Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company has minimum royalty obligations with certain of its mineral properties and leases. For most of the mineral properties and leases, the Company is subject to a range of royalty obligations once production commences. These royalties range from 0.5% to 5% of net smelter revenues (NSR) from minerals produced on the properties, with the majority being under 3%. Some of the factors that will influence the amount of the royalties include ounces extracted and the price of gold. The Company’s mining and exploration activities are subject to various laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment. These laws and regulations are continually changing and are generally becoming more restrictive. The Company believes its operations are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in all material respects. The Company has made, and expects to make in the future, expenditures to comply with such laws and regulations, but cannot predict the full amount of such future expenditures. On January 31, 2014, the Comstock Residents Association (the “CRA”) and two of its members filed a civil action in the Third Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Lyon County (the “District Court”) against the Lyon County Board of Commissioners (the “Commissioners”) and the Company, asking the District Court to reverse the Commissioners’ decision to grant an application for master plan amendment and zone change submitted and approved by the Commissioners on January 2, 2014 (the “Application”). Prior to the approval of the Application, the master plan designation and zoning precluded mining on certain property of the Company in the area of Silver City, Lyon County. In April 2015, the District Court ruled in favor of the Company and the Commissioners. The written Order Denying Petition for Judicial Review was filed and mailed to all parties on June 15, 2015. On July 14, 2015, the CRA and one individual (together “Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court Order, appealing the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. On December 9, 2015, Appellants filed their Opening Brief in the Nevada Supreme Court, generally repeating the arguments that were made at the District Court. On January 15, 2016, the Company and the Commissioners jointly filed an Answering Brief. Briefing in the Nevada Supreme Court was completed with the Appellants’ filing of a Reply Brief on March 3, 2016. An oral argument before a three-judge panel of the Nevada Supreme Court took place on September 14, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order affirming all three of the District Court’s decisions associated with 1) the Commissioners’ discretion and authority for changing master plans and zoning, 2) their compliance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and 3) their compliance with Nevada statutory provisions. Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s conclusions that Lyon County did not abuse its discretion and that it acted with substantial evidence in support of their decision, that the County did not violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and that the County did not violate statutory provisions regarding master plans. The Supreme Court did reverse the District Court’s dismissal of CRA’s claim of a due process violation, concluding that this claim should not have been dismissed and that further proceedings are necessary in the District Court on this single claim. The Company and the Commissioners filed a motion for summary judgment with the District Court bases on the evidence in the record and the District Court held a hearing on December 11, 2017. The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's reversal of CRA's due process claim required that CRA be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery. Therefore, the District Court has allowed a limited time for CRA to conduct discovery on its due process claim, The Company responded to the CRA discovery request on February 20, 2018 and the District Court held a hearing on April 23, 2018. Additional discovery was allowed by the District Court, which was subsequently extended and including response periods by both parties, anticipated to be complete by late August 2018, followed by a final ruling from the Court. The Company and the Lyon County District Attorney look forward to positive resolution of CRA's lone remaining claim. On July 12, 2018, Precious Royalties LLC (“Precious”) filed a complaint in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in Storey County, against the Company, alleging that the Company failed to properly pay Precious a net smelter return royalty in accordance with a settlement agreement dated September 24, 2012 and is seeking $510,000 in damages. The Company believes that the claims made in this complaint are without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend this litigation. From time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. There are no other matters pending that we expect to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has minimum royalty obligations with certain of its mineral properties and leases. For most of the mineral properties and leases, the Company is subject to a range of royalty obligations once production commences. These royalties range from 0.5% to 5% of net smelter revenues (NSR) from minerals produced on the properties, with the majority being under 3%. Some of the factors that will influence the amount of the royalties include ounces extracted and the price of gold.

The Company’s mining and exploration activities are subject to various laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment. These laws and regulations are continually changing and are generally becoming more restrictive. The Company believes its operations are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in all material respects. The Company has made, and expects to make in the future, expenditures to comply with such laws and regulations, but cannot predict the full amount of such future expenditures.

On January 31, 2014, the Comstock Residents Association (the “CRA”) and two of its members filed a civil action in the Third Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Lyon County (the “District Court”) against the Lyon County Board of Commissioners (the “Commissioners”) and the Company, asking the District Court to reverse the Commissioners’ decision to grant an application for master plan amendment and zone change submitted and approved by the Commissioners on January 2, 2014 (the “Application”).

Prior to the approval of the Application, the master plan designation and zoning precluded mining on certain property of the Company in the area of Silver City, Lyon County. In April 2015, the District Court ruled in favor of the Company and the Commissioners. The written Order Denying Petition for Judicial Review was filed and mailed to all parties on June 15, 2015. On July 14, 2015, the CRA and one individual (together “Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court Order, appealing the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. On December 9, 2015, Appellants filed their Opening Brief in the Nevada Supreme Court, generally repeating the arguments that were made at the District Court. On January 15, 2016, the Company and the Commissioners jointly filed an Answering Brief. Briefing in the Nevada Supreme Court was completed with the Appellants’ filing of a Reply Brief on March 3, 2016. An oral argument before a three-judge panel of the Nevada Supreme Court took place on September 14, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order affirming all three of the District Court’s decisions associated with 1) the Commissioners’ discretion and authority for changing master plans and zoning, 2) their compliance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and 3) their compliance with Nevada statutory provisions. Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s conclusions that Lyon County did not abuse its discretion and that it acted with substantial evidence in support of their decision, that the County did not violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and that the County did not violate statutory provisions regarding master plans.

The Supreme Court did reverse the District Court’s dismissal of CRA’s claim of a due process violation, concluding that this claim should not have been dismissed and that further proceedings are necessary in the District Court on this single claim. The Company and the Commissioners filed a motion for summary judgment with the District Court bases on the evidence in the record and the District Court held a hearing on December 11, 2017. The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's reversal of CRA's due process claim required that CRA be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery. Therefore, the District Court has allowed a limited time for CRA to conduct discovery on its due process claim, The Company responded to the CRA discovery request on February 20, 2018 and the District Court held a hearing on April 23, 2018. Additional discovery was allowed by the District Court, which was subsequently extended and including response periods by both parties, anticipated to be complete by late August 2018, followed by a final ruling from the Court. The Company and the Lyon County District Attorney look forward to positive resolution of CRA's lone remaining claim.

On July 12, 2018, Precious Royalties LLC (“Precious”) filed a complaint in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in Storey County, against the Company, alleging that the Company failed to properly pay Precious a net smelter return royalty in accordance with a settlement agreement dated September 24, 2012 and is seeking $510,000 in damages. The Company believes that the claims made in this complaint are without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

From time to time, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. There are no other matters pending that we expect to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.