]
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Value of $100 invested
Since SF IPO
- ---------------------------------
<S> <C>
NM $122.05
Gold 96.56
SF 81.79
HM 81.13
</TABLE>
-32-
<PAGE>
[Slide 32]
WHY NEWMONT IS THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR SHAREHOLDER VALUE
. Our prospects for growth are better
. Our costs are lower
. Our synergies are superior
. Rerating based on size alone is a myth
. Our transaction is accretive to Newmont shareholders; Homestake dilutes its
shareholders' wealth
. We will continue to enjoy a strong financial position
-33-
<PAGE>
[Slide 33]
NEWMONT + SANTA FE ===>
2.3 MILLION MORE OUNCES OF PRODUCTION
Production Growth
- -----------------
NM/SF = 30%
HM/SF = 23%
[Bar graph comparing estimated production of a combined Homestake/Santa Fe
entity and a combined Newmont/Santa Fe entity as follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Production
----------
1996E 1997E 1998E 1999E
----- ----- ----- -----
(thousands of ounces)
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Combined Homestake/
Santa Fe
Homestake 1,740 1,640 1,850 1,810
Santa Fe 850 1,120 1,320 1,380
----- ----- ------ ------
Combined Total 2,590 2,760 3,170 3,190
Combined Newmont/
Santa Fe
Newmont 2,250 2,470 2,520 2,660
Santa Fe 850 1,120 1,320 1,380
----- ----- ------ ------
Combined Total 3,100 3,590 3,840 4,040]
</TABLE>
-34-
<PAGE>
[Slide 34]
NEWMONT + SANTA FE ===>
$33/OUNCE LOWER FUTURE CASH COSTS
[Bar graph comparing estimated future cash costs of production of a combined
Homestake/Santa Fe entity and a combined Newmont/Santa Fe entity as follows:
Cash Costs
1996E 1997E 1998E
----- ----- -----
($ per ounce)
Homestake/Santa Fe 243 244 244
Newmont/Santa Fe 221 208 213]
-35-
<PAGE>
[Slide 35]
RERATING BASED ON SIZE ALONE IS A MYTH
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Recent Gold Mergers
<S> <C>
Normandy/PosGold/Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie - 1996
Stock price 9/13/95 to 12/4/96 (5)%
Adj. market cap/ounce reserves (16)
Adj. market cap/ounce production (19)
Gold price (4)
Battle Mountain/Hemlo - 1996
Stock price 1/11/96 to 12/4/96 (24)%
Adj. market cap/ounce reserves 4
Adj. market cap/ounce production 23
Gold price (1)
Homestake/International Corona - 1992
Stock price 1/13/92 to 12/4/96 6%
Adj. market cap/ounce reserves 5
Adj. market cap/ounce production 10
Gold price 4
</TABLE>
-36-
<PAGE>
[Slide 36]
RERATING BASED ON SIZE ALONE IS A MYTH
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Recent Gold Mergers
<S> <C>
Normandy/PosGold/Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie - 1996
Stock price 9/13/95 to 12/4/96 (5)%
Adj. market cap/ounce reserves (16)
Adj. market cap/ounce production (19)
Gold price (4)
Battle Mountain/Hemlo - 1996
Stock price 1/11/96 to 12/4/96 (24)%
Adj. market cap/ounce reserves 4
Adj. market cap/ounce production 23
Gold price (1)
Newmont
Homestake/International Corona - 1992 -------
Stock price 1/13/92 to 12/4/96 6% 46%
Adj. market cap/ounce reserves 5 20
Adj. market cap/ounce production 10 25
Gold price 4 4
</TABLE>
-37-
<PAGE>
[Slide 37]
PERCENT ACCRETION/(DILUTION) COMPARISON: $370 GOLD
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
HM + SF NM + SF
------ ----- ----- -----
1997E 1998E 1997E 1998E
------ ----- ----- -----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Reserves* (8.6)% (8.6)% 9.5% 9.5%
Production (15.9) (14.4) (1.7) 2.9
Cash Flow** (15.3) 9.8 (8.5) 3.1
Earnings** n.m. n.m. 7.2 14.4
</TABLE>
- --------------------
*12/31/95
**IBES Estimates for HM adjusted for Au price;
HM states that the acquisition is accretive
-38-
<PAGE>
[Slide 38]
PERCENT ACCRETION/(DILUTION) COMPARISON: $400 GOLD
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
HM + SF NM + SF
------ ----- ----- ------
1997E 1998E 1997E 1998E
------ ----- ----- -----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Reserves* (8.6)% (8.6)% 9.5% 9.5%
Production (15.9) (14.4) (1.7) 2.9
Cash Flow** (21.9) (2.5) (11.7) (1.4)
Earnings** 9.1 (2.2) (6.2) (2.7)
</TABLE>
- --------------------
*12/31/95
**IBES Estimates for Homestake;
HM states that the acquisition is accretive
-39-
<PAGE>
[Slide 39]
PRO FORMA BALANCE SHEET
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Adjusted
Newmont Santa Fe Pro Forma
--------- --------- ----------
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Assets
Current assets $ 496 $ 188 $ 659
Fixed & other assets 1,584 1,040 2,549
------ ------ ------
$2,080 $1,228 $3,208
====== ====== ======
Liabilities & Stockholders' Equity
Current liabilities $ 218 $ 83 $ 287
Long term debt 585 395 980
Other liabilities 257 186 276
Stockholders' equity 1,020 564 1,665
------ ------ ------
$2,080 $1,228 $3,208
====== ====== ======
Debt/Debt + Stockholders' Equity 36% 41% 37%
S&P Debt Rating BBB+ BB+
</TABLE>
-40-
<PAGE>
[Slide 40]
CONCLUSION: NEWMONT + SANTA FE = THE RIGHT CHOICE
. Maximizes value for Santa Fe and Newmont shareholders
. Offers best combination of assets and proven capabilities
. Provides significant immediate increase for Santa Fe shareholders
. Provides immediate accretion in key attributes for Newmont
shareholders
. Offers excellent growth opportunity through
- Combining operating synergies to reduce cost
- Prioritizing worldwide exploration opportunities
- Realizing the potential of Santa Fe's Nevada properties
[Miniaturized reproduction of graph depicted in slide number 31.]
-41-
<PAGE>
[Slide 41]
Conclusion:
NEWMONT + SANTA FE = THE RIGHT CHOICE
. More value today
. Better prospects for the future
[Miniaturized reproduction of graph depicted in slide number 31.]
-42-
