COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Jun. 30, 2021
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 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 Mill. The challenge is currently being evaluated and may involve the appointment of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) 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 its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the scope and costs of remediation under a revised or replaced Corrective Action Plan have not yet been determined and could be significant. On January 19, 2018, the UDEQ renewed, and on February 16, 2018 reissued with minor corrections, the Mill’s radioactive materials license (the “License”) for another ten years, and the Groundwater Discharge Permit (the “GWDP”) for another five years, after which further applications for renewal of the License and GWDP will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its existing License and GWDP until such time as the renewed License or GWDP is issued. In 2018, the Grand Canyon Trust, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Uranium Watch (collectively, the “Mill Plaintiffs”) served Petitions for Review challenging UDEQ’s renewal of the License and GWDP and Requests for Appointment of an ALJ, which they later agreed to suspend pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement with UDEQ, effective June 4, 2018. The Company and Mill Plaintiffs held multiple discussions over the course of 2018 and 2019 in an effort to settle the dispute outside of any judicial proceeding. On February 1, 2019, the Mill Plaintiffs submitted to the Company their proposal for reaching a settlement agreement. The proposal remains under consideration by the Company, which may choose to submit a counterproposal if it determines that meaningful settlement can be reached by the parties. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit and, if a settlement cannot be reached, 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 GWDP. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification would materially affect its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Pinyon Plain Project In March 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Havasupai Tribe (the “Pinyon Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (the “District Court”) against the U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) and the USFS Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab National Forest (together, the “Defendants”) seeking an order (a) declaring that the USFS failed to comply with environmental, mining, public land, and historic preservation laws in relation to our Pinyon Plain Project (formerly known as the Canyon Project), (b) setting aside any approvals regarding exploration and mining operations at the Pinyon Plain Project, and (c) directing operations to cease at the Pinyon Plain Project and enjoining the USFS from allowing any further exploration or mining-related activities at the Pinyon Plain Project until the USFS fully complies with all applicable laws. In April 2013, the Pinyon 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 Pinyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Pinyon Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling on the merits to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Ninth Circuit”) 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, Pinyon Plaintiffs filed urgent motions for an injunction pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit, which were denied on June 30, 2015. The hearing on the merits at the Ninth Circuit was held on December 15, 2016. On December 12, 2017, the Company received a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit on the appeal of the merits on the Pinyon Plain Mine litigation. The Pinyon Plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc and, on October 25, 2018, the Ninth Circuit panel withdrew its prior opinion and filed a new opinion, which affirmed the prior opinion with one exception to the District Court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed itself on its prudential standing analysis as applied to the fourth claim on “valid existing rights,” having initially determined that the Pinyon Plaintiffs lacked standing under the General Mining Law of 1872 (the “Mining Law”). The panel remanded the claim back to the District Court to hear on the merits, with the Pinyon Plaintiffs alleging that the USFS did not consider all relevant costs in analyzing whether the Company satisfied the Mining Law’s “prudent person test” in its mineral examination and, thus, erred in concluding that the Company has valid existing rights to operate the Pinyon Plain Mine on lands otherwise subject to a 2012 U.S. Department of Interior withdrawal from location and entry. The Company and USFS dispute this position. On September 11, 2019, the Pinyon 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 Pinyon Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 22, 2020, the District Court issued its final order in favor of the Company and the Defendants. The Pinyon Plaintiffs were afforded 60 days in which to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, during which they filed their Notice of Appeal from a Judgment or Order of a United States District Court. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit issued a Time Schedule Order setting due dates for the parties’ briefs and actions required to perfect the appeal. On December 22, 2020, the Pinyon Plaintiffs filed their Appellant’s Opening Brief with the Ninth Circuit and, on April 5, 2021, the USFS and the Company filed their respective Answering Briefs, which are now under review by the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments have been set for August 30, 2021. As a part of the appeal, the Company may be required to maintain the Pinyon Plain Project on standby pending resolution of the matter. Such a prolonged delay of mining activities could have a significant impact on our future operations. Daneros Mine On February 23, 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (the “BLM”) issued the Environmental Assessment (“EA”), Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact (“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 “Daneros Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) regarding the BLM’s Decision Record and FONSI and challenging the underlying EA. In April 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Intervene with the IBLA, requesting that the Company be allowed to intervene as a full party to this appeal, which was subsequently granted. 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. Surety Bonds The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as security for the Company’s asset retirement obligations. The Company is obligated to pay any reclamation or closure costs due over and above the collateral posted by the Company under these bonds. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has $20.84 million posted as collateral against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $42.29 million (December 31, 2020 - $20.82 million posted as collateral against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $41.95 million).