Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2020
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 1 6 : COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES We are committed to paying our key executives a total of $704,000 per year for various management services. We are subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Except as disclosed below, we are not aware of any material legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against the Company. On or about March 9, 2011, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “TCEQ”) granted the Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, Production Area Authorization and Aquifer Exemption for its Goliad Project. On or about December 4, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the Aquifer Exemption permit (the “AE”). With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, the Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status. On or about May 24, 2011, a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the 250 th District Court in Travis County, Texas. A motion filed by the Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about June 14, 2013, when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position. On or about January 18, 2013, a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the United States (the “Fifth Circuit”) to appeal the EPA’s decision. On or about March 5, 2013, a motion filed by the Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The parties attempted to resolve both appeals, to facilitate discussions and avoid further legal costs. The parties jointly agreed, through mediation initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about August 8, 2013, to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about August 21, 2013, the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings. The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA’s stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval. In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE. The Company and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, and if granted, to be limited to a 60 -day review period. On December 9, 2013, by way of a procedural order from a three -judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to 60 days. In March of 2014, at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, the Company conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed the Company’s previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about June 17, 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of the Company’s existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than 10% of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but not denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about September 9, 2014, the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in August 2013 and to set a briefing schedule (the “Status Report”). In that Status Report, the petitioners also stated that they had decided not to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. The Company continues to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and is continuing as planned towards uranium extraction at its fully-permitted Goliad Project. The Company has had communications and filings with the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Parana projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While the Company remains fully committed to its development path forward in Paraguay, it caused its legal counsel to file an appeal in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions. At any given time, we may enter into negotiations to settle outstanding legal proceedings and any resulting accruals will be estimated based on the relevant facts and circumstances applicable at that time. We do not expect that such settlements will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE

: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are committed to paying our key executives a total of

$704,000

per year for various management services.

We are subject to ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Except as disclosed below, we are

not

aware of any material legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against the Company.

On or about

March 9, 2011,

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “TCEQ”) granted the Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, Production Area Authorization and Aquifer Exemption for its Goliad Project. On or about

December 4, 2012,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the Aquifer Exemption permit (the “AE”). With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, the Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status. On or about

May 24, 2011,

a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the

250

District Court in Travis County, Texas. A motion filed by the Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about

June 14, 2013,

when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position. On or about

January 18, 2013,

a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the United States (the “Fifth Circuit”) to appeal the EPA’s decision. On or about

March 5, 2013,

a motion filed by the Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The parties attempted to resolve both appeals, to facilitate discussions and avoid further legal costs. The parties jointly agreed, through mediation initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about

August 8, 2013,

to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about

August 21, 2013,

the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings. The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA’s stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval. In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE. The Company and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, and if granted, to be limited to a

-day review period. On

December 9, 2013,

by way of a procedural order from a

three

-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to

days. In

March

2014,

at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, the Company conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed the Company’s previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about

June 17, 2014,

the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of the Company’s existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than

10%

of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but

not

denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about

September 9, 2014,

the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in

August 2013

and to set a briefing schedule (the “Status Report”). In that Status Report, the petitioners also stated that they had decided

not

to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. The Company continues to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and is continuing as planned towards uranium extraction at its fully-permitted Goliad Project.

The Company has had communications and filings with the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Parana projects are

not

eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While the Company remains fully committed to its development path forward in Paraguay, it caused its legal counsel to file an appeal in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions.

At any given time, we

may

enter into negotiations to settle outstanding legal proceedings and any resulting accruals will be estimated based on the relevant facts and circumstances applicable at that time. We do

not

expect that such settlements will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.