XML 33 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
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. The UDEQ renewed in January 2018, then reissued with minor corrections in February 2018, the Mill’s radioactive materials license (the “Mill License”) for another ten years and the Groundwater Discharge Permit (the “GWDP”) for another five years, after which further applications for renewal of the Mill 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 Mill License and GWDP until such time as the renewed Mill 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 Mill 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 the Mill Plaintiffs held multiple discussions over the course of 2018 and 2019 in an effort to settle the dispute outside of any judicial proceeding. In February 2019, the Mill Plaintiffs submitted to the Company their proposal for reaching a settlement agreement. The proposal remains under consideration by the Company. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit and, if a settlement cannot be reached, the Company 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 Mill License and/or GWDP. At this time, the Company does not believe that any such modification would materially affect its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On August 26, 2021, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe filed a Petition to Intervene and Petition for Review challenging the UDEQ’s approval of Amendment No. 10 to the Mill License, which expanded the list of Alternate Feed Materials that the Mill is authorized to accept and process for its source material content. Then, on November 18, 2021, the Tribe filed its Request for Appointment of an ALJ, followed shortly thereafter by a stay on the request in accordance with a Stipulation and Agreement between the Tribe, UDEQ and the Company. The Company does not consider this action to have any merit. If the stay is lifted, an ALJ is appointed and the petition is successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify or revoke the Mill License amendment. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification or revocation 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 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 later denied by the District Court. In April 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, the 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 was held at the Ninth Circuit on December 15, 2016, which resulted in a favorable ruling for the Defendants a year later. 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. On May 22, 2020, after the matters were briefed, the District Court issued its final order in favor of the Defendants, which the Pinyon Plaintiffs thereafter appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In December 2020, the Pinyon Plaintiffs filed their Appellant’s Opening Brief with the Ninth Circuit and, in April 2021, the Defendants filed their respective Answering Briefs. Oral arguments were held remotely on August 30, 2021. On February 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit filed its Opinion in favor of the USFS and the Company. The Pinyon Plaintiffs did not request a hearing on this matter in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, this matter is now resolved. Surety Bonds The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as collateral for the Company’s asset retirement obligations. 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 June 30, 2022, the Company has $20.33 million posted as collateral against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $42.91 million (December 31, 2021 - $20.31 million posted as collateral against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $41.34 million). Commitments The Company is contractually obligated under a 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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration