XML 170 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2019
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, and on February 16, 2018 reissued with minor corrections, the White Mesa Mill’s 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. In March 2018, the Grant Canyon Trust, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Uranium Watch (the “Petitioners”) served Petitions for Review challenging UDEQ’s renewal of the license and permit. Petitioners subsequently filed with UDEQ Requests for Appointment of an Administrative Law Judge, which they later agreed to suspend pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement with UDEQ, effective June 4, 2018. The Company has met with representatives from all parties in order to determine whether pending administrative proceedings can be settled. Discussions are ongoing. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit. If such challenges are heard by the agency and 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 its 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 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 petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. On October 25, 2018, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled on the petition for rehearing en banc. The panel withdrew its prior opinion and filed a new opinion, which affirmed with one exception the District Court’s decision. The one exception relates to Plaintiffs’ fourth claim, which was dismissed by the District Court for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed itself on its standing analysis, concluded that the Plaintiffs have standing to assert this claim and remanded the claim back to the District Court to hear the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. On September 11, 2019, the Canyon Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support with the District Court, after which the Company filed its Intervenors-Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on October 23, 2019. On November 15, 2019, the Canyon Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties now await the Court’s determination. If the Canyon Plaintiffs are successful on their fourth claim, 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. On March 21, 2019, the Havasupai Tribe filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari regarding its claims in this matter with the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting that the Supreme Court hear this case. The Petition was placed on the docket on March 25, 2019 and, on May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Havasupai Tribe’s March 21, 2019 Petition. That portion of the case is now over. Daneros Mine On February 23, 2018, the BLM issued the EA, Decision Record and FONSI for the Mine Plan of Operations Modification for the Daneros Mine. On March 29, 2018, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Grand Canyon Trust (together the “Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal to the IBLA regarding the BLM’s Decision Record and FONSI and challenging the underlying EA, and the Company was subsequently permitted to intervene. This matter has been briefed and remains under consideration by IBLA at this time. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit; however, the scope and costs of amending or redoing the EA have not yet been determined and could be significant. Mineral property commitments The Company enters into commitments with federal and state agencies and private individuals to lease mineral rights. These leases are renewable annually and annual renewal costs are expected to total $1.49 million for the year ended December 31, 2020. Surety Bonds The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as collateral for the Company’s ARO. 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. As of December 31, 2019, the Company has $20.08 million posted against an undiscounted ARO of $41.75 million (December 31, 2018 - $19.65 million posted against an undiscounted ARO of $41.32 million). Commitments The Company is contractually obligated under a non-material Sales and Agency Agreement appointing an exclusive sales and marketing agent for all vanadium pentoxide produced by the Company.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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