XML 55 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2025
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 2011, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe filed an administrative appeal of the State of Utah Division of Air Quality’s (“UDAQ”) decision to approve a Modification to the Air Quality Approval Order at the Mill. Then, 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. In August 2014, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe filed an administrative appeal to the State of Utah Division of Radiation Control’s (“DRC”) Radioactive Materials License Amendment 7 approval regarding Alternate Feed Material from Dawn Mining. The challenges remain open at this time and may involve the appointment of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to hear the matters. The Company does not consider these actions to have any merit. If the petitions are successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify or replace the existing Air Quality Approval Order, Corrective Action Plan or license amendment, as applicable. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modifications or replacements would materially affect its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the scope and costs of remediation under a revised or replaced Air Quality Approval Order, Corrective Action Plan and/or license amendment 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 are required 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. Most recently, on July 15, 2022, the routine GWDP renewal application was submitted to UDEQ, which remains under consideration at this time. 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 Company. Thereafter, discussions between the Company and the Tribe commenced in an effort to resolve the dispute and other outstanding matters without formal adjudication. However, the Company does not consider this action to have any merit. If resolution is not achieved, the stay is lifted and the petition is successful before an ALJ, 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. Kwale Project Stevedoring Dispute with the Kenya Ports Authority To operate its ship loading and jetty facility in Likoni (“Jetty Facility”), Base Titanium requires a Port Operating License issued by the Kenya Ports Authority (“KPA”). In March 2014, KPA granted Base Titanium a waiver to operate the Jetty Facility indefinitely until the formal license is approved by the KPA board of directors. To date, the Port Operating License has not been finalized as KPA has refused to grant the license unless that license includes an obligation on Base Titanium to pay a $1/tonne stevedoring charge on exports from the Jetty Facility. Under applicable KPA tariffs, KPA may levy a $1/tonne charge for stevedoring services it provides. KPA sought to levy such charges shortly prior to Base Titanium’s maiden shipment from the Jetty Facility in 2014, which was ultimately paid by Base Titanium under protest to ensure the vessel was permitted to sail. Base Titanium objects to stevedoring charges being levied by KPA principally on the grounds that (i) Base Titanium’s Jetty Facility is a private facility that was built entirely at Base Titanium’s expense; and (ii) no such stevedoring services are either required of, or are being provided by, KPA and, therefore, a service charge in respect of stevedoring is not applicable and invalid. In 2017, Base Titanium sought and obtained an injunction from the High Court of Kenya to compel KPA to provide necessary marine services to vessels berthing at the Jetty Facility (“2017 Ruling”). In conjunction, the parties entered consent orders to establish an escrow account where disputed charges are being held pending the final outcome of the dispute. Base Titanium sought resolution of the dispute through arbitration commenced in Kenya in February 2017 brought under the Kenya Ports Authority Act. The KPA challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to hear the dispute and, in late 2019, the arbitrator ruled in favor of arbitration having jurisdiction. In March 2022, the High Court of Kenya upheld the arbitrator’s jurisdictional ruling. The KPA appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal of Kenya, but this appeal has not progressed. Separately, in February 2021, the High Court of Kenya ruled that the arbitrator should be removed and directed the parties to seek appointment of a new arbitrator. KPA separately appealed the 2017 Ruling and, in April 2023, the Court of Appeal of Kenya dismissed KPA’s appeal, paving the way for Base Titanium to seek appointment of a new arbitrator. Base Titanium held off on seeking the appointment of a new arbitrator to allow for a potential amicable resolution of the matter. The matter remains unresolved and Base Titanium anticipates that it may need to recommence formal dispute resolution proceedings through arbitration. As at the time of writing, the amount in dispute is approximately $4.6 million (with $1.4 million previously paid directly to the KPA, and approximately $3.2 million held in the escrow account). Mivumoni B Village On March 18, 2021, a local landholder (on his own behalf and on behalf of 65 others (collectively, the “Petitioners”)) filed a petition against Base Titanium in the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa alleging failings in the Environmental Impact Assessment process for the Kwale Project, claiming excessive noise and air pollution from dust and adverse consequences of contaminated water allegedly caused by Base Titanium’s operations. Base Titanium denies that it has committed the alleged violations or breaches, and is of the view that no substantive evidence has been adduced supporting the claims. Base Titanium conducts its operations in compliance with its Environmental Impact Assessment License and Environmental and Social Management Plan. Base Titanium has a valid and subsisting license issued by the National Environmental Management Authority. Base Titanium raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court at first instance, on the basis that the proper procedure for raising grievances specified in the Mining Act had not been followed which requires grievances with respect to mining operations to be first raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Mining, Blue Economy and Maritime Affairs. The Court dismissed Base Titanium’s application by way of ruling dated February 10, 2022. Base Titanium is pursuing an appeal. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on January 21, 2025, and a ruling is expected in Q2 2025. The primary case has been stayed, pending Base Titanium’s appeal. The Company believes these claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company therefore does not believe, at this time, that this action will materially impact the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Mchingirini Residents On July 18, 2023, former local landholders filed a petition with the Environment and Land Court alleging they were the registered and beneficial owners of suit properties in the Mchingirini area, which form part of Kwale Project's Special Mining Lease 23, that their prior relocation and resettlement was unlawful and that the compensation paid was inadequate on the basis of an alleged understanding that there were no minerals on the suit properties. The former local landholders have sought a declaration to this effect and that Base Titanium pay an additional KSH 360,000 per acre (representing the difference between the compensation paid by Base Titanium to the local landholders and the compensation paid to other local landholders for resettlements undertaken in 2021) and interest on this amount at 20% per annum. Base Titanium denies any liability to the plaintiffs. In 2015 and 2016, following negotiations between the parties, agreements were reached to have the plaintiffs relocated from the suit properties. Pursuant to the said agreements, the plaintiffs were relocated, and compensation was paid by Base Titanium. In turn, the plaintiffs surrendered their title deeds to Base Titanium and transfer instruments were executed. Base Titanium has raised a preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction on the basis that the proper procedure for raising grievances specified in the Mining Act has not been followed. This objection was dismissed by the Environment and Land Court by way of ruling on April 12, 2024. Base Titanium is pursuing an appeal in the Court of Appeal of Kenya. Appeal dates are yet to be set. The original proceedings have been stayed, pending Base Titanium’s appeal. The Company does not consider this action to have any merit. The Company therefore does not believe, at this time, that this action will materially impact the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Toliara Project Although the Toliara Project holds a mining permit that allows production of ilmenite, rutile and zircon, development at the Project was suspended by the Government of Madagascar in November 2019 pending negotiation of fiscal terms applying to the Project. Based on progress made in the negotiation of fiscal terms, the Government of Madagascar lifted the suspension on November 28, 2024, and on December 5, 2024 the Company entered into MOU with the Government of Madagascar setting forth certain key terms applicable to the Toliara Project. Now that the Government of Madagascar has lifted the suspension, the Company has re-commenced development and investment in the Project, is re-establishing community and social programs, and is advancing the technical, environmental and social activities necessary to achieve a positive FID, which the Company expects to make in Q2 2026. While the Company is progressing towards an FID, the Company will continue working with the Government of Madagascar to formalize the terms and conditions set out in the MOU through the implementation of a “Stability Mechanism" consisting of one or a combination of the following: (a) submittal of an Investment Agreement to the Madagascar Parliament for approval as law and certification of the Toliara Project (“Project Certification") under existing law establishing a special regime for large scale investments in the Malagasy mining sector (the “LGIM"); (b) promulgation of amendments and revisions to the existing LGIM (the “LGIM Amendment") in a form that provides for the necessary certainty of financial and legal terms, and reasonable financial, operational and legal requirements, for large-scale projects and have Project Certification under the amended LGIM, together with an Investment Agreement (if reasonably required) submitted to Parliament for approval as law; and/or (c) another agreed upon mechanism that achieves the necessary certainty of financial and legal terms, and reasonable financial, operational and legal requirements, applying to large-scale mining projects. The Government of Madagascar has been working on an LGIM Amendment, and the Company expects to obtain Project Certification under the amended LGIM, together with an Investment Agreement (if reasonably required). The Company further expects the recovery of monazite to be included in the Toliara Project's mining permit. The Company currently expects that the LGIM Amendment process could be completed as early as Q2 2025 with the Project Certification and Investment Agreement, if required, approved by the end of Q3 2025. However, there can be no assurance of achieving sufficient legal and fiscal stability or the timing thereof, or obtaining approval of the addition of monazite to the mining permit or the timing thereof. If such approvals are not obtained, or obtained on terms less favorable than expected, this could delay any final investment decision in relation to the Toliara Project or prevent or otherwise have a significant effect on the development of the Toliara Project or ability to recover Monazite from the Toliara Project. 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, as reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, renewal costs for the remainder of 2025 are expected to total approximately $1.79 million. Surety Bonds The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as collateral for the Company’s asset retirement obligations (“AROs”). 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 March 31, 2025, the Company has $20.18 million posted as collateral against undiscounted AROs of $67.98 million. As of December 31, 2024, the Company has $20.00 million posted as collateral against undiscounted AROs of $74.27 million. The Company will be liable to pay any reclamation expense that exceeds the amount of the collateral posted against the surety bonds. 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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration