XML 20 R9.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations Rio Grande Silver Guaranty Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Rio Grande Silver Inc. (“Rio”), is party to a joint venture with Emerald Mining & Leasing, LLC (“EML”) and certain other parties with respect to a land package in the Creede Mining District of Colorado that is adjacent to other land held by Rio. Rio holds a 70% interest in the joint venture. In connection with the joint venture, we are required to guarantee certain environmental remediation-related obligations of EML to a third party up to a maximum liability to us of $2.5 million. As of March 31, 2012, we have not been required to make any payments pursuant to the guaranty. We may be required to make payments in the future, limited to the $2.5 million maximum liability, should EML fail to meet its obligations to the third party. However, to the extent that any payments are made by us under the guaranty, EML, in addition to other parties named in the amended agreement, have jointly and severally agreed to reimburse and indemnify us for any such payments. We have not recorded a liability relating to the guaranty as of March 31, 2012. Lucky Friday Water Permit Exceedances In late 2008 and during 2009, Hecla Limited experienced a number of alleged water permit exceedances for water discharges at its Lucky Friday unit. The 2008 alleged violations resulted in Hecla Limited entering into a Consent Agreement and Final Order (“CAFO”) and a Compliance Order with the EPA in April 2009, which included an extended compliance timeline. In connection with the CAFO, Hecla Limited agreed to pay an administrative penalty to the EPA of $177,500 to settle any liability for such alleged exceedances. The 2009 alleged violations were the subject of a December 2010 letter from the EPA informing Hecla Limited that EPA is prepared to seek civil penalties for these alleged violations, as well as for alleged unpermitted discharges of waste water in 2010 at the Lucky Friday unit. In the same letter, the EPA invited Hecla Limited to discuss these matters with them prior to filing a complaint. In April 2011, Hecla Limited received an additional request for information from the EPA on the alleged unpermitted discharges in 2010. Hecla Limited disputes the EPA's assertions, but has begun negotiations with the EPA in an attempt to resolve the matter, which includes additional water quality monitoring to better understand the quality and source of the alleged unpermitted discharge. We do not believe that the outcome of this claim will have a material adverse effect on our results from operations or financial position. Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with the permit, but cannot provide assurances that it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits in the future. States of South Dakota and Colorado Superfund Sites Related to CoCa Mines, Inc. In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired all of the outstanding common stock of CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”). Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site In August 2008, the EPA made a formal request to CoCa for information regarding the Gilt Edge Mine Site located in Lawrence County, South Dakota, and asserted that CoCa may be liable for environmental cleanup at the site. The Gilt Edge Mine Site was explored and/or mined beginning in the 1890s. In the early 1980s, CoCa was involved in a joint venture that conducted a limited program of exploration work at the site. This joint venture terminated in 1984, and by 1985 CoCa had divested itself of any interest in the property. In July 2010 the United States informed CoCa that it intends to pursue CoCa and several other potentially responsible parties on a joint and several basis for liability for past and future response costs at Gilt Edge under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Currently, the United States alleges that CoCa is liable based on participation in the joint venture, and that CoCa has succeeded to the liabilities of its predecessor at the site, Congdon & Carey, which may have held certain property interests at the site. As of January 2010, the EPA had allegedly incurred approximately $91 million in response costs to implement remedial measures at the Gilt Edge site, and estimated future response costs of $72 million. Hecla Limited did not acquire CoCa until 1991, well after CoCa discontinued its involvement with the Gilt Edge site. In addition, CoCa is and always has been a separate corporate entity from Hecla Limited. In August 2010, CoCa initiated negotiations with the United States in order to reach a settlement of its liabilities at the site that takes into account CoCa's limited financial resources. In late September 2010, in connection with these negotiations, CoCa received a request from the Department of Justice for additional information regarding its finances. CoCa provided written responses and additional information in January 2011. In April 2011, CoCa, and its parent Hecla Limited, received additional information requests related to Gilt Edge, and both entities responded to the EPA in July 2011. We believe that Hecla Limited is not liable for any cleanup at the site, and if CoCa might be liable, it has limited assets with which to satisfy any such liability. Settlement negotiations with the EPA are ongoing, but there can be no assurance such negotiations will be successful. Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund Site In August 2009, the EPA made a formal request to CoCa for information regarding the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund Site in Creede, Colorado. A timely response was provided and the EPA later arranged to copy additional documents. CoCa was involved in exploration and mining activities in Creede during the 1970s and the 1980s. No formal claim for response costs under CERCLA has been made against CoCa for this site. Hecla Limited did not acquire CoCa until 1991, well after CoCa discontinued its historical activities in the vicinity of the site. In addition, CoCa is and always has been a separate corporate entity from Hecla Limited. Therefore, we believe that Hecla Limited is not liable for any cleanup, and if CoCa might be liable, it has limited assets with which to satisfy any such liability. Barker-Hughesville Site, Cascade and Judith Basin Counties, Montana In April 2011, a complaint was filed against Hecla Mining Company and several other mining companies in Federal District Court in Montana by ASARCO, LLC, seeking contribution and cost recovery relating to the alleged payment by ASARCO of approximately $9 million to the State of Montana and the United States in connection with ASARCO's CERCLA liabilities at the Block P Mine and Mill Site, which is part of the Barker-Hughesville Mining District, which is a Superfund site in Montana. The complaint was amended in September 2011 to name Hecla Limited rather than Hecla Mining Company as one of the defendants to the lawsuit. We have begun investigating the basis for ASARCO's claims and believe Hecla Limited had very limited involvement at the site in the early 1980s. We do not believe that the outcome of this claim will have a material adverse effect on our results from operations or financial position, and have made an immaterial accrual for potential liability on this matter. Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under CERCLA for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M was conducted for a limited period of time by Ranchers Exploration and Development Corporation, a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In June 2011, Hecla Limited responded to the EPA's request and discussions are ongoing. In February 2012, a subsidiary of Hecla Limited acquired a parcel of land that is adjacent to the Johnny M site and which was occupied by one or more individuals and livestock. EPA has alleged that this property may contain hazardous substances released from the Johnny M site. The land was purchased for $1.875 million, reducing the accrual by that amount in the first quarter of 2012. Hecla also received a release from liability from the landowners. Our unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2012, include an accrual balance by Hecla Limited of $0.9 million for estimated past costs and investigation and planning costs, including a $0.7 million accrual recorded in the first quarter of 2012. We cannot with any degree of certainty estimate the amount of any additional liability Hecla Limited may face at the site due to several reasons, including (but not limited to): neither the EPA nor Hecla Limited have completed investigations of the site, the amount and type of remediation required have not yet been determined, and the existence of other potentially responsible parties has not yet been determined. Carpenter Snow Creek Site, Cascade County, Montana In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund Site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek Site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988. In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the June 2011 letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Because Hecla Limited had very limited activity at the site, we do not believe that the outcome of the claim will have a material adverse effect on our results from operations or financial position. We have not recorded a liability relating to the site as of March 31, 2012. Other Commitments and Obligations Our contractual commitments as of March 31, 2012 included approximately $6.2 million for commitments relating to capital items at Lucky Friday and Greens Creek. In addition, our commitments relating to open purchase orders at March 31, 2012 included approximately $10.0 million and $0.9 million, respectively, for various capital items at the Greens Creek and Lucky Friday units, and approximately $2.7 million and $0.2 million, respectively, for various non-capital costs. We also have total commitments of approximately $14.4 million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek and Lucky Friday units (see Note 9 for more information). We are obligated to pay $95.4 million to the plaintiffs over the next approximately two years pursuant to the previously disclosed Consent Decree entered on September 8, 2011 (“Consent Decree”), which settled Hecla Limited's Coeur d'Alene Basin environmental liability. We had letters of credit for approximately $0.6 million outstanding as of March 31, 2012 for reclamation and workers' compensation insurance bonding. The remaining payments under the terms of the Consent Decree require third party surety for which Hecla Limited pays an annual maintenance fee. The first annual maintenance fee of $0.6 million was paid in October 2011. Other Contingencies On February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of our officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from October 26, 2010 through and including January 11, 2012, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted certain material information related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine. The complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging virtually identical claims. We cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings or an estimate of damages, if any. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. Related to the above described class action lawsuits, Hecla has been named as a nominal defendant in six shareholder derivative lawsuits which name as defendants certain Hecla executives and members of Hecla's Board of Directors. The cases are: Jeff Adams, Derivatively on behalf of Hecla Mining Company vs. Phillips S. Baker, Jr., John H. Bowles, Terry V. Rogers, Charles B. Stanley, Anthony P. Taylor, Ted Crumley, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., James A. Sabala, David J. Christensen and Hecla Mining Company (Nominal Defendants), filed on March 9, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Fred Cygan, Derivatively on behalf of Hecla Mining Company vs. Theodore Crumley, Phillips S. Baker, Jr., John H. Bowles, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Terry V. Rogers, Charles B. Stanley, Anthony P. Taylor, James A. Sabala and Hecla Mining Company (Nominal Defendants), filed on February 23, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Glenda Hesley, Derivatively on behalf of Hecla Mining Company vs. Phillips S. Baker, Jr., Ted Crumley, John H. Bowles, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Terry V. Rogers, Charles B. Stanley, Anthony P. Taylor and Hecla Mining Company (Nominal Defendants), filed on February 29, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Gerald Moss, Derivatively on behalf of Hecla Mining Company vs. Phillips S. Baker, Jr., John H. Bowles, Terry V. Rogers, Charles B. Stanley, Anthony P. Taylor, Ted Crumley, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., James A. Sabala, David J. Christensen and Hecla Mining Company (Nominal Defendants), filed on February 29, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Jeff Murguia, Derivatively on behalf of Hecla Mining Company vs. Theodore Crumley, Phillips S. Baker, Jr., John H. Bowles, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Terry V. Rogers, Charles B. Stanley, Anthony P. Taylor, James A. Sabala and Hecla Mining Company (Nominal Defendants), filed on March 9, 2012 in the First Judicial District Court of Idaho in Kootenai County, Idaho; and Steven and Linda South, Derivatively on behalf of Hecla Mining Company vs. Phillips S. Baker, Jr., John H. Bowles, Ted Crumley, George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Terry V. Rogers, Charles B. Stanley, Anthony P. Taylor and Hecla Mining Company (Nominal Defendants), filed on March 1, 2012 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In general terms, these lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and seek damages, purportedly on behalf of Hecla. On April 16, 2012, we and the other defendants in the South v. Hecla, et al. case filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In March 2012, Hecla Limited received notice of a complaint filed against it by the United Steel Workers, Local 5114, with the Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission for compensation for bargaining unit workers at the Lucky Friday mine idled as a result of the shutdown of the mine. The complaint alleges the bargaining unit workers are entitled to compensation under Section 111 of Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 from November 16, 2011 - the date an order was issued by the Mine Safety Health Administration (“MSHA”) to Hecla Limited - until such time as the order is terminated. We believe the claim is without merit, and that all wages due under Section 111, which was an immaterial amount, have already been paid. We may face a liability as a result of the union's claim in the range of $0 to $10 million; however, we have not recorded a liability relating to the claim as of March 31, 2012. We are subject to other legal proceedings and claims not disclosed above which have arisen in the ordinary course of our business and have not been finally adjudicated. These can include, but are not limited to, legal proceedings and/or claims pertaining to environmental or safety matters. For example, in April 2011, a fatal accident occurred at the Lucky Friday Mine which was investigated by MSHA. In November 2011, an accident occurred as part of the construction of #4 Shaft which resulted in the fatality of one contractor employee. In an unrelated incident, in December 2011, a rock burst occurred in a primary access way at the Lucky Friday and injured seven employees, with no fatalities as a result of that incident. At the end of 2011, MSHA began a special impact investigation at the Lucky Friday mine which resulted in an order to remove loose material from the Silver Shaft, the primary access way from the surface at the Lucky Friday mine. As a result of MSHA's investigations related to these events, Hecla Limited may be issued enforcement actions as well as penalties (including monetary) from MSHA or other governmental agencies. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of these other matters, we believe the outcome of these other proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our results from operations or financial position.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration