Commitments and contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	14. Commitments and contingencies As stipulated in the agreement with the EPA and as described in Note 8, the Company is required to make two types of payments to the EPA and IDEQ, one for historical water treatment cost-recovery to the EPA, and the other for ongoing water treatment. Water treatment costs incurred through December 2021 are payable to the EPA, and water treatment costs incurred thereafter are payable to the IDEQ. The IDEQ (as done formerly by the EPA) invoices the Company on an annual basis for the actual water treatment costs, which may exceed the recognized estimated costs significantly. When the Company receives the water treatment invoices, it records any liability for actual costs over and above any estimates made and adjusts future estimates as required based on these actual invoices received. The Company is required to pay for the actual costs regardless of the periodic required estimated accruals and payments made each year. On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company. The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr. intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Crescent Mine. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages. On September 20, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Crescent’s claims against it, contending that such claims are facially deficient.  On March 2, 2022, Chief U.S. District Court Judge, David C. Nye granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in respect of Crescent’s cost recovery claim under CERCLA Section 107(a), and declaratory judgment, tortious interference, trespass, nuisance and negligence claims. These claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Placer Mining Corp. for Crescent’s trespass, nuisance and negligence claims. Crescent later filed an amended complaint on April 1, 2022. Placer Mining Corp. and Bunker Hill Mining Corp are named as co-defendants. Bunker Hill responded to the amended filing, refuting and denying all allegations made in the complaint except those that are assertions of fact as a matter of public record. The Company believes Crescent’s lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself, as well as Placer Mining Corp. pursuant to the Company’s indemnification of Placer Mining Corp in the sale and purchase agreement executed between the companies for the Mine on December 15, 2021.

Commitments and contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

14. Commitments and contingencies

As stipulated in the agreement with the EPA and as described in Note 8, the Company is required to make two types of payments to the EPA and IDEQ, one for historical water treatment cost-recovery to the EPA, and the other for ongoing water treatment. Water treatment costs incurred through December 2021 are payable to the EPA, and water treatment costs incurred thereafter are payable to the IDEQ. The IDEQ (as done formerly by the EPA) invoices the Company on an annual basis for the actual water treatment costs, which may exceed the recognized estimated costs significantly. When the Company receives the water treatment invoices, it records any liability for actual costs over and above any estimates made and adjusts future estimates as required based on these actual invoices received. The Company is required to pay for the actual costs regardless of the periodic required estimated accruals and payments made each year.

On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company. The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr. intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Crescent Mine. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages. On September 20, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Crescent’s claims against it, contending that such claims are facially deficient.  On March 2, 2022, Chief U.S. District Court Judge, David C. Nye granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss in respect of Crescent’s cost recovery claim under CERCLA Section 107(a), and declaratory judgment, tortious interference, trespass, nuisance and negligence claims. These claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Placer Mining Corp. for Crescent’s trespass, nuisance and negligence claims. Crescent later filed an amended complaint on April 1, 2022. Placer Mining Corp. and Bunker Hill Mining Corp are named as co-defendants. Bunker Hill responded to the amended filing, refuting and denying all allegations made in the complaint except those that are assertions of fact as a matter of public record. The Company believes Crescent’s lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself, as well as Placer Mining Corp. pursuant to the Company’s indemnification of Placer Mining Corp in the sale and purchase agreement executed between the companies for the Mine on December 15, 2021.