E. CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE E: CONTINGENCIES Carlton Litigation Since December 2006, Carlton Energy Group, LLC (“Carlton”), an individual, Eurenergy Resources Corporation (“Eurenergy”) and several other entities, including New Concept Energy, Inc., which was then known as CabelTel International Corporation (the “Company”), have been involved in contentious litigation alleging tortuous conduct, breach of contract and other matters and, as to the Company, that it was the alter ego of Eurenergy. The Carlton claims were based upon an alleged tortuous interference with a contract by the individual and Eurenergy related to the right to explore a coal bed methane concession in Bulgaria which had never (and has not to this day) produced any hydrocarbons. At no time during the pendency of this project or since did the Company or any of its officers or directors have any interest whatsoever in the success or failure of the so-called “Bulgaria Project.” However, in the litigation Carlton alleged that the Company was the alter ego of certain of the other defendants, including Eurenergy. Following a jury trial in 2009, the Trial Court (295^th District Court of Harris County, Texas) cross appeals were filed by Carlton, the individual and Eurenergy to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas (the “Court of Appeals”), which, in February 2012, rendered an opinion. The Company and the other defendants filed a Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals’ Opinion with the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. On May 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the Court of Appeals’ judgment, remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. On remand, the Court of Appeals reinstated a verdict on damages in the amount of $31.16 million against the individual and Eurenergy. During August 2017, the parties to the litigation reached an arrangement, the final terms of which will not be determined until the outcome of another appeal to the Supreme Court. Under the terms of the arrangement, the Company should have no financial responsibility to Carlton, nor should any potential final outcome materially adversely affect the Company, in management’s opinion. Other The Company has been named as a defendant in other lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. Management is of the opinion that these lawsuits will not have a material effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

E. CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE E: CONTINGENCIES

Carlton Litigation

Since December 2006, Carlton Energy Group, LLC (“Carlton”), an individual, Eurenergy Resources Corporation (“Eurenergy”) and several other entities, including New Concept Energy, Inc., which was then known as CabelTel International Corporation (the “Company”), have been involved in contentious litigation alleging tortuous conduct, breach of contract and other matters and, as to the Company, that it was the alter ego of Eurenergy. The Carlton claims were based upon an alleged tortuous interference with

a contract by the individual and Eurenergy related to the right to explore a coal bed methane concession in Bulgaria which had never (and has not to this day) produced any hydrocarbons. At no time during the pendency of this project or since did the Company or any of its officers or directors have any interest whatsoever in the success or failure of the so-called “Bulgaria Project.” However, in the litigation Carlton alleged that the Company was the alter ego of certain of the other defendants, including Eurenergy.

Following a jury trial in 2009, the Trial Court (295^th District Court of Harris County, Texas) cross appeals were filed by Carlton, the individual and Eurenergy to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas (the “Court of Appeals”), which, in February 2012, rendered an opinion. The Company and the other defendants filed a Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals’ Opinion with the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. On May 8, 2015, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the Court of Appeals’ judgment, remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. On remand, the Court of Appeals reinstated a verdict on damages in the amount of $31.16 million against the individual and Eurenergy.

During August 2017, the parties to the litigation reached an arrangement, the final terms of which will not be determined until the outcome of another appeal to the Supreme Court. Under the terms of the arrangement, the Company should have no financial responsibility to Carlton, nor should any potential final outcome materially adversely affect the Company, in management’s opinion.

Other

The Company has been named as a defendant in other lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. Management is of the opinion that these lawsuits will not have a material effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.