XML 34 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General legal matters Other than routine litigation incidental to our business, or as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any material pending legal proceedings that management believes would be likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. White Mesa Mill In January 2013, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe filed a Petition to Intervene and Request for Agency Action challenging the Corrective Action Plan approved by the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality (“UDEQ”) relating to nitrate contamination in the shallow aquifer at the White Mesa Mill site. This challenge is currently being evaluated, and may involve the appointment of an administrative law judge to hear the matter. The Company does not consider this action to have any merit. If the petition is successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify or replace the existing Corrective Action Plan. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification or replacement would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the scope and costs of remediation under a revised or replacement Corrective Action Plan have not yet been determined and could be significant. On January 19, 2018, UDEQ renewed the Company’s White Mesa Mill license for another ten years, and Groundwater Discharge Permit for another five years, after which renewal periods further applications for renewal for the license and permit will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing license and permit until such time as the renewed license or permit is issued. On March 15, 2018, March 16, 2018 and March 19, 2018, the Grand Canyon Trust, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Uranium Watch, respectively, served Petitions for Review challenging UDEQ’s renewal of the license and permit. These challenges will involve the appointment of an administrative law judge to hear the matter. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit and intends to participate with UDEQ in defending against the challenges. If the challenges are successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify the renewed license and/or permit. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Canyon Project In March, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Havasupai Tribe (the “Canyon Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (the “District Court”) against the Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab National Forest and the U.S. Forest Services ("USFS") seeking an order (a) declaring that the USFS failed to comply with environmental, mining, public land, and historic preservation laws in relation to our Canyon Project, (b) setting aside any approvals regarding exploration and mining operations at the Canyon Project, and (c) directing operations to cease at the Canyon Project and enjoining the USFS from allowing any further exploration or mining-related activities at the Canyon Project until the USFS fully complies with all applicable laws. In April 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was denied by the District Court in September, 2013. On April 7, 2015, the District Court issued its final ruling on the merits in favor of the Defendants and the Company and against the Canyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Canyon Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling on the merits to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed motions for an injunction pending appeal with the District Court. Those motions for an injunction pending appeal were denied by the District Court on May 26, 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed urgent motions for an injunction pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which were denied on June 30, 2015. The hearing on the merits at the Court of Appeals was held on December 15, 2016. On December 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on the merits in favor of the Defendants and the Company and against the Canyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Canyon Plaintiffs have petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. On February 21, 2018, the Court of Appeals ordered the Defendants and the Company to file a response to the Canyon Plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing en banc. Those responses were filed on April 13, 2018 and April 20, 2018, respectively, and the parties are currently awaiting a further determination from the Court of Appeals on the petition. If a rehearing is granted, and the Canyon Plaintiffs are successful on their appeal on the merits, the Company may be required to maintain the Canyon Project on standby pending resolution of the matter. Such a required prolonged stoppage of mining activities could have a significant impact on our future operations. Daneros Project On February 23, 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued its Environmental Assessment (“EA”), Decision Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) relating to the BLM-approved Mine Plan of Operations Modification (“MPOM”) for the expansion of the Company’s Daneros Mine, subject to certain specified requirements. The MPOM allows for expanded mining operations, the reclamation of historic mining disturbances, and the implementation of additional operational and emission controls. On March 29, 2018, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Grand Canyon Trust filed a Notice of Appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”), challenging BLM’s Decision Record, FONSI, MPOM and EA. A statement of reasons has not yet been filed by the plaintiffs. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Intervene with IBLA, requesting that the Company be allowed intervention as a full party to this appeal and, on May 1, 2018, the Company’s Motion to Intervene was granted by the IBLA Surety Bonds The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as collateral for the Company’s asset retirement obligation. The Company is obligated to replace this collateral in the event of a default, and is obligated to repay any reclamation or closure costs due. The Company currently has $21.57 million posted against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.42 million (December 31, 2017 - $22.13 million posted against undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.46 million).

X
- References No definition available. + 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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration