___________________________


                       Securities and Exchange Commission
                            Washington, D.C.  20549



                                  Form 10-K/A
                             Amendment to Report
              Filed Pursuant to Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the
                       Securities Exchange Act of 1934



                        Mallon Resources Corporation
            (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



                                    0-17267
                           (Commission file number)


                               Amendment No. 1


    The undersigned registrant hereby amends the following items, financial
statements, exhibits or other portions of its Annual Report on Form 10K for
the Year Ended December 31, 2001:

               Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements

(List of all such items, financial statements, exhibits or other portions
amended)


    Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                      Mallon Resources Corporation

April 19, 2002
                                        /s/ Roy K. Ross
                                      _________________________
                                      Roy K. Ross,
                                      Executive Vice President


                             ___________________________



NOTE 4 TO THE REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMTENTS INCLUDED IN
REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001,
IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ IN ITS ENTIRETY AS FOLLOWS:

NOTE 4. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases:

    The Company leases office space, office equipment and vehicles under non-
cancelable leases which expire in 2003. Rental expense is recognized on a
straight-line basis over the terms of the leases. The total minimum rental
commitments at December 31, 2001 are as follows:



                                    (In thousands)
                                 
     2002                           $238
     2003                             45
     2004                             20
     Thereafter                       --

                                    $303
                                    ====


    Rent expense was $337,000, $373,000 and $305,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively.

Contingencies:

    As of December 31, 2001, the Revenue and Taxation Department of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation (the "Nation") issued to the Company Possessory
Interest Tax assessments for 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 totaling $3.3 million,
as adjusted, including related penalties and interest.  The Company has paid
the assessments under protest.  This amount is included in oil and gas
production expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations for
the year ended December 31, 2001.  The Company has filed protests with the
Nation taking the position that, among other things, certain rules and
regulations promulgated in December 2000 by the Nation do not apply to the
determination of Possessory Interest Tax for years prior to 2001.  The
protests have been denied.   The Company has filed an appeal.    In March
2002, the Company was assessed an additional $1.5 million for 2002.  The
Company intends to file a protest for this amount also.  The Company has: 1)
requested that the Legislative Council of the Nation grant the Company relief,
and 2) engaged New Mexico counsel to represent it.  The final outcome of this
matter cannot yet be predicted.

    By letter dated October 9, 2001, the Company was advised that the Minerals
Management Service will audit the royalties payable on production from certain
oil and gas properties in which the Company owns an interest.  The audit began
in mid-November 2001.  The final outcome of this matter cannot yet be
predicted.

    In June 2001, in connection with staff cuts that were part of general
corporate reductions, the Company terminated an employee.  The employee filed
a complaint, in which he claims he was wrongfully terminated.  The Company
believes the allegations of the suit are wholly without merit, and intends to
defend itself vigorously, but cannot predict the outcome of the case.

    In December 1998, Del Mar Drilling Company ("Plaintiff") filed a civil
action against Mallon Oil.  Plaintiff sought damages for an alleged breach of
contract in the amount of $348,100, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees.
In March 2001, the Company settled with the Plaintiff by paying the Plaintiff
$50,000 in cash, and conveying to the Plaintiff certain used drilling
materials having an estimated salvage value of $14,000.

    In 1992, the Minerals Management Service commenced an audit of royalties
payable on production from certain oil and gas properties in which the Company
owns an interest.  The audit was initiated against the predecessor operator of
the properties, but the Company has since undertaken primary responsibility
for resolving matters that arise out of the audit.  The Company's liability
with respect to the predecessor operator's liability is limited to $100,000.
However, the Company may have an additional liability with respect to
transactions that have occurred subsequent to its purchase of the oil and gas
properties in question.  The audit focused on several matters, the most
significant of which were the manner in which production is measured and the
manner in which royalties are calculated and accounted for.  Certain alleged
deficiencies preliminarily suggested by the audit were contested.
Determinations contrary to several of the Company's positions were rendered in
June 1999, which the Company has determined not to appeal.  Certain key items
relating to the calculation of royalties have yet to be determined.  A
determination contrary to the Company's position concerning so-called "major
portion" issues was recently rendered by the Department of the Interior.  The
Company's interests in this controversy are represented by outside legal
counsel who is appealing the Department of the Interior's rulings.  In
addition, the Company has recently determined to attempt to negotiate a
private protocol addressing the manner in which royalties are calculated and
accounted for.  The final outcome of these matters cannot yet be predicted.