Seattle Mennonite Church

20 March 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

Re:    Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        We, the Seattle Mennonite Church ("SMC"), are responding to the statement by Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. ("the Company") in opposition to the Revised Shareholder Resolution proposed by SMC, a statement which the Company intends to include in its 1997 proxy statement.  Copies of the Revised Shareholder Resolution (Appendix I*) and Freeport's statement in opposition (Appendix II*) are attached.

        Pursuant to Rule 14a-9 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, we find several assertions by the Company in the statement in opposition to be false or misleading, and we provide information below to support our contentions.

        1.    In its statement in opposition, the Company states: "The proponent... is misinformed and appears to have accepted at face value the propaganda of certain activist groups who oppose commercial development in Irian Jaya.  Your management's offer to discuss these issues with the proponent were not accepted."

        We object to this portrayal of our congregation as "misinformed" and having "accepted at face value... propaganda" in this matter.  We have not accepted at face value any information from any source, and we have in fact made significant efforts to obtain an accurate picture of the complex situation in Irian Jaya.  We attach a copy of a letter dated 14 March 1997 (Appendix III**) to the Company from Robert Pauw, SMC Treasurer, which describes some of our efforts.

        We likewise object to the Company's assertion that certain groups which have provided us information to us "oppose commercial development in Irian Jaya."  This is an inaccurate characterization for which the Company has no basis.

        We strenuously object to the Company's assertion that we did not accept Freeport offers to discuss the issues of its environmental and social obligations in Irian Jaya.  Mr. Pauw's letter also describes the course and content of two telephone conversations he had with Company representatives.  At no time did SMC refuse offers of further discussion.

        2.    In its statement in opposition, the Company states: "Although LEMASA, one of eight yayasans (foundations) representing indigenous tribes in the area of PT-FI's operation, has rejected certain programs proposed by PT-FI for the benefit of the indigenous people, the other seven representative yayasans have accepted and are participating in these programs."

        We believe it is misleading to portray the "other seven" foundations as representative of the indigenous tribes in the area of the Company's operation.  These foundations were created primarily to receive funds from Freeport.  Theo van den Broek, head of the Catholic Diocese office in Jayapura, makes it clear that these foundations are not true representatives of the local people, in a documents entitled "Timika - Notes II (Revised), Catholic Diocese of Jayapura," 14 August 1996, attached as Appendix IV*.

        In this document he states: "It might [be] clear that PT Freeport has an agreement, but it is mainly an agreement with the government (backed by the Army). They have no agreement with the people, as only certain elements are voicing their agreement..." (page 8).  He states further: "Above that the whole process of the formation of Foundations for the special purpose mentioned above is rather questionable.  As the process of setting up a Foundation is just technical and pushed for to be finished in a short time, the element of being representative for the tribe has been almost completely neglected." (page 9).

        Yet Freeport cites Brother Theo for "working with both the Company and the local people toward success of this important development process" in Company correspondence, attached as Appendix V** (letter from Thomas J. Egan to the Sisters of the Humility of Mary, dated 8 January 1997).

        3.    In its statement in opposition, the Company mentions the preliminary social audit report by Labat Anderson and the environmental audit report by Dames & Moore, then states: "No other outside audits of PT-FI's environmental or social programs have been conducted in the past five years."

        We believe this statement is false.  We understand that EnviroSearch International of Salt Lake City, Utah, conducted an environmental audit report, dated 9 September 1994, of Freeport's copper and precious metals mine in Irian Jaya.  As shareholders, we believe that the full, public release of these reports in their entirety is justified to facilitate the informed participation of shareholders in Company decision-making.

Conclusion

        Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that Freeport not be allowed to use the statement in opposition in its current form, and that the statement not be included in the Company's 1997 proxy materials.  A copy of this letter is being provided to the Company.

        Thank you for considering our objections.  If you have any questions, please call me at (206)361-4630.

cc: L.R.McMillan, II, - Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, Louisiana
 

* These documents have been included as Appendices to the Shareholder Rebuttal and therefore are not listed as Appendices to this letter.  They can be found on the Index of Appendices to Freeport Shareholder Rebuttal or by following the links above.

** These documents are not available on this site.  If you are interested in copies of them please contact the Seattle Mennonite Church; 3120 N.E. 125th Street; Seattle, WA  98125; (206)361-4630