COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General legal matters White Mesa Mill In November 2012, the Company was served with a Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the White Mesa Mill. The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and therefore does not believe it will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim. No other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred since that date. In January, 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 White Mesa Mill site. This challenge is currently being evaluated, and may involve the appointment of an administrative law judge to hear the matter. The Company does not consider this action to have any merit. If the petition is successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify or replace the existing Corrective Action Plan. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification or replacement would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the scope and costs of remediation under a revised or replacement Corrective Action Plan have not yet been determined and could be significant. In April 2014, the Grand Canyon Trust filed a citizen suit in federal District Court for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at the White Mesa Mill. In October 2014, the plaintiffs were granted leave by the Court to add further purported violations to their April 2014 suit. The Complaint, as amended, alleged that radon from one of the Mill’s tailings impoundments exceeded the standard; that the mill is in violation of a requirement that only two tailings impoundments may be in operation at any one time; and that certain other violations related to the manner of measuring and reporting radon results from one of the tailings impoundments occurred in 2013. The Complaint asked the Court to impose injunctive relief, civil penalties of up to $38,000 per day per violation, costs of litigation including attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The Company believes the issues raised in the Complaint are being addressed through the proper regulatory channels and that we are currently in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements relating to those matters. Cross motions for summary judgment were heard by the District Court on November 17, 2016. On September 15, 2017, the Court issued its order in favor of the Company on all counts and dismissing the plaintiffs motions. This decision was not appealed by the plaintiffs, and the matter is now finished. Canyon Project In March, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Havasupai Tribe (the “Canyon Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (the “District Court”) against the Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab National Forest and the USFS seeking an order (a) declaring that the USFS failed to comply with environmental, mining, public land, and historic preservation laws in relation to our Canyon Project, (b) setting aside any approvals regarding exploration and mining operations at the Canyon Project, and (c) directing operations to cease at the Canyon Project and enjoining the USFS from allowing any further exploration or mining-related activities at the Canyon Project until the USFS fully complies with all applicable laws. In April 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was denied by the District Court in September, 2013. On April 7, 2015, the District Court issued its final ruling on the merits in favor of the Defendants and the Company and against the Canyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Canyon Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling on the merits to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed motions for an injunction pending appeal with the District Court. Those motions for an injunction pending appeal were denied by the District Court on May 26, 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed urgent motions for an injunction pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which were denied on June 30, 2015. The hearing on the merits at the Court of Appeals was held on December 15, 2016 and the parties are awaiting the Court's decision. If the Canyon Plaintiffs are successful on their appeal on the merits, the Company may be required to maintain the Canyon Project on standby pending resolution of the matter. Such a required prolonged stoppage of mining activities could have a significant impact on our future operations. Surety bonds The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as collateral for the Company’s asset retirement obligation. 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. The Company currently has $22.36 million posted against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.00 million (December 31, 2016 - $23.18 million posted against undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.00 million).

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General legal matters

White Mesa Mill

In November 2012, the Company was served with a Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the White Mesa Mill. The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and therefore does not believe it will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim. No other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred since that date.

In January, 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 White Mesa Mill site. This challenge is currently being evaluated, and may involve the appointment of an administrative law judge to hear the matter. The Company does not consider this action to have any merit. If the petition is successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify or replace the existing Corrective Action Plan. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification or replacement would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the scope and costs of remediation under a revised or replacement Corrective Action Plan have not yet been determined and could be significant.

In April 2014, the Grand Canyon Trust filed a citizen suit in federal District Court for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act at the White Mesa Mill. In October 2014, the plaintiffs were granted leave by the Court to add further purported violations to their April 2014 suit. The Complaint, as amended, alleged that radon from one of the Mill’s tailings impoundments exceeded the standard; that the mill is in violation of a requirement that only two tailings impoundments may be in operation at any one time; and that certain other violations related to the manner of measuring and reporting radon results from one of the tailings impoundments occurred in 2013. The Complaint asked the Court to impose injunctive relief, civil penalties of up to $38,000 per day per violation, costs of litigation including attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The Company believes the issues raised in the Complaint are being addressed through the proper regulatory channels and that we are currently in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements relating to those matters. Cross motions for summary judgment were heard by the District Court on November 17, 2016. On September 15, 2017, the Court issued its order in favor of the Company on all counts and dismissing the plaintiffs motions. This decision was not appealed by the plaintiffs, and the matter is now finished.

Canyon Project

In March, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra Club and the Havasupai Tribe (the “Canyon Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (the “District Court”) against the Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab National Forest and the USFS seeking an order (a) declaring that the USFS failed to comply with environmental, mining, public land, and historic preservation laws in relation to our Canyon Project, (b) setting aside any approvals regarding exploration and mining operations at the Canyon Project, and (c) directing operations to cease at the Canyon Project and enjoining the USFS from allowing any further exploration or mining-related activities at the Canyon Project until the USFS fully complies with all applicable laws. In April 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was denied by the District Court in September, 2013. On April 7, 2015, the District Court issued its final ruling on the merits in favor of the Defendants and the Company and against the Canyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Canyon Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s ruling on the merits to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed motions for an injunction pending appeal with the District Court. Those motions for an injunction pending appeal were denied by the District Court on May 26, 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed urgent motions for an injunction pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which were denied on June 30, 2015. The hearing on the merits at the Court of Appeals was held on December 15, 2016 and the parties are awaiting the Court's decision. If the Canyon Plaintiffs are successful on their appeal on the merits, the Company may be required to maintain the Canyon Project on standby pending resolution of the matter. Such a required prolonged stoppage of mining activities could have a significant impact on our future operations.

Surety bonds

The Company has indemnified third-party companies to provide surety bonds as collateral for the Company’s asset retirement obligation. 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. The Company currently has $22.36 million posted against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.00 million (December 31, 2016 - $23.18 million posted against undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.00 million).