Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

x      QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended: March 31, 2015

or

o         TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from            to            

Commission File Number: 1-14066

SOUTHERN COPPER CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (602) 264-1375

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days    Yes  x  No  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required  to submit and post such files). Yes  x  No  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes  o  No  x

As of April 24, 2015 there were outstanding 798,026,043 shares of Southern Copper Corporation common stock, par value $0.01 per share.

Table of Contents

Southern Copper Corporation (“SCC”)

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

2

Table of Contents

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Southern Copper Corporation

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

Southern Copper Corporation

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

Southern Copper Corporation

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

Southern Copper Corporation

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

Southern Copper Corporation

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1 — DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS:

The Company is a majority-owned, indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V. (“Grupo Mexico”). At March 31, 2015, Grupo Mexico through its wholly-owned subsidiary Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) owned 86.0% of the Company’s capital stock. The condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein consist of the accounts of Southern Copper Corporation (“SCC” or the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries. The Company is an integrated producer of copper and other minerals, and operates mining, smelting and refining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company conducts its primary operations in Peru through a registered branch (the “Peruvian Branch” or “Branch” or “SPCC Peru Branch”). The Peruvian Branch is not a corporation separate from the Company. The Company’s Mexican operations are conducted through subsidiaries. The Company also conducts exploration activities in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru.

In the opinion of the Company, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to state fairly the Company’s financial position as of March 31, 2015 and the results of operations, comprehensive income and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2015 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. The December 31, 2014 balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2014 and notes included in the Company’s 2014 annual report on Form 10-K.

NOTE 2 — SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS:

Short-term investments were as follows ($ in millions):

Trading securities consist of bonds issued by public companies and are publicly traded. Each financial instrument is independent of the others. The Company has the intention to sell these bonds in the short-term.

Available-for-sale investments consist of securities issued by public companies. Each security is independent of the others and at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, included corporate bonds and asset and mortgage backed obligations. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, gross unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities were not material.

Related to these investments the Company earned interest, which was recorded as interest income in the condensed consolidated statement of earnings. Also the Company redeemed some of these securities and recognized gains (losses) due to changes in fair value, which were recorded as other income (expense) in the condensed consolidated statement of earnings.

7

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the activity of these investments by category (in millions):

(*) Less than $0.1 million.

NOTE 3 - INVENTORIES:

Inventories were as follows:

In the first quarter 2015 and 2014 total leaching costs capitalized as long-term inventory of leachable material amounted to $104.6 million and $86.1 million, respectively. Leachable material inventories recognized in cost of sales amounted to $50.6 million and $39.2 million for the first quarter 2015 and 2014, respectively.

NOTE 4 — INCOME TAXES:

The income tax provision and the effective income tax rate for the first quarter 2015 and 2014 were as follows ($ in millions):

These provisions include income taxes for Peru, Mexico and the United States. The decrease in the effective tax rate for the first quarter of 2015 from the same period in the prior year is primarily due to a decrease in earnings, causing a reduction in the Peruvian special mining tax and the Mexican royalty tax, thereby reducing the first quarter effective rate by approximately 2.6%. Additionally, a reduction of forecasted dividends from Minera Mexico reduced the first quarter 2015 effective rate by 1.3%.

Components of income tax provision for the first quarter of 2015 and 2014 include the following ($ in million):

8

Table of Contents

Peruvian royalty and special mining tax: In 2011, the Peruvian congress approved an amendment to the mining royalty charge. The new mining royalty charge is based on operating income margins with graduated rates ranging from 1% to 12% of operating profits, with a minimum royalty charge assessed at 1% of net sales. If the operating income margin is 10% or less, the royalty charge is 1% and for each 5% increment in the operating income margin, the royalty charge rate increases by 0.75%, up to a maximum of 12%. The minimum royalty charge assessed at 1% of net sales is recorded as cost of sales and those amounts assessed against operating income are included in the income tax provision. The Company has accrued $5.7 million and $7.7 million of royalty charge in the first quarter 2015 and 2014, respectively, of which $0.5 million and $1.6 million, respectively, were included in income taxes.

Also in 2011, the Peruvian government enacted a special mining tax. This tax is based on operating income and its rate ranges from 2% to 8.4%. It begins at 2% for operating income margin up to 10% and increases by 0.4% of operating income for each additional 5% of operating income until 85% of operating income is reached. The Company has accrued $3.8 million and $12.0 million of special mining tax as part of the income tax provision for the first quarter 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Mexican mining royalty: In December 2013, the Mexican government enacted a new law which, among other things, established a mining royalty charge of 7.5% on taxable EBITDA earnings before taxes as defined by Mexican tax regulations and an additional royalty charge of 0.5% on the net sales value over gross income from sales of gold, silver and platinum. The Company has accrued $13.7 and $24.0 million of royalty taxes as part of the income tax provision for the first quarter 2015 and 2014, respectively.  In the first quarter of 2015, the Company has paid $56.3 million for year 2014 mining royalty.

Income tax rate:

In 2014, the Peruvian government enacted tax law changes to both the income tax and dividend tax rates that became effective on January 1, 2015. The rate in effect for 2014 was 30%, with a 4.1% dividend tax rate. The new rates are as follows:

Accounting for uncertainty in income taxes: In the first quarter 2015, there were no changes in the Company’s uncertain tax positions.

NOTE 5 — PROVISIONALLY PRICED SALES:

At March 31, 2015, the Company has recorded provisionally priced sales of copper at average forward prices per pound, and molybdenum at the March 31, 2015 market price per pound. These sales are subject to final pricing based on the average monthly London Metal Exchange (“LME”), or New York Commodities Exchange (“COMEX”), copper prices and Dealer Oxide molybdenum prices in the future month of settlement.

Following are the provisionally priced copper and molybdenum sales outstanding at March 31, 2015:

Management believes that the final pricing of these sales will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

9

Table of Contents

NOTE 6 - ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATION:

The Company maintains an estimated asset retirement obligation for its mining properties in Peru, as required by the Peruvian Mine Closure Law. In accordance with the requirements of this law the Company’s closure plans were approved by the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines (“MINEM”). As part of the closure plans, the Company is required to provide annual guarantees over the estimated life of the mines, based on a present value approach, and to furnish the funds for the asset retirement obligation. This law requires a review of closing plans every five years. Currently and for the near-term future, the Company has pledged the value of its Lima office complex as support for this obligation. The accepted value of the Lima office building, for this purpose, is $27.8 million. Through March 2015, the Company has provided guarantees of $17.9 million. The closure cost recognized for this liability includes the cost, as outlined in its closure plans, of dismantling the Toquepala and Cuajone concentrators, the smelter and refinery in Ilo, and the shops and auxiliary facilities at the three units.

In 2010, the Company announced to the Mexican federal environmental authorities its closure plans for the copper smelter plant at San Luis Potosi. The Company initiated a program for plant demolition and soil remediation $62.4 million, of which the Company has spent $51.1 million through March 31, 2015. Plant demolition and construction of a confinement area at the south of the property were completed in 2012 and the Company expects to complete soil remediation and the construction of a second confinement area during the second quarter of 2015. The Company expects that once the site is remediated, a decision will be made on whether sell or develop the property.

The overall cost recognized for mining closure in Mexico includes the estimated costs of dismantling concentrators, smelter and refinery plants, shops and other facilities.

The following table summarizes the asset retirement obligation activity for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):

NOTE 7 — RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS:

The Company has entered into certain transactions in the ordinary course of business with parties that are controlling shareholders or their affiliates. These transactions include the lease of office space, air transportation and construction services and products and services related to mining and refining. The Company lends and borrows funds among affiliates for acquisitions and other corporate purposes. These financial transactions bear interest and are subject to review and approval by senior management, as are all related party transactions. It is the Company’s policy that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors shall review all related party transactions. The Company is prohibited from entering or continuing a material related party transaction that has not been reviewed and approved or ratified by the Audit Committee.

Receivable and payable balances with related parties are shown below (in millions):

10

Table of Contents

Purchase and sale activity:

Grupo Mexico and affiliates:

The following table summarizes the purchase and sale activities with Grupo Mexico and its affiliates in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):

Grupo Mexico, the parent and the majority indirect stockholder of the Company, and its affiliates provide various services to the Company. These services are primarily related to accounting, legal, tax, financial, treasury, human resources, price risk assessment and hedging, purchasing, procurement and logistics, sales and administrative and other support services. The Company pays Grupo Mexico for these services and expects to continue requiring these in the future.

The Company’s Mexican operations paid fees for freight services provided by Ferrocarril Mexicano S.A de C.V., for construction services provided by Mexico Proyectos y Desarrollo S.A. de C.V. and its affiliates, and for drilling services provided by Compania Perforadora Mexico S.A.P.I. de C.V. All of these companies are subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico.

The Company’s Mexican operations purchased scrap and other residual copper mineral from Asarco, and power from MGE. Both companies are subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico.

In 2005, the Company organized MGE, as a subsidiary of Minera Mexico, for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company’s Mexican operations. In May 2010, the Company’s Mexican operations granted a $350 million line of credit to MGE for the construction of the power plants. That line of credit was due on December 31, 2012 and carried an interest rate of 4.4%. In the first quarter of 2012, Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S. A. de C. V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, acquired 99.999% of MGE through a capital subscription of 1,928.6 million of Mexican pesos (approximately $150 million), reducing Minera Mexico’s participation to less than 0.001%. As consequence of this change in control, MGE became an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico. Additionally, at the same time, MGE paid $150 million to the Company’s Mexican operations partially reducing the total debt. At December 31, 2012, the outstanding balance of $184.0 million was restructured as subordinated debt of MGE with an interest rate of 5.75%. MGE will repay its debt to the Company using a percentage of its profits until such time as the debt is satisfied. At March 31, 2015 the remaining balance of the debt

11

Table of Contents

was $161.2 million and was recorded as non-current related party receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Related to this loan the Company recorded interest income of $2.3 million in the first quarter of 2015 and 2014, respectively.

In 2012, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with MGE, whereby MGE will supply some of the Company’s Mexican operations with power through 2032. MGE completed construction of its first power plant in June 2013 and the second plant, in the second quarter of 2014. MGE has the authorization for interconnection with the Mexican electrical system to start operations in the second plant. MGE began supplying power to the Company in December 2013. It is expected that MGE will supply a portion of its power output to third-party energy users. See also Note 9 “Commitments and Contingencies — Other commitments”.

On August 4, 2014, Mexico Generadora de Energia Eolica S. de R.L. de C.V, an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, located in Oaxaca, Mexico; acquired Eolica el Retiro. Eolica el Retiro is a windfarm that has 37 wind turbines. This company started operations in January 2014 and started to sell power to IMMSA and other subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico in the third quarter of 2014.

The Company sold copper cathodes, rod and anodes, as well as sulfuric acid, silver, gold and lime to Asarco. In addition, the Company received fees for building rental and maintenance services provided to Mexico Proyectos y Desarrollos, S.A. de C.V. and its affiliates and to Perforadora Mexico S.A.P.I de C.V., and for natural gas and services provided to MGE, all subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico.

Companies with relationships to the controlling group:

The following table summarizes the purchase and sales activities with other Larrea family companies in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):

The Larrea family controls a majority of the capital stock of Grupo Mexico, and has extensive interests in other businesses, including aviation and real estate. The Company engages in certain transactions in the ordinary course of business with other entities controlled by the Larrea family relating to the lease of office space and air transportation.

Companies with relationships to SCC executive officers:

The following table summarizes the purchase activities with companies with relationships to SCC executive officers in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 (in millions):

The Company purchased industrial materials from Higher Technology S.A.C and paid fees for maintenance services provided by Servicios y Fabricaciones Mecanicas S.A.C. Mr. Carlos Gonzalez, the son of SCC’s Chief Executive Officer, has a proprietary interest in these companies.

The Company purchased industrial material from Sempertrans and its affiliates, which employs Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez as a sales representative. Also, the Company purchased industrial material from Pigoba, S.A. de C.V., a company in which Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez has a proprietary interest. Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez is the son of SCC’s Chief Executive Officer.

The Company purchased industrial material and services from Breaker, S.A. de C.V., a company in which Mr. Jorge Gonzalez, son-in-law of SCC’s Chief Executive Officer, has a proprietary interest; and from Breaker Peru S.A.C., a company in which Mr. Jorge Gonzalez, son-in-law and Mr. Carlos Gonzalez, son of SCC’s Chief Executive Officer have a proprietary interest.

Equity Investment in Affiliate: The Company has a 44.2% participation in Compania Minera Coimolache S.A. (“Coimolache”), which it accounts for on the equity method. Coimolache owns Tantahuatay, a gold mine located in the northern

12

Table of Contents

part of Peru. To support the cost of the development of Tantahuatay, the Company loaned $56.6 million to Coimolache. The repayment of this loan was completed in August 2014.

It is anticipated that in the future the Company will enter into similar transactions with these same parties.

NOTE 8 — BENEFIT PLANS:

Post retirement defined benefit plan:

The Company has two noncontributory defined benefit pension plans covering former salaried employees in the United States and certain former expatriate employees in Peru. Effective October 31, 2000, the Board of Directors amended the qualified pension plan to suspend the accrual of benefits.

In October 2014, the Society of Actuaries (SOA) issued new mortality tables based on a comprehensive study of private retirement plans. Effective December 31, 2014, the Company elected to update the mortality assumption to the new SOA tables.

In addition, the Company’s Mexican subsidiaries have a defined contribution pension plan for salaried employees and a non-contributory defined benefit pension plan for union employees.

The components of net periodic benefit costs for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 are as follows (in millions):

(*) amount is lower than $0.1 million

Post-retirement Health care plan:

Peru: The Company adopted a post-retirement health care plan for retired salaried employees eligible for Medicare in 1996. The Company manages the plan and is currently providing health benefits to retirees. The plan is accounted for in accordance with ASC 715 “Compensation retirement benefits”.

Mexico: Through 2007, the Buenavista unit provided health care services free of charge to employees and retired unionized employees and their families through its own hospital at the Buenavista unit. In 2011, the Company signed an agreement with the Secretary of Health of the State of Sonora to provide these services to its retired workers and their families. The new workers of Buenavista del Cobre will receive health services from the Mexican Institute of Social Security as is the case for all Mexican workers.

The components of net periodic benefit cost for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 are as follows (in millions):

(*) amount is lower than $0.1 million

13

Table of Contents

NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Environmental matters:

The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include, among others, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions.

Environmental capital investments in the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows (in millions):

Peruvian operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. The Peruvian government, through the Ministry of Environment (“MINAM”) conducts annual audits of the Company’s Peruvian mining and metallurgical operations. Through these environmental audits, matters related to environmental obligation, compliance with legal requirements, atmospheric emissions, effluent monitoring and waste management are reviewed. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations.

Peruvian law requires that companies in the mining industry provide assurances for future closure and reclamation. In accordance with the requirements of this law, the Company’s closure plans were approved by MINEM. As part of the closure plans, the Company is providing guarantees to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for the asset retirement obligation. See Note 6 “Asset retirement obligation,” for further discussion of this matter.

In 2008, the Peruvian government enacted environmental regulations establishing more stringent air quality standards (“AQS”) for daily sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) emissions for the Peruvian territory. These regulations, as amended in 2013, recognize distinct zones/areas, as atmospheric basins. Those areas with a mean 24-hour SO2 concentration equal or less than 20 micrograms per cubic meter (“ug/m3”) are required to develop programs to maintain this level of compliance. Those areas or cities exceeding the mean 24-hour SO2 concentration of 20 ug/m3 will be required to establish an action plan to address this problem and are required to achieve the 20 ug/m3 AQS in the future. Meanwhile they are required to achieve mean 24-hour AQS equal to 80 ug/m3 of SO2. MINAM has established three atmospheric basins that require further attention to comply with 80ug/m3 of SO2. The Ilo basin is one of these three areas and the Company’s smelter and refinery are part of the area. A supreme decree issued on April 8, 2014, indicates that the Company should review its compliance with these regulations and develop a modification plan to reach compliance. The Company continues working with an environmental technical study group, established by a MINAM resolution to identify air quality issues and develop plans to comply with the pertinent regulations.

In 2013, the Peruvian government enacted new soil environmental quality standards (“SQS”) applicable to any existing facility or project that generates or could generate risk of soil contamination in its area of operation or influence. In March 2014, MINAM issued a supreme decree which establishes additional provisions for the gradual implementation of SQS. Under this rule the Company has twelve months to identify contaminated sites in and around its facilities and present a report of identified contaminated sites. If such sites exist, the Company must submit a decontamination plan for approval within 24 months from the date it is notified by the authority. This decontamination plan shall include remediation actions, a schedule and compliance deadlines. Also, under this rule, if deemed necessary, the Company may request a one year extension, given sound justification. Soil confirmation tests must be carried out after completion of decontamination actions (within the approved schedule) and results must be presented to the authorities within 30 days after receiving such results. Non-compliance with this obligation or with decontamination goals will carry penalties, although no specific sanctions have yet been established. During compliance schedule, companies cannot be penalized for non-compliance with the SQS. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Company selected the consultant to carry out soil samplings, studies and other requirements of the rules. These studies were completed in the first quarter of 2015 and submitted to MINEM. The Company is awaiting response from MINEM.

Mexican operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Mexican federal, state and municipal environmental laws, to Mexican official standards, and to regulations for the protection of the environment, including regulations relating to water supply, water quality, air quality, noise levels and hazardous and solid waste.

The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and

14

Table of Contents

Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. PROFEPA may initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent closing of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. Also, according to the federal criminal code, PROFEPA must inform corresponding authorities regarding environmental non-compliance.

In 2011, the General Law was amended, giving an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment, natural resources, flora, fauna or human health, because it will be sufficient to argue that the harm may be caused. In addition, in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were enacted. These amendments establish three categories of collective actions by means of which 30 or more people claiming injury derived from environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition issues will be considered to be sufficient in order to have a legitimate interest to seek through a civil procedure restitution or economic compensation or suspension of the activities from which the alleged injury derived. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm.

In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. The law establishes general guidelines in order to determine which environmental actions will be considered to cause environmental harm that will give rise to administrative responsibilities (remediation or compensations), criminal responsibilities as well as monetary fines.

On August 6, 2014, an accidental spill of approximately 40,000 cubic meters of copper sulfate solution occurred at a leaching pond that was under construction ten kilometers away from the mine of Buenavista del Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (“BVC”) a subsidiary of the Company. The accident was caused by a rock collapse that affected the system’s pumping station and by a construction defect in the seal of a pipe in the leaching system containment dam, a part of the new SX-EW III plant. This solution reached the Bacanuchi river, a tributary of the Sonora River. All the necessary immediate actions were taken in order to contain the spill, and to comply with all the legal requirements.

The National Water Commission (Comision Nacional del Agua “CONAGUA”), the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks (Comisión Federal para la Protección de Riesgos Sanitarios “COFEPRIS”) and PROFEPA initiated administrative proceedings regarding the spill to determine possible environmental and health damages.

On August 19, 2014, PROFEPA, as part of the administrative proceeding initiated after the spill, announced the filing of a criminal complaint against BVC in order to determine, in such a case, the responsibility for the environmental damages. The criminal complaint filed by PROFEPA against BVC is in the procedural stages. The Company is vigorously defending against it.

On September 15, 2014, BVC executed an administrative agreement with PROFEPA, providing for the presentation to the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales “SEMARNAT”) of a remedial action plan, the remediation program was submitted to SEMARNAT on November 27, 2014 and approved on January 6, 2015. This program will be developed in five zones along the rivers. As of March 31, 2015, work on zone one of the remediation program was completed; studies of the zones two through four have been completed and a program for each particular zone will be submitted to SEMARNAT for approval.

The Company also created a trust with Nacional Financiera S.N.C., a Mexican development bank, acting as a Trustee to serve as a vehicle to support environmental remedial actions in connection with the spill, to comply with the remedial action plan and to compensate for damages caused to persons adversely affected by the spill.  The Company committed up to two billion Mexican pesos (approximately $150 million) of which approximately one billion Mexican pesos have already been contributed. A technical committee of the trust was created with representatives from the federal government, the Company and specialists assisted by a team of environmental experts to ensure the proper use of the funds. Along with the administrative agreement executed with PROFEPA, the trust serves as an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution to mitigate public and private litigation risks.

Independently of the execution of the administrative agreement with PROFEPA and the creation of the above mentioned trust, since the first day of the copper solution spill, the Company has taken actions to remediate the sites. On August 29, 2014, the Company hired more than 1,200 workers and environmental specialists to clean the river.

In addition, the Company developed a service program for the residents of the Sonora River Region, considering (i) water distribution provision, and infrastructure development within the affected region, (ii) the expansion of the current Community Development program to communities further downstream that were affected and previously not within the scope of the Company´s program, (iii) attention to local farmers and producers in coordination with the Federal Agriculture, Livestock,

15

Table of Contents

Rural Development, Fisheries, and Alimentations Ministry in order to revamp and promote the activities of local farmers and producers, (iv) the implementation of sustainable productive projects at each affected site, as well as (v) the establishment of service desks to attend specific cases.

On March 2, 2015 as a result of four administrative proceedings, PROFEPA imposed administrative fines to BVC for an aggregate amount of 23.5 million Mexican pesos (approximately $1.7 million). Other authorities may impose additional sanctions or fines, including the cost of clean-up and remediation of the sites, as well as economic compensation to people who provide evidence that they suffered direct damages from the spill.

The Company has also been served with three collective action lawsuits seeking damages for injuries related to the spill. The Company considers that those lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them.

As of March 31, 2015, BVC estimated the contingent liability at $97.3 million, of which $16.4 million was paid prior to the establishment of the trust, and approximately one billion Mexican pesos (approximately $74.9 million) was deposited in the trust. These funds have been available and have been used to compensate claims as they have arisen. This deposit was classified as restricted cash and was recorded as an operating expense in the Company’s results.

The Company does not expect that legal proceedings resulting from the spill, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.

The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other laws and regulations.

The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, properties, result of operations, financial condition or prospects and will not result in material capital investments.

Litigation matters:

Garcia Ataucuri and Others against SCC’s Peruvian Branch:

In April 1996, the Branch was served with a complaint filed in Peru by Mr. Garcia Ataucuri and approximately 900 former employees seeking the delivery of a substantial number of “labor shares” (acciones laborales) plus dividends on such shares, to be issued to each former employee in proportion to their time of employment with SCC’s Peruvian Branch, pursuant to a former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law.

The labor share litigation is based on claims of former employees for ownership of labor shares that the plaintiffs state that the Branch did not issue during the 1970s until 1979 under such former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law. In 1971, the Peruvian government enacted legislation providing that mining workers would have a 10% participation in the pre-tax profits of their employing enterprises. This participation was distributed 40% in cash and 60% in an equity interest of the enterprise. In 1978, the equity portion, which was originally delivered to a mining industry workers’ organization, was set at 5.5% of pre-tax profits and was delivered, mainly in the form of “labor shares” to individual workers. The cash portion was set at 4.0% of pre-tax earnings and was delivered to individual employees also in proportion to their time of employment with the Branch. In 1992, the workers’ participation was set at 8%, with 100% payable in cash and the equity participation was eliminated from the law.

In relation to the issuance of “labor shares” by the Branch in Peru, the Branch is a defendant in the following lawsuits:

1)                   Mr. Garcia Ataucuri seeks delivery, to himself and each of the approximately 900 former employees of the Peruvian Branch, of the 3,876,380,679.65 old soles or 38,763,806.80 “labor shares” (acciones laborales), as required by Decree Law 22333 (a former profit sharing law), to be issued proportionally to each former employee in accordance with the time of employment of such employee with SCC’s Branch in Peru, plus dividends on such shares. The 38,763,806.80 labor shares sought in the complaint, with a face value of 100.00 old soles each, represent 100% of the labor shares issued by the Branch during the 1970s until 1979 for all of its employees during that period. The plaintiffs do not represent 100% of the Branch’s eligible employees during that period.

It should be noted that the lawsuit refers to a prior Peruvian currency called “sol de oro” or old soles, which was later changed to the “inti”, and then into today’s “nuevo sol”. Due to a past period of high inflation between 1985 and 1990, one billion of old soles is equivalent to today’s one nuevo sol.

16

Table of Contents

After lengthy proceedings before the civil courts in Peru on September 19, 2001, on appeal by the Branch, the Peruvian Supreme Court annulled the proceedings noting that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction and that the matter had to be decided by a labor court (the “2000 appeal”).

In October 2007, in a separate proceeding initiated by the plaintiffs, the Peruvian Constitutional Court nullified the September 19, 2001 Peruvian Supreme Court decision and ordered the Supreme Court to decide again on the merits of the case accepting or denying the 2000 appeal.

In May 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the 2000 appeal of the Branch affirming the adverse decision of the appellate civil court and lower civil court. While the Supreme Court has ordered SCC’s Peruvian Branch to deliver the labor shares and dividends, it has clearly stated that SCC’s Peruvian Branch may prove, by all legal means, its assertion that the labor shares and dividends were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect, an assertion which SCC’s Peruvian Branch continues to make. None of the court decisions state the manner by which the Branch must comply with the delivery of such labor shares or make a liquidation of the amount to be paid for past dividends and interest, if any.

On June 9, 2009, SCC’s Peruvian Branch filed a proceeding of relief before a civil court in Peru seeking the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and, in a separate proceeding, a request for a precautionary measure. The civil court rendered a favorable decision on the nullity and the precautionary measure, suspending the enforcement of the Supreme Court decision, for the reasons indicated above and other reasons. In February 2012, the Branch was notified that the civil court had reversed its prior decisions. On appeal by the Peruvian Branch the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and the precautionary measure. As a result, the nullity of the precautionary measure became final and is not appealable. However, the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision was appealed by the Branch before the Constitutional Court. On April 10, 2014, the Constitutional Court denied the Company’s appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision. In view of this, SCC’s Peruvian Branch continues to analyze the manner in which the competent lower court will enforce the Supreme Court’s decision and its financial impact.

2)                   In addition, there are filed against SCC’s Branch the following lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, which seek the same number of labor shares as in the Garcia Ataucuri case, plus interest, labor shares resulting from capital increases and dividends: (1) Armando Cornejo Flores and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 10, 2006); (2) Alejandro Zapata Mamani and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed June 27, 2008); (3) Edgardo Garcia Ataucuri, in representation of 216 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers, v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 2011); (4) Juan Guillermo Oporto Carpio v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed August 2011); (5) Rene Mercado Caballero v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed November 2011); (6) Enrique Salazar Alvarez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed December 2011); (7) Jesus Mamani Chura and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012); (8) Armando Cornejo Flores, in representation of 37 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012), (9) Porfirio Ochochoque Mamani and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed July 2012); (10) Alfonso Claudio Flores Jimenez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed July 2013); (11) Micaela Laura Alvarez de Vargas and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed August 2013) and (12) Edgardo García Ataucuri in representation of 104 of SCC´s Peruvian Branch former workers (filed March 2015). SCC’s Peruvian Branch has answered the complaints and denied the validity of the claims.

SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the labor shares were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect. The Peruvian Branch has not made a provision for these lawsuits because it believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the complaints. Additionally, the amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time.

The “Virgen Maria” Mining Concessions of the Tia Maria Mining Project

The Tia Maria project includes various mining concessions, totaling 32,989.64 hectares. One of the concessions is the “Virgen Maria” mining concession totaling 943.72 hectares or 2.9% of the total mining concessions.

Related to the “Virgen Maria” mining concessions, the Company is party to the following lawsuits:

a)             Exploraciones de Concesiones Metalicas S.A.C. (“Excomet”): In August 2009, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch by the former stockholders of Excomet. The plaintiffs allege that the acquisition of Excomet’s shares by the Branch is null and void because the $2 million purchase price paid by the Branch for the shares of Excomet was not fairly negotiated by the plaintiffs and the Branch. In 2005, the Branch acquired the shares of Excomet after lengthy negotiations with the plaintiffs, and after the plaintiffs, which were all the stockholders of Excomet, approved the transaction in a general stockholders’ meeting. Excomet was at the time owner of the “Virgen Maria” mining concession. In October 2011, the civil court dismissed

17

Table of Contents

the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings. As of March 31, 2015, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.

b)             Sociedad Minera de Responsabilidad Limitada Virgen Maria de Arequipa (“SMRL Virgen Maria”): In August 2010, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch and others by SMRL Virgen Maria, a company which until July 2003 owned the mining concession Virgen Maria. SMRL Virgen Maria sold this mining concession in July 2003 to Excomet (see a) above). The plaintiff alleges that the sale of the mining concession Virgen Maria to Excomet is null and void because the persons who attended the shareholders’ meeting of SMRL Virgen Maria, at which the purchase was agreed upon, were not the real owners of the shares. The plaintiff is also pursuing the nullity of all the subsequent acts regarding the mining property (acquisition of the shares of Excomet by SCC’s Branch, noted above, and the sale of this concession to SCC’s Branch by Excomet). In October 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court remanded the proceedings to the lower court, ordering the issuance of a new decision. On June 25, 2013, the lower court dismissed the case due to procedural defects. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, on December 2, 2013 the Superior Court reversed the lower court’s decision due to procedural defects and ordered the issuance of a new resolution. In July 2014, once again the lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff appealed this resolution before the Superior Court. On December 30, 2014, the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.  The plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. As of March 31, 2015, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.

c)              Omar Nunez Melgar: In May 2011, Mr. Omar Nunez Melgar commenced a lawsuit against the Peruvian Mining and Metallurgical Institute and MINEM challenging the denial of his request of a new mining concession that conflicted with SCC’s Branch’s Virgen Maria mining concession. SCC’s Branch has been made a party to the proceedings as the owner of the Virgen Maria concession. SCC’s Branch has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. In March 2015, the Civil Court dismissed the case. The plaintiff may appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Company asserts that the lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against these lawsuits.

Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”)

In the last quarter of 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has constructed and operated the tailing dams also with proper governmental authorization, since 1995. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against the lawsuit. Upon a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court has included the MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of March 31, 2015, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.

Labor matters:

Peruvian operations: Approximately 70% of the Company’s 4,546 Peruvian employees were unionized at March 31, 2015. There are seven separate unions, three of them at each major production area that represent the majority of our workers; and four smaller unions that represent the balance of workers. Our collective bargaining agreements with all of these unions will expire in the second half of 2015. We expect to begin negotiations for new agreements in the second quarter of 2015.

Mexican operations: In recent years, the Mexican operations have experienced a positive improvement of their labor environment, as its workers, opted to change their affiliation from the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalurgicos y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (the “National Mining Union”) led by Napoleon Gomez Urrutia to other less politicized unions.

However, the workers of the San Martin and Taxco mines, who are still under the National Mining Union, have been on strike since July 2007. On December 10, 2009, a federal court confirmed the legality of the San Martin strike. In order to recover the control of the San Martin mine and resume operations, the Company filed a court petition on January 27, 2011 requesting that the court, among other things, define the termination payment for each unionized worker. The court denied the petition alleging that, according to federal labor law, the union was the only legitimate party to file such petition. On appeal by the Company, on May 13, 2011, the Mexican federal tribunal accepted the petition. In July 2011, the National Mining Union appealed the favorable court decision before the Supreme Court. On November 7, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the federal tribunal. The Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, which

18

Table of Contents

recognized the right of the labor court to define responsibility for the strike and the termination payment for each unionized worker. A favorable decision of the labor court in this new proceeding would have the effect of terminating the protracted strike at San Martin. As of March 31, 2015, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.

In the case of the Taxco mine, following the workers refusal to allow exploration of new reserves, the Company commenced litigation seeking to terminate the labor relationship with workers of the Taxco mine (including the related collective bargaining agreement). On September 1, 2010, the federal labor court issued a ruling approving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and all the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the Mexican mining union at the Taxco mine. The mining union appealed the labor court ruling before a federal court. In September 2011, the federal court accepted the union’s appeal and requested that the federal labor court review the procedure. After several legal proceedings on January 25, 2013, the Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court. On June 16, 2014, the labor court denied the petition of the Company. The resolution issued by the labor court was challenged by the Company before a federal court. Considering the above decision of the Supreme Court, there could be grounds for a favorable decision to end the protracted strike at the Taxco Unit. As of March 31, 2015, the case remains pending resolution.

It is expected that operations at these mines will remain suspended until these labor issues are resolved.

In view of these lengthy strikes, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of the San Martin and Taxco mines to ascertain whether impairment exists. The Company concluded that there is a non-material impairment of the assets located at these mines.

Other legal matters:

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Other commitments:

Peruvian Operations

Tia Maria:

On August 1, 2014, the Company received the final approval of Tia Maria´s EIA. The project has experienced a delay pending the resolution of certain differences with community groups. The Peruvian government has been promoting the creation of a development dialogue roundtable for the resolution of these differences, which has initiated activities on April 14, 2015. The Company believes that this mechanism will help expedite the pending construction permits for the project. The project budget is $1.4 billion, of which $354.0 million has been expended through March 31, 2015. When completed, Tia Maria is expected to produce 120,000 tons of copper cathodes per year.

In connection with the Tia Maria project, in 2014 the Company established an S/.100 million fund (approximately $33 million) for the benefit of social and infrastructure improvements in the neighboring communities to Tia Maria.

Toquepala Concentrator Expansion:

In April 2015, the construction permit for the Toquepala expansion project was approved by the MINEM. The project budget is $1.2 billion, of which $348.6 million has been expended through March 31, 2015. When completed, this expansion project is expected to increase annual production capacity by 100,000 tons of copper and 3,100 tons of molybdenum.

In connection with this project, the Company has committed to fund various social and infrastructure improvement projects in Toquepala’s neighboring communities. The total amount committed for these purposes is S/.445.0 million (approximately $143 million).

Power purchase agreements

·                  Enersur: In 1997, SCC signed a power purchase agreement with an independent power company, Enersur S.A. under which SCC agreed to purchase all of its power needs for its current Peruvian operations from Enersur for twenty years, through April 2017.

19

Table of Contents

·                  Electroperu S.A.: In June 2014, the Company signed a power purchase agreement for 120 megawatt (“MW”) with the state power company Electroperu S.A., under which Electroperu S.A. will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for twenty years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2037.

·                  Kallpa Generacion S.A. (“Kallpa”): In July 2014, the Company signed a power purchase agreement for 120MW with Kallpa, an independent Israeli owned power company, under which Kallpa will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for ten years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2027.

Mexican operations

Power purchase agreement - MGE

MGE, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, has completed the construction of the two power plants in Mexico designed to supply power to some of the Company’s Mexican operations. It is expected that MGE will supply approximately 12% of its power output to third-party energy users. These plants are natural gas-fired combined cycle power generating units, with a net total capacity of 516.2 megawatts. In 2012, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with MGE through 2032. The first plant was completed in June 2013 and the second, in the second quarter of 2014. MGE has the authorization for the interconnection with the Mexican electrical system to start operations at the second plant. The first plant began to supply power to the Company in December 2013, and the second plant is ready to supply once the demand in the mine requires it.

Commitment for Capital projects

As of March 31, 2015, the Company has committed approximately $464 million for the development of its capital investment projects at its Mexican operations.

Tax contingency matters:

Tax contingencies are provided for under ASC 740-10-50-15 Uncertain tax position (see Note 4 “Income taxes”).

NOTE 10 — SEGMENT AND RELATED INFORMATION:

Company management views Southern Copper as having three reportable segments and manages it on the basis of these segments.  The reportable segments identified by the Company are: the Peruvian operations, the Mexican open-pit operations and the Mexican underground mining operations segment identified as the IMMSA unit.

The three reportable segments identified are groups of mines, each of which constitute an operating segment, with similar economic characteristics, type of products, processes and support facilities, similar regulatory environments, similar employee bargaining contracts and similar currency risks. In addition, each mine within the individual group earns revenues from similar type of customers for their products and services and each group incurs expenses independently, including commercial transactions between groups.

Financial information is regularly prepared for each of the three segments and the results of the Company’s operations are regularly reported to Senior Management on the segment basis. Senior Management of the Company focus on operating income and on total assets as measures of performance to evaluate different segments and to make decisions to allocate resources to the reported segments. These are common measures in the mining industry.

Financial information relating to Southern Copper’s segments is as follows:

20

Table of Contents

Three Months Ended March 31, 2015

(in millions)