COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES General legal matters Other than routine litigation incidental to our business, or as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any material pending legal proceedings that management believes would be likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. White Mesa Mill 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. On January 19, 2018, UDEQ renewed, and on February 16, 2018 reissued with minor corrections, the Company’s White Mesa Mill license for another ten years, and Groundwater Discharge Permit for another five years, after which renewal periods further applications for renewal for the license and permit will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing license and permit until such time as the renewed license or permit is issued. In March 2018, the Grand Canyon Trust, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Uranium Watch served Petitions for Review challenging UDEQ’s renewal of the license and permit. Then, in May and June 2018, Uranium Watch, the Grand Canyon Trust and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe filed with UDEQ Requests for Appointment of an Administrative Law Judge, which they subsequently agreed to suspend pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement with UDEQ, effective June 4, 2018. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit and intends to participate with UDEQ in defending against the challenges. If the challenges are successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify the renewed license and/or permit. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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 U.S. Forest Services ("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. On December 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on the merits in favor of the Defendants and the Company and against the Canyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Canyon Plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. On October 25, 2018, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled on the petition for rehearing en banc. The panel withdrew its prior opinion and filed a new opinion, which affirmed with one exception the District Court’s decision. The one exception relates to Plaintiffs’ fourth claim, which was dismissed by the District Court for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed itself on its standing analysis, concluded that the Plaintiff’s have standing to assert this claim and remanded the claim back to the District Court to hear the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. If the Canyon Plaintiffs are successful on this claim, 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. Daneros Project On February 23, 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued its Environmental Assessment (“EA”), Decision Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) relating to the BLM-approved Mine Plan of Operations Modification (“MPOM”) for the expansion of the Company’s Daneros Mine, subject to certain specified requirements. The MPOM allows for expanded mining operations, the reclamation of historic mining disturbances, and the implementation of additional operational and emission controls. On March 29, 2018, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Grand Canyon Trust filed a Notice of Appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”), challenging BLM’s Decision Record, FONSI, MPOM and EA. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Intervene with IBLA, requesting that the Company be allowed intervention as a full party to this appeal and, on May 1, 2018, the Company’s Motion to Intervene was granted by IBLA. On April 18, 2018, the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”) granted Appellants’ request for an extension of time to file a statement of reasons until 30 days from when the IBLA receives the complete Administrative Record (“AR”), which was received on April 26, 2018. On May 22, counsel for the BLM filed an Unopposed Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule for inadvertently filing an incomplete AR and, on May 29, 2018, DOI granted BLM’s motion. On July 6, 2018, BLM filed its Motion to Replace Incomplete Version of Administrative Record with Complete Version, granted by DOI on July 30. On October 10, 2018, BLM filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Statement of Reasons and Proposed Modified Joint Briefing Schedule, which DOI granted on October 11. BLM may file an answer by November 13, 2018, and intervenors may file an answer within 30 days thereafter. 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 $21.56 million posted against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.17 million (December 31, 2017 - $22.13 million posted against undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.46 million).

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General legal matters

Other than routine litigation incidental to our business, or as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any material pending legal proceedings that management believes would be likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

White Mesa Mill

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.

On January 19, 2018, UDEQ renewed, and on February 16, 2018 reissued with minor corrections, the Company’s White Mesa Mill license for another ten years, and Groundwater Discharge Permit for another five years, after which renewal periods further applications for renewal for the license and permit will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing license and permit until such time as the renewed license or permit is issued. In March 2018, the Grand Canyon Trust, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Uranium Watch served Petitions for Review challenging UDEQ’s renewal of the license and permit. Then, in May and June 2018, Uranium Watch, the Grand Canyon Trust and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe filed with UDEQ Requests for Appointment of an Administrative Law Judge, which they subsequently agreed to suspend pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement with UDEQ, effective June 4, 2018. The Company does not consider these challenges to have any merit and intends to participate with UDEQ in defending against the challenges. If the challenges are successful, the likely outcome would be a requirement to modify the renewed license and/or permit. At this time, the Company does not believe any such modification would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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 U.S. Forest Services ("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. On December 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on the merits in favor of the Defendants and the Company and against the Canyon Plaintiffs on all counts. The Canyon Plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. On October 25, 2018, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled on the petition for rehearing en banc. The panel withdrew its prior opinion and filed a new opinion, which affirmed with one exception the District Court’s decision. The one exception relates to Plaintiffs’ fourth claim, which was dismissed by the District Court for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed itself on its standing analysis, concluded that the Plaintiff’s have standing to assert this claim and remanded the claim back to the District Court to hear the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. If the Canyon Plaintiffs are successful on this claim, 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.

Daneros Project

On February 23, 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued its Environmental Assessment (“EA”), Decision Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) relating to the BLM-approved Mine Plan of Operations Modification (“MPOM”) for the expansion of the Company’s Daneros Mine, subject to certain specified requirements. The MPOM allows for expanded mining operations, the reclamation of historic mining disturbances, and the implementation of additional operational and emission controls. On March 29, 2018, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Grand Canyon Trust filed a Notice of Appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”), challenging BLM’s Decision Record, FONSI, MPOM and EA. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Intervene with IBLA, requesting that the Company be allowed intervention as a full party to this appeal and, on May 1, 2018, the Company’s Motion to Intervene was granted by IBLA. On April 18, 2018, the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”) granted Appellants’ request for an extension of time to file a statement of reasons until 30 days from when the IBLA receives the complete Administrative Record (“AR”), which was received on April 26, 2018. On May 22, counsel for the BLM filed an Unopposed Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule for inadvertently filing an incomplete AR and, on May 29, 2018, DOI granted BLM’s motion. On July 6, 2018, BLM filed its Motion to Replace Incomplete Version of Administrative Record with Complete Version, granted by DOI on July 30. On October 10, 2018, BLM filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Statement of Reasons and Proposed Modified Joint Briefing Schedule, which DOI granted on October 11. BLM may file an answer by November 13, 2018, and intervenors may file an answer within 30 days thereafter.

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 $21.56 million posted against an undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.17 million (December 31, 2017 - $22.13 million posted against undiscounted asset retirement obligation of $43.46 million).