XML 35 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

10.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

401(k) Plan. The Board of Directors of the Company adopted the U.S. Energy Corp. 401(k) Plan in 2004. The Company matches 50% of an employee’s salary deferrals up to a maximum contribution per employee of $4 annually. The Company’s contributions are included in compensation and benefits in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and amounted to $37, $48, and $46 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Lessee Operating Leases. In November 2015, the Company entered into a sublease for office space in Denver, Colorado with an entity controlled by a director of the Company. The future minimum rental commitment under this sublease requires payments of $88 in 2016 and $59 in 2017 when the sublease expires.

Lessor Operating Leases. The Company is the lessor of portions of an office building in Riverton, Wyoming that used to serve as the Company’s corporate headquarters and which are accounted for as operating leases. Rental income under the agreements was $103, $95, and $96 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Letter of Credit. In connection with the Company’s sublease of office space in Denver, a security deposit was provided in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for $35. The letter of credit expires in September 2017. Collateral for the letter of credit is a certificate of deposit for $35 that is included in other assets in the accompanying balance sheet as of December 31, 2015.

Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is party to certain legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these events cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not expect these matters to have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Following are currently pending legal matters:

North Dakota Properties. On June 8, 2011, Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. (“Brigham”), as the operator of the Williston 25-36 #1H Well, filed an action in the State of North Dakota, County of Williams, in District Court, Northwest Judicial District, Case No. 53-11-CV-00495 to interplead to the court with respect to the undistributed suspended royalty funds from this well to protect itself from potential litigation. Brigham became aware of an apparent dispute with respect to ownership of the mineral interest between the ordinary high water mark and the ordinary low water mark of the Missouri River. Brigham suspended payment of certain royalty proceeds of production related to the minerals in and under this property pending resolution of the apparent dispute. Brigham was subsequently sold to Statoil ASA (“Statoil”) who assumed Brigham’s rights and obligations under this case. The Company owns a working interest, not royalty interest, in this well so no funds have been withheld.

On January 28, 2013, the District Court Northwest Judicial District issued an Order for Partial Summary Judgment holding that the State of North Dakota as part of its title to the beds of navigable waterways owns the minerals in the area between the ordinary high and low watermarks on these waterways, and that this public title excludes ownership and any proprietary interest by riparian landowners. This issue has been appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. The Company’s legal position is aligned with Brigham, who will continue to provide legal counsel in this case for the benefit of all working interest owners.

The Company is also a party to litigation that seeks to reform certain assignments of mineral interests it acquired from Brigham. This matter involves the depth below the surface to which the assignments were effective. The plaintiff is seeking to reform the agreement such that the Company’s assignment would be revised to be 12 feet closer to the surface. This dispute affects one of the Company’s producing wells.

The ultimate outcome of these matters cannot presently be determined. However, in management’s opinion the likelihood of a material adverse outcome is remote. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Quiet Title Actions. In October 2013, Dimmit Wood Properties, Ltd. (“Dimmit”) filed a Quiet Title Action against Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), Crimson Exploration Operating, Inc. (“Crimson”), EXCO Operating Company, LP, OOGC America, Inc., Energy One and Liberty Energy, LLC (“Liberty”) (jointly referred to as “Defendants”) concerning an 801 gross acre oil and gas lease (“Lease”) located in Dimmit County, Texas. Crimson, Energy One and Liberty received an assignment from Chesapeake of the Lease, in which Energy One had a 30% working interest. Dimmit alleged that the Lease terminated due to the failure to achieve production in paying quantities and for having non-existent production for allegedly significant time periods. In April 2015, the Company, Crimson and Liberty agreed to settle the action whereby the Company received $1,500 in exchange for releasing its interest in the subject lease. Accordingly, the proceeds from the settlement have been accounted for as a reduction of the Company’s evaluated oil and gas properties in 2015.

In September 2013, the Company acquired from Chesapeake a 15% working interest in approximately 4,244 gross mineral acres referred to as the Willerson lease. In January 2014, Willerson inquired if their lease had terminated due to the failure to achieve production in paying quantities pursuant to the terms of the lease. The Company along with Crimson and Liberty filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court of Dimmit County in May 2014 seeking a determination from the court that the lease remains valid and in effect. The lessors counterclaimed for breach of contract, trespass, and related causes of action. In January 2016, the lessors filed a third-party petition alleging breach of contract, trespass, and related causes of action against Chesapeake and EXCO Operating Company, LP. As of December 31, 2015, unevaluated oil and gas properties includes $1,171 related to the leasehold costs that are subject to this matter. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Arbitration of Employment Claim. A former employee has claimed that the Company owes up to $1,800 under an Executive Severance and Non-Compete agreement (the “Agreement”) due a change of control and termination of employment without cause. The Agreement requires that any disputes be submitted to binding arbitration and a request for arbitration was submitted by the parties in March 2016. Management does not believe there is any merit to the claim of termination without cause or that a change of control occurred. A date has not yet been established for the arbitration proceedings. The ultimate outcome of this arbitration cannot presently be determined. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Contingent Ownership Interests. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had recognized a contingent liability associated with uncertain ownership interests of $3,108. This liability arises when the calculations of respective joint ownership interests by operators differs from the Company’s calculations. These differences relate to a variety of matters, including allocation of non-consent interests, complex payout calculations for individual wells and groups of wells, along with the timing of reversionary interests. Accordingly, these matters are subject to legal interpretation and the related obligations are presented as a contingent liability in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2015. While the Company has classified this entire amount as a current liability, most of these issues are expected to be resolved through arbitration, mediation or litigation; due to the complexity of the issues involved, there can be no assurance that the outcome of these contingencies will be resolved during 2016.

Contingent Gain for Joint Interest Audit Recoveries. The Company has performed joint interest audits of certain drilling, completion and operating costs charged by the Major Operator discussed in Note 15. The results of the audits indicated that $5,269 of costs incurred by the Major Operator in 2011 and 2012 were improperly charged to the accounts for all of the joint interest owners in the wells, including $1,919 related to the Company. During 2015, the Major Operator agreed to issue refunds to the joint interest owners for aggregate charges of $606, aggregate charges for $4,432 were denied, and aggregate charges for $231 are pending further review. The Company has disputed the $4,432 of denied charges, of which its share is approximately $1,600. Since the Company previously paid the full amounts billed by the Major Operator, the dispute will be resolved in accordance with the terms of the joint operating agreements. Except for the refunds issued during 2015, no amounts have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional recoveries that may result from the joint interest audits.

Anfield Gain Contingency. In 2007, the Company sold all of our uranium assets for cash and stock of the purchaser, Uranium One Inc. (“Uranium One”). The assets sold included a uranium mill in Utah and unpatented uranium claims in Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona and Utah. Pursuant to the asset purchase agreement, the Company was entitled to additional consideration from Uranium One up to $40,000 based on the performance of the mill, achievement of commercial production and royalties, but no additional consideration was ever received from Uranium One. In August 2014, the Company entered into an agreement with Anfield Resources Inc. (“Anfield”) whereby if Anfield was successful in acquiring the property from Uranium One, Anfield would be released from the future payment obligations stemming from the 2007 sale to Uranium One. On September 1, 2015, Anfield acquired the property from Uranium One and is now obligated to provide the following consideration to the Company:

·

Issuance of $2,500 in Anfield common shares to the Company. The Anfield shares are to be held in escrow and released in tranches over a 36-month period. Pursuant to the agreement, if any of the share issuances result in the Company holding in excess of 20% of the then issued and outstanding shares of Anfield (the “Threshold”), such shares in excess of the Threshold would not be issued at that time, but deferred to the next scheduled share issuance. If, upon the final scheduled share issuance the number of shares to be issued exceeds the Threshold, the value in excess of the Threshold is payable to the Company in cash,

·

$2,500 payable in cash upon 18 months of continuous commercial production, and

·

$2,500 payable in cash upon 36 months of continuous commercial production.

The first tranche of common shares resulted in the issuance of 7,436,505 shares of Anfield with a market value of $750 and such shares were delivered to the Company in September 2015. Since shares of Anfield are thinly traded, the Company determined that the market value of Anfield did not reflect trading on an “orderly market”. Instead, a net present value technique was used to determine the fair value for Anfield shares of approximately $238, which is included in rental and other income in the accompanying statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The timing of any future receipt of cash from Anfield is not determinable and there can be no assurance that any cash will ever be received from Anfield or that the shares received from Anfield will ever be liquidated for cash.