Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations General We follow GAAP guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in December 2015. We are waiting for the EPA’s response and we cannot predict what further action, if any, the agency may take. Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County and San Mateo Creek Basin, New Mexico In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M Mine was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014 submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $6.1 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In October 2019, the EPA published the EE/CA for a 30-day public notice comment period, and the agency is expected to make a final decision on the appropriate response action after the comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we accrued $5.6 million, and in October 2019 we increased that amount to $6.1 million, with the increase representing estimated costs to begin implementation of the remedy in 2020. It is possible that Hecla Limited’s liability will be more than $6.1 million, and any increase in liability could have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position. The Johnny M Mine is in an area known as the San Mateo Creek Basin (“SMCB”), which is an approximately 321 square mile area in New Mexico that contains numerous legacy uranium mines and mills. In addition to Johnny M, Hecla Limited's predecessor was involved at other mining sites within the SMCB. The EPA appears to have deferred consideration of listing the SMCB site on CERCLA’s National Priorities List (Superfund) by removing the site from its emphasis list, and is working with various potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") at the site in order to study and potentially address perceived groundwater issues within the SMCB. The EE/CA discussed above relates primarily to contaminated rock and soil at the Johnny M site, not groundwater and not elsewhere within the SMCM site. It is possible that Hecla Limited’s liability at the Johnny M Site, and for any other mine site within the SMCB at which Hecla Limited's predecessor may have operated, will be greater than our current accrual of $6.1 million due to the increased scope of required remediation. In July 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other PRPs may be liable for cleanup of the SMCB site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated it has incurred approximately $9.6 million in response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by the various PRPs. Carpenter Snow Creek and Barker-Hughesville Sites in Montana In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988. In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, and several other PRPs, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs. In February 2017, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Barker-Hughesville Mining District Superfund site located in Judith Basin and Cascade Counties, Montana. Hecla Limited submitted a response in April 2017. The Barker-Hughesville site is located in a historic mining district, and between approximately June and December 1983, Hecla Limited was party to an agreement with another mining company under which limited exploration activities occurred at or near the site. In August 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other PRPs may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA did not include an amount of its alleged response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning past or anticipated future costs at the site and the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs. Claim for Indemnification Against CoCa Mines, Inc. In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”) and its subsidiary Creede Resources, Inc. (“CRI”). CoCa and CRI previously operated in the State of Colorado, but presently have limited assets and operations. Between 2014 and 2019, a PRP alleged that CoCa and CRI are required by a 1989 agreement to indemnify it for certain environmental costs and liabilities it may incur with respect to the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado. In 2016, without admitting any liability, Hecla Limited, CoCa and CRI entered into a Consent Decree with the United States and the State of Colorado settling any regulatory liability they may have had at the site. On October 30, 2019, the PRP filed a lawsuit in Mineral County, Colorado alleging, among other things, that CoCa and CRI are in breach of contract for failure to indemnify the PRP for its liability to the U.S. under CERCLA with respect to the site. In addition, the lawsuit names Hecla Limited as a defendant in its role as the shareholder of CoCa. The PRP seeks in excess of $5 million in damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuit will be vigorously defended and we believe strong defenses exist against all claims made therein and, as noted above, both CoCa and CRI have limited assets with which to satisfy any claim. Litigation Related to Klondex Acquisition On September 11, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice by Waterton Nevada Splitter LLC against Hecla Mining Company, our subsidiary Klondex Mines Unlimited Liability Company and Havilah Mining Corporation, an entity that was formed to own the Canadian assets of Klondex that we did not acquire as part of the Klondex acquisition, and of which we own approximately 13%. The lawsuit alleges that Hecla and Havilah are in breach of contract in connection with the issuance to Waterton of warrants to purchase Hecla common stock and Havilah common shares to replace warrants to purchase Klondex common shares that Waterton owned prior to the July 2018 acquisition. The lawsuit claims Hecla and Havilah issued warrants to Waterton valued at $3.7 million but that Waterton was entitled to warrants valued at $8.9 million. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend it. On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and certain of our executive officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8, 2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain material false and misleading statements and omitted certain material information regarding Hecla’s Nevada Operations unit. The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually identical claims. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. Related to the above described class action lawsuits, Hecla has been named as a nominal defendant in a shareholder derivative lawsuit which names as defendants members of Hecla’s board of directors and certain officers. The case was filed on July 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In general terms, the suit alleges (i) violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and seeks damages, purportedly on behalf of Hecla. Debt As discussed in Note 9, on February 19, 2020, we completed an offering of $475 million aggregate principal amount of 7.25% Senior Notes due 2028. The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used, together with cash on hand, to redeem all of our previously-outstanding 6.875% Senior Notes that were due in 2021 and had a principal balance of $506.5 million. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on February 15 and August 15 of each year, commencing August 15, 2020. Other Commitments Our contractual obligations as of March 31, 2020 included approximately $2.3 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at March 31, 2020 included approximately $2.3 million, $0.6 million, $3.3 million and $0.6 million for various capital and non-capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi, Greens Creek and Nevada Operations units, respectively. We also have total commitments of approximately $11.9 million relating to scheduled payments on finance leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Nevada Operations units and total commitments of approximately $16.1 million relating to payments on operating leases (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of March 31, 2020, we had surety bonds totaling $181.3 million and letters of credit totaling $28.7 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self-insurance, and employee benefit plans. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise. Other Contingencies We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently have no basis to conclude that any or all of such contingencies will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, or additional contingencies may occur, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in current accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

General

We follow GAAP guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred.

Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters

In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in December 2015. We are waiting for the EPA’s response and we cannot predict what further action, if any, the agency may take.

Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County and San Mateo Creek Basin, New Mexico

In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M Mine was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014 submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $6.1 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In October 2019, the EPA published the EE/CA for a 30-day public notice comment period, and the agency is expected to make a final decision on the appropriate response action after the comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we accrued $5.6 million, and in October 2019 we increased that amount to $6.1 million, with the increase representing estimated costs to begin implementation of the remedy in 2020. It is possible that Hecla Limited’s liability will be more than $6.1 million, and any increase in liability could have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position.

The Johnny M Mine is in an area known as the San Mateo Creek Basin (“SMCB”), which is an approximately 321 square mile area in New Mexico that contains numerous legacy uranium mines and mills. In addition to Johnny M, Hecla Limited's predecessor was involved at other mining sites within the SMCB. The EPA appears to have deferred consideration of listing the SMCB site on CERCLA’s National Priorities List (Superfund) by removing the site from its emphasis list, and is working with various potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") at the site in order to study and potentially address perceived groundwater issues within the SMCB. The EE/CA discussed above relates primarily to contaminated rock and soil at the Johnny M site, not groundwater and not elsewhere within the SMCM site. It is possible that Hecla Limited’s liability at the Johnny M Site, and for any other mine site within the SMCB at which Hecla Limited's predecessor may have operated, will be greater than our current accrual of $6.1 million due to the increased scope of required remediation.

In July 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other PRPs may be liable for cleanup of the SMCB site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated it has incurred approximately $9.6 million in response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by the various PRPs.

Carpenter Snow Creek and Barker-Hughesville Sites in Montana

In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988.

In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, and several other PRPs, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs.

In February 2017, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Barker-Hughesville Mining District Superfund site located in Judith Basin and Cascade Counties, Montana. Hecla Limited submitted a response in April 2017. The Barker-Hughesville site is located in a historic mining district, and between approximately June and December 1983, Hecla Limited was party to an agreement with another mining company under which limited exploration activities occurred at or near the site.

In August 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other PRPs may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA did not include an amount of its alleged response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning past or anticipated future costs at the site and the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs.

Claim for Indemnification Against CoCa Mines, Inc.

In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”) and its subsidiary Creede Resources, Inc. (“CRI”). CoCa and CRI previously operated in the State of Colorado, but presently have limited assets and operations. Between 2014 and 2019, a PRP alleged that CoCa and CRI are required by a 1989 agreement to indemnify it for certain environmental costs and liabilities it may incur with respect to the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado. In 2016, without admitting any liability, Hecla Limited, CoCa and CRI entered into a Consent Decree with the United States and the State of Colorado settling any regulatory liability they may have had at the site. On October 30, 2019, the PRP filed a lawsuit in Mineral County, Colorado alleging, among other things, that CoCa and CRI are in breach of contract for failure to indemnify the PRP for its liability to the U.S. under CERCLA with respect to the site. In addition, the lawsuit names Hecla Limited as a defendant in its role as the shareholder of CoCa. The PRP seeks in excess of $5 million in damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The lawsuit will be vigorously defended and we believe strong defenses exist against all claims made therein and, as noted above, both CoCa and CRI have limited assets with which to satisfy any claim.

Litigation Related to Klondex Acquisition

On September 11, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice by Waterton Nevada Splitter LLC against Hecla Mining Company, our subsidiary Klondex Mines Unlimited Liability Company and Havilah Mining Corporation, an entity that was formed to own the Canadian assets of Klondex that we did not acquire as part of the Klondex acquisition, and of which we own approximately 13%. The lawsuit alleges that Hecla and Havilah are in breach of contract in connection with the issuance to Waterton of warrants to purchase Hecla common stock and Havilah common shares to replace warrants to purchase Klondex common shares that Waterton owned prior to the July 2018 acquisition. The lawsuit claims Hecla and Havilah issued warrants to Waterton valued at $3.7 million but that Waterton was entitled to warrants valued at $8.9 million. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend it.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and certain of our executive officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8, 2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain material false and misleading statements and omitted certain material information regarding Hecla’s Nevada Operations unit. The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually identical claims. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

Related to the above described class action lawsuits, Hecla has been named as a nominal defendant in a shareholder derivative lawsuit which names as defendants members of Hecla’s board of directors and certain officers. The case was filed on July 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In general terms, the suit alleges (i) violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and seeks damages, purportedly on behalf of Hecla.

Debt

As discussed in Note 9, on February 19, 2020, we completed an offering of $475 million aggregate principal amount of 7.25% Senior Notes due 2028. The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used, together with cash on hand, to redeem all of our previously-outstanding 6.875% Senior Notes that were due in 2021 and had a principal balance of $506.5 million. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on February 15 and August 15 of each year, commencing August 15, 2020.

Other Commitments

Our contractual obligations as of March 31, 2020 included approximately $2.3 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at March 31, 2020 included approximately $2.3 million, $0.6 million, $3.3 million and $0.6 million for various capital and non-capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi, Greens Creek and Nevada Operations units, respectively. We also have total commitments of approximately $11.9 million relating to scheduled payments on finance leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Nevada Operations units and total commitments of approximately $16.1 million relating to payments on operating leases (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of March 31, 2020, we had surety bonds totaling $181.3 million and letters of credit totaling $28.7 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self-insurance, and employee benefit plans. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise.

Other Contingencies

We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently have no basis to conclude that any or all of such contingencies will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, or additional contingencies may occur, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in current accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.