XML 28 R9.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations General We follow the FASB Accounting Standards Codification guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. 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, 2015, 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, 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, 2015. Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters Over the last several years, the Lucky Friday unit has experienced several regulatory issues relating to its water discharge permits and water management more generally.
| • | In late 2008 and early 2009, Hecla Limited experienced a number of alleged permit exceedances for water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit. These 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 paid the maximum administrative penalty to the EPA of $177,500 to settle any liability for such alleged exceedances.
| • | In 2009, additional alleged permit exceedances for water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit occurred. In 2010, alleged unpermitted discharges of pollutants occurred at the Lucky Friday unit. These alleged permit exceedances and certain alleged unpermitted discharges were the subject of a December 2010 notice of violation (“2010 NOV”) from the EPA informing Hecla Limited that the EPA was prepared to seek civil penalties for these alleged violations. Hecla Limited disputes many of EPA's assertions, but commenced negotiations with the EPA in 2010 in an attempt to resolve the matter. There has not yet been any resolution of the 2010 NOV.
| • | In 2012, the Lucky Friday unit had two weekly water samples, one of which exceeded the permit concentration limit for lead (but not the associated load limit), and one of which exceeded the permit limits for zinc. Also, in late 2012, heavy rains resulted in alleged impacted storm water being discharged to a nearby river. After these incidents, in February 2013, the EPA issued a notice of violation and request for information to Hecla Limited alleging that the two storm water incidents were each a violation of Hecla Limited's storm water permit. In March 2014, the Lucky Friday unit had a weekly water sample which exceeded the maximum daily permitted concentration limit for zinc (but not the associated load limit).
The EPA referred the two alleged 2012 permit exceedances, along with the alleged violations in the 2010 NOV and some additional alleged unpermitted discharges from 2010 that were not included in the 2010 NOV, to the U.S. Department of Justice to possibly file a civil complaint by the United States against Hecla Limited. In addition, it is possible that the United States may include other alleged unpermitted discharges (including the 2012 storm water incidents) or permit violations in any complaint. There is the potential for larger civil penalties in the context of a United States complaint than in an administrative action by the EPA such as the 2009 CAFO. In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a notice of violation (“2013 NOV”) alleging certain storm water reporting violations under Lucky Friday’s Clean Water Act Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities. The 2013 NOV also contained a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. We cannot ascertain what impacts, if any, the 2013 NOV and request for information will have on the matters that were already pending with the United States, including the 2010 NOV. Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with its permits and applicable laws; however, we cannot provide assurance that in the future it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits and other regulatory requirements regarding water management. We believe that it is reasonably possible that Hecla Limited faces some liability for the above water issues; however, we cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of any such liability because, among other reasons, we have not completed the investigation called for by the request for information contained in the 2013 NOV, and thus we do not know what the impact of the investigation will be. 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 a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Decree”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs in the fourth quarter of 2012 and in December 2014, submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million, and in the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommends that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that such alternative is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. There is no guarantee EPA will select this alternative. The EPA must review and approve the EE/CA, including the response action alternatives, after which the approved response action will be implemented by Hecla Limited. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site, and our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report is $5.6 million. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results from operations or financial position. 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. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site. 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”). CoCa is alleged to have current or prior ownership interests, and engaged in exploration activities, at each of Gilt Edge Mine in South Dakota and in the area adjacent to the Nelson Tunnel property in Creede, Colorado. 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 1870s. Beginning in the mid-1970s, CoCa held property interests at the site (primarily in the form of mining claims), and was party to an agreement with another mining company (the “operator”) that conducted a limited program of exploration work at the site. The two companies assigned the right to mine in 1983 to a third mining company, and by 1986 CoCa had divested itself of any property interests at the site. In July 2010, the United States informed CoCa that it intended to pursue CoCa and other potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) on a strict, joint and several basis under CERCLA for liability for past and future response costs incurred at Gilt Edge. Currently, the United States alleges that CoCa is liable based on its historical relationship to the site, and that CoCa has succeeded to the liabilities of one or more predecessor entities that may have held certain property interests at the site. Most of the other viable PRPs have settled with the United States. The operator of the exploration effort to which CoCa was a party settled for $26 million, while the third mining company referred to above settled for $4.2 million. The United States alleges that estimated total costs associated with the site may exceed $225 million, including both past and future response costs. We believe that it is reasonably possible that CoCa faces some liability under CERCLA based on its historical ownership interests at the site; however, we cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of any such liability. Furthermore, in the event CoCa incurs a liability at this site, it has limited assets with which to satisfy any claim. Because of this, we believe that it is possible that the United States will seek to recover some of the alleged $225 million in costs associated with the site from Hecla Limited, as the sole stockholder of CoCa. However, we believe Hecla Limited has strong defenses and would vigorously defend against any such claim. For example, 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. Therefore, we believe that Hecla Limited is not liable for any claims at the Gilt Edge site. Settlement negotiations with the United States commenced in 2010 and are ongoing. Because of the unpredictability of settlement negotiations or the outcome of any trial, as well as the nature of CERCLA as a strict, joint and several liability statute, we cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability faced by CoCa or Hecla Limited. Furthermore, there can be no assurance settlement negotiations will be successful, or that Hecla Limited will not incur a material liability with respect to this site. 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. CoCa was involved in exploration and mining activities in Creede during the 1970s and the 1980s. In October 2013, the EPA made a formal claim against CoCa for past response costs under CERCLA as an owner/operator of the site, and against Hecla Limited as a corporate successor to CoCa. The EPA is seeking a total of approximately $5 million for past response costs, plus an undetermined amount of interest from CoCa, Hecla Limited, and other PRPs. The EPA stated that it is continuing its remedial investigation/feasibility study at the site, and once that is complete, it will begin remedial design and remedial action for the site. Presumably, the EPA will also seek reimbursement of at least some of those costs from viable PRPs. In April 2014, CoCa received notice from another PRP alleging that CoCa is required to indemnify it in connection with any liability it may have with respect to the Nelson/Commodore site. We believe that it is reasonably possible that CoCa faces some liability under CERCLA based on its historical ownership interests at the site. However, in the event CoCa incurs a liability for this site, it has limited assets with which to satisfy any claim. Because of this, we believe that it is possible that the United States will seek to recover some of the costs associated with the site from Hecla Limited, as the sole stockholder of CoCa. However, we believe Hecla Limited would have strong defenses to such a claim and would vigorously defend against any such claim. For example, 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 claims at this site. Settlement negotiations with the United States commenced in 2014 and are ongoing. We cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of any liability CoCa or Hecla Limited may have because, among other things, there is little information known on EPA’s remediation plans for the site, as well as the unpredictability of settlement negotiations or the outcome of any trial. Thus, there can be no assurance that Hecla Limited will not incur a material liability with respect to this site. Senior Notes On April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.875% Senior Notes ("Notes") due 2021. The net proceeds from the offering of the Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to our pension plan to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. See Note 9 for more information. Other Commitments Our contractual obligations as of March 31, 2015 included approximately $4.0 million for various non-capital costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at March 31, 2015 included approximately $0.5 million, $2.2 million, and $0.8 million, respectively, for various capital items at the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, and Casa Berardi units, and approximately $8.8 million, $1.3 million and $0.3 million, for various non-capital costs at the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units. We also have total commitments of approximately $22.7 million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units (see Note 9 for more information). See Note 13 for a discussion of our commitment, upon satisfaction of certain conditions, to close the proposed acquisition of Revett Mining Company and issue shares of our common stock as consideration. As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds and bank letters of credit for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of March 31, 2015, we had surety bonds totaling $68.9 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure of the Greens Creek mine. In addition, we had letters of credit for approximately $7.9 million outstanding as of December 31, 2014 for environmental reclamation and workers' compensation insurance bonding. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise. Other Contingencies 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 and Health Review Commission ("FMSHRC") for compensation for bargaining unit workers at the Lucky Friday mine idled as a result of the temporary suspension of production at the mine. The complaint alleged the bargaining unit workers were entitled to compensation under Section 111 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 the "Mine Act") from November 16, 2011 - the date an order was issued by the Mine Safety Health Administration (“MSHA”) to Hecla Limited - until June 12, 2013 - the date the order was terminated. On February 4, 2015, the judge hearing the case issued an Order finding the applicable period of time for compensation under Section 111 of the Mine Act to be approximately 8 days and the compensation owed to the employees to be approximately $13,000, plus interest. On March 4, 2015, the Union filed an appeal for discretionary review with the FMSHRC. On March 12, 2015, the FMSHRC issued a notice granting discretionary review. We believe the claim is without merit, and that all wages due under Section 111, which was an immaterial amount, have already been paid. Therefore, we have not recorded a liability relating to the claim as of March 31, 2015. The value of the union's claim is estimated to be in the range of $0 to $10 million. On April 12, 2013, the family of Larry Marek, an employee of Hecla Limited who was fatally injured in an April 2011 accident, filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our officers and employees seeking damages for, among other claims, wrongful death and infliction of emotional distress. No dollar amount of damages is specified in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. On April 21, 2015, the judge hearing the case granted Hecla’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have an opportunity to appeal the decision. As of the date of this report, no such appeal has been filed. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the court seeking to reconsider the summary judgment decision in light of a recent decision by the FMSHRC upholding two orders and one citation issued to Hecla Limited that relate to the same April 2011 accident. On December 11, 2013, four employees of Hecla Limited who were injured in a December 2011 rock burst filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our employees seeking damages for, among other claims, intentional and willful injury and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1,000,000, as claimed in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). We cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently expect that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, and additional contingencies may occur as well, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in the estimated accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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 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 2: 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 3: 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=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: 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=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration