Submit an Environmental Impact Statement for the Kucing Liar project
Not delivered by the deadline
AI-confirmed · human review in progress Independent AI checks agreed on primary SEC or regulator evidence. Records are now being reviewed by hand, starting with those our customers order.
- Announced
- 23 Apr 2024
- Due
- 31 Dec 2025
- Checked
- 18 Oct 2026
- Deadline
- Met
- Late
- Not met
- Today
What the company said
“Planning for a potential submission of an EIS by year-end 2025”
What we found
Evidence strength A What the grades mean
The company did not submit an EIS for the Kucing Liar project by the 2025 deadline; filings discuss an EIS submission for a different project (El Abra) in 2026.
-
A Freeport-McMoRan 10-K filed 2026-02-13
“We have advanced preparation of our permitting application and plan to submit an environmental impact statement to Chile regulatory authorities in the first half of 2026.” ✓ confirmed on the page
Market reaction: the shares moved +0.1% against the S&P 500 over the three sessions around the disclosure (12 Feb 2026 to 18 Feb 2026). What this measures
Checked 18 Oct 2026.
Commitment lineage
Every time the company restated this commitment. The original is never changed, and the outcome is always measured against version 1.
- 2 versions
-
Version 1 · original · stated 23 Apr 2024
Deadline 31 Dec 2025 (“by year-end 2025”)
-
Version 2 · stated 22 Oct 2024
Deadline 31 Dec 2025 (“by YE 2025”) · wording aspirational
“Preparing EIS, targeting submission by YE 2025”
Commitment DNA
The structured record of this commitment. Fields the company did not state are left blank rather than guessed.
- Event type
- Regulatory other
- Indicative materiality
- Medium rules
- Action
- Submit
- Deliverable
- Kucing Liar Environmental Impact Statement
- Where
- Indonesia
- In the company’s control
- Medium
- Specificity
- Medium
- Depends on
- Regulatory
How this entry was checked
- Commitment recordedThe company's words were matched word for word against the filing.
- First checkAn AI model, Gemini (Google), read the company's later filings and recorded the outcome with a quoted passage.
- Second check: agreesA different AI model, Claude (Anthropic), re-read the evidence without being told the outcome and reached the same answer.
- Third check on a negative finding: agreesBecause a negative finding could harm a company if wrong, a stronger model re-read the evidence fully blind and reached the same answer.
Confirmed. This outcome counts towards the company's Kept Score. How verification works
Are you Freeport-McMoRan? You can publish an official statement next to this entry, free. Add a statement.
Is something here wrong or out of date? Companies and readers can ask us to check it. Please bring a link to a public source.
Report an error in this entry Reference: KI-C-2024-FCX-014874 · Corrections policy