COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingent Liabilities The Company records an accrual for contingent liabilities when a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. When no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued. Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties In June 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) sent us a Notice of Action that proposed to classify certain of our imports as subject to anti-dumping duties pursuant to a 2010 anti-dumping duty (“AD”) order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from China. A companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on the same product is in effect as well. The Notice of Action covered one entry of certain raw material steel mechanical tubing made in China and imported into the U.S. from Canada by our DynaEnergetics segment during 2015 for use in manufacturing perforating guns. In July 2015, we sent a response to U.S. Customs outlining the reasons our mechanical tubing imports do not fall within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China and should not be subject to anti-dumping duties. U.S. Customs proposed to take similar action with respect to other entries of this product and requested an approximately $1,100 cash deposit or bond for AD/CVD duties. In August 2015, we posted the bond of approximately $1,100 to U.S. Customs. Subsequently, U.S. Customs declined to conclude on the Company's assertion that the mechanical tubing the Company has been importing is not within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China. As a result, on September 25, 2015 the Company filed a request for a scope ruling with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce Department"). On February 15, 2016, the Company received the Commerce Department’s scope ruling, which determined certain imports, primarily used for gun carrier tubing, are included in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China and thus are subject to AD/CVD duties. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) related to the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. On February 7, 2017, the CIT remanded the scope ruling to the Commerce Department to reconsider its determination. The Commerce Department filed its remand determination with the CIT on June 7, 2017 continuing to find that the Company's imports at issue are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China. This determination is subject to the CIT's review in the ongoing appeal, which is continuing. On December 27, 2016, we received notice from U.S. Customs that it may pursue penalties against us related to the AD/CVD issue and demanding tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD duties in an amount of $3,049, which was covered by our reserve. We filed a response to the notice on February 6, 2017 asserting our position that any decision to pursue penalties would be premature in light of the Remand Order and that penalties would not be appropriate under the applicable legal standards. On February 16, 2017, we received notice that U.S. Customs was seeking penalties in the amount of $14,783. U.S. Customs also reasserted its demand for tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD duties in the amount of $3,049. We tendered $3,049 in AD amounts (“Tendered Amounts”) on March 6, 2017 into a suspense account pending ultimate resolution of the AD/CVD case. We believe that this penalty assessment is premature and patently unreasonable in the face of the ongoing CIT appeal and that penalties are not appropriate under applicable legal standards. Further, even if penalties are found to be justified, we believe the amount of penalties asserted by U.S. Customs is unreasonable and subject to challenge on various grounds. We submitted a petition for relief and mitigation of penalties on May 17, 2017 asserting these and other points and seeking a stay of the penalty proceedings pending ultimate resolution of the CIT appeal and any further appeals. We are awaiting a response from U.S. Customs and U.S. Customs Headquarters on this petition. For the nine months ended September 30, 2017, the Company recorded $84 of interest on its reserve for AD/CVD duties, bringing the total reserved amount related to AD/CVD duties as of September 30, 2017 to $3,585. The Tendered Amounts were applied to reduce the reserve. The Company will continue to incur legal defense costs and could also be subject to additional interest and penalties. Accruals for the potential penalties discussed above are not reflected in our financial statements as of September 30, 2017 as we do not believe they are probable at this time. Patent and Trademark Infringement On September 22, 2015, GEODynamics, Inc., a US-based oil and gas perforating equipment manufacturer based in Fort Worth, TX, filed a patent and trademark infringement action against DynaEnergetics US, Inc., (“DynaEnergetics”), a wholly owned subsidiary of DMC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) regarding alleged infringement of US Patent No. 9,080,431 granted on July 14, 2015 (the “431 patent”) and a related US trademark for REACTIVE, alleging that DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX^TM shaped charges infringe the ‘431 patent and the trademark. The 431 case went to trial in late March 2017, and on March 30, 2017, the jury found in favor of DynaEnergetics on all counts. A bench trial on related matters, including the trademark infringement action occurred on April 20, 2017, and the Court ordered cancellation of GEODynamics' REACTIVE trademark. On July 1, 2016, GEODynamics filed a second patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of US Patent No. 8,544,563 (the “563 patent”), also based on DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the 563 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On September 20, 2016, DynaEnergetics filed an Inter Parties Review (IPR) against the 563 patent at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), requesting invalidation of the 563 patent. On March 17, 2017, DynaEnergetics' IPR request was instituted by the PTAB, and a decision is expected in early 2018. Trial on the 563 patent has been stayed pending resolution of the IPR. On April 28, 2017, GEODynamics filed a third patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,220,394 (the “394 patent”), based on DynaEnergetics' sales of its DPEX and HaloFrac® shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the 394 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On June 9, 2017, DynaEnergetics filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, or in the alternative to change venue, and the District Court’s decision is pending. On August 28, 2017, DynaEnergetics filed an IPR against the 394 patent at the PTAB, requesting invalidation of the 394 patent. On August 21, 2017, GEODynamics filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG and DynaEnergetics Beteiligungs GmbH, both wholly owned subsidiaries of DMC (collectively, “DynaEnergetics EU”), in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, alleging infringement of European patent EP 1 671 013 B1 granted on June 29, 2011, a patent related to the 394 patent (the “EP 013 patent”), based on the manufacturing, sale and marketing of DPEX shaped charges in Germany. DynaEnergetics EU denies validity and infringement of the EP 013 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. We do not believe that the 563 patent, the 394 patent, the EP 013 patent or infringement claims based on the patents are valid, and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss on the 563 matter, the 394 matter or the EP 013 matter. However, if it is determined that the patents are valid and that DynaEnergetics or DynaEnergetics EU, as applicable, has infringed them, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected. We are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of the range of loss, and we have not accrued for any such losses. Such an evaluation includes, among other things, a determination of the total number of infringing sales in the United States or infringing products manufactured in Germany, as applicable, what a reasonable royalty, if any, might be under the circumstances; or, alternatively, the scope of damages and the relevant period for which damages would apply, if any.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingent Liabilities

The Company records an accrual for contingent liabilities when a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. If some amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount is accrued. When no amount within a range of loss appears to be a better estimate than any other amount, the lowest amount in the range is accrued.

Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties

In June 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“U.S. Customs”) sent us a Notice of Action that proposed to classify certain of our imports as subject to anti-dumping duties pursuant to a 2010 anti-dumping duty (“AD”) order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from China. A companion countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on the same product is in effect as well. The Notice of Action covered one entry of certain raw material steel mechanical tubing made in China and imported into the U.S. from Canada by our DynaEnergetics segment during 2015 for use in manufacturing perforating guns.

In July 2015, we sent a response to U.S. Customs outlining the reasons our mechanical tubing imports do not fall within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China and should not be subject to anti-dumping duties. U.S. Customs proposed to take similar action with respect to other entries of this product and requested an approximately $1,100 cash deposit or bond for AD/CVD duties.

In August 2015, we posted the bond of approximately $1,100 to U.S. Customs. Subsequently, U.S. Customs declined to conclude on the Company's assertion that the mechanical tubing the Company has been importing is not within the scope of the AD order on OCTG from China. As a result, on September 25, 2015 the Company filed a request for a scope ruling with the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce Department").

On February 15, 2016, the Company received the Commerce Department’s scope ruling, which determined certain imports, primarily used for gun carrier tubing, are included in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China and thus are subject to AD/CVD duties.

On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) related to the Commerce Department’s scope ruling. On February 7, 2017, the CIT remanded the scope ruling to the Commerce Department to reconsider its determination. The Commerce Department filed its remand determination with the CIT on June 7, 2017 continuing to find that the Company's imports at issue are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China. This determination is subject to the CIT's review in the ongoing appeal, which is continuing.

On December 27, 2016, we received notice from U.S. Customs that it may pursue penalties against us related to the AD/CVD issue and demanding tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD duties in an amount of $3,049, which was covered by our reserve. We filed a response to the notice on February 6, 2017 asserting our position that any decision to pursue penalties would be premature in light of the Remand Order and that penalties would not be appropriate under the applicable legal standards. On February 16, 2017, we received notice that U.S. Customs was seeking penalties in the amount of $14,783. U.S. Customs also reasserted its demand for tender of alleged loss of AD/CVD duties in the amount of $3,049. We tendered $3,049 in AD amounts (“Tendered Amounts”) on March 6, 2017 into a suspense account pending ultimate resolution of the AD/CVD case. We believe that this penalty assessment is premature and patently unreasonable in the face of the ongoing CIT appeal and that penalties are not appropriate under applicable legal standards. Further, even if penalties are found to be justified, we believe the amount of penalties asserted by U.S. Customs is unreasonable and subject to challenge on various grounds. We submitted a petition for relief and mitigation of penalties on May 17, 2017 asserting these and other points and seeking a stay of the penalty proceedings pending ultimate resolution of the CIT appeal and any further appeals. We are awaiting a response from U.S. Customs and U.S. Customs Headquarters on this petition.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2017, the Company recorded $84 of interest on its reserve for AD/CVD duties, bringing the total reserved amount related to AD/CVD duties as of September 30, 2017 to $3,585. The Tendered Amounts were applied to reduce the reserve. The Company will continue to incur legal defense costs and could also be subject to additional interest and penalties. Accruals for the potential penalties discussed above are not reflected in our financial statements as of September 30, 2017 as we do not believe they are probable at this time.

Patent and Trademark Infringement

On September 22, 2015, GEODynamics, Inc., a US-based oil and gas perforating equipment manufacturer based in Fort Worth, TX, filed a patent and trademark infringement action against DynaEnergetics US, Inc., (“DynaEnergetics”), a wholly owned subsidiary of DMC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) regarding alleged infringement of US Patent No. 9,080,431 granted on July 14, 2015 (the “431 patent”) and a related US trademark for REACTIVE, alleging that DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX^TM shaped charges infringe the ‘431 patent and the trademark. The 431 case went to trial in late March 2017, and on March 30, 2017, the jury found in favor of DynaEnergetics on all counts. A bench trial on related matters, including the trademark infringement action occurred on April 20, 2017, and the Court ordered cancellation of GEODynamics' REACTIVE trademark.

On July 1, 2016, GEODynamics filed a second patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of US Patent No. 8,544,563 (the “563 patent”), also based on DynaEnergetics’ US sales of DPEX shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the 563 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On September 20, 2016, DynaEnergetics filed an Inter Parties Review (IPR) against the 563 patent at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), requesting invalidation of the 563 patent. On March 17, 2017, DynaEnergetics' IPR request was instituted by the PTAB, and a decision is expected in early 2018. Trial on the 563 patent has been stayed pending resolution of the IPR.

On April 28, 2017, GEODynamics filed a third patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics in District Court alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,220,394 (the “394 patent”), based on DynaEnergetics' sales of its DPEX and HaloFrac® shaped charges. DynaEnergetics denies validity and infringement of the 394 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On June 9, 2017, DynaEnergetics filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, or in the alternative to change venue, and the District Court’s decision is pending. On August 28, 2017, DynaEnergetics filed an IPR against the 394 patent at the PTAB, requesting invalidation of the 394 patent.

On August 21, 2017, GEODynamics filed a patent infringement action against DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG and DynaEnergetics Beteiligungs GmbH, both wholly owned subsidiaries of DMC (collectively, “DynaEnergetics EU”), in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, alleging infringement of European patent EP 1 671 013 B1 granted on June 29, 2011, a patent related to the 394 patent (the “EP 013 patent”), based on the manufacturing, sale and marketing of DPEX shaped charges in Germany. DynaEnergetics EU denies validity and infringement of the EP 013 patent and plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

We do not believe that the 563 patent, the 394 patent, the EP 013 patent or infringement claims based on the patents are valid, and we do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss on the 563 matter, the 394 matter or the EP 013 matter. However, if it is determined that the patents are valid and that DynaEnergetics or DynaEnergetics EU, as applicable, has infringed them, it is reasonably possible that our financial statements could be materially affected. We are not able to provide a reasonable estimate of the range of loss, and we have not accrued for any such losses. Such an evaluation includes, among other things, a determination of the total number of infringing sales in the United States or infringing products manufactured in Germany, as applicable, what a reasonable royalty, if any, might be under the circumstances; or, alternatively, the scope of damages and the relevant period for which damages would apply, if any.