US ENERGY CORP - Quarter Report: 2006 June (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
x
|
Quarterly
report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of
1934
|
For
the quarter ended June 30, 2006 or
|
|
o
|
Transition
report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of
1934
|
For
the transition period from ___________ to
____________
|
Commission
file number 0-6814
U.S.
ENERGY CORP.
|
(Exact
Name of Company as Specified in its
Charter)
|
Wyoming
|
83-0205516
|
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of
|
(I.R.S.
Employer
|
|
incorporation
or organization)
|
Identification
No.)
|
|
877
North 8th
West, Riverton, WY
|
82501
|
|
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
|
Company's
telephone number, including area code:
|
(307)
856-9271
|
Not
Applicable
|
Former
name, address and fiscal year, if changed since last
report
|
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined
in
Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
YES
o NO
x
Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports to Section
13 or
Section 15(d) of the Act.
YES
o NO
x
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Company was required
to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the
past 90 days.
YES
x NO
o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated
filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act.
Large
accelerated filer o Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer x
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
YES
o NO
x
APPLICABLE
ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS
DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS:
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports
required to be filed by Section 12, 13, or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act
of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed
by a
court.
YES
o NO
o
Indicate
the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common
stock, as of the latest practicable date.
Class
|
Outstanding
Shares at August 11, 2006
|
|
Common
stock, $.01 par value
|
19,647,540
|
-2-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. and SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX
Page
No.
|
||
PART
I.
|
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
|
ITEM
1.
|
Financial
Statements.
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2006 (unaudited) and December
31, 2005
|
4-5
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three and six months
Ended
June 30, 2006 and 2005 (unaudited)
|
6-7
|
|
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Three and Six Months
Ended
June 30, 2006 and 2005 (unaudited)
|
8-10
|
|
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)
|
11-17
|
|
ITEM
2.
|
Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
18-34
|
ITEM
3.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
|
34-36
|
ITEM
4.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
37
|
PART
II.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
38
|
ITEM
1.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
38-39
|
ITEM
2.
|
Changes
in Securities and Use of Proceeds
|
40
|
ITEM
3.
|
Defaults
Upon Senior Securities
|
40
|
ITEM
4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Shareholders
|
40
|
ITEM
5.
|
Other
Information
|
41
|
ITEM
6.
|
Exhibits
and Reports on Form 8-K
|
41
|
Signatures
|
42
|
|
Certifications
|
See
Exhibits
|
-3-
PART
I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM
1. Financial Statements
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|||||||
ASSETS
|
|||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
||||||
2006
|
2005
|
||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
CURRENT
ASSETS:
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$
|
10,508,000
|
$
|
6,998,700
|
|||
Marketable
securities
|
|||||||
Trading
securities
|
8,066,500
|
--
|
|||||
Available
for Sale
|
890,800
|
328,700
|
|||||
Accounts
receivable
|
|||||||
Trade,
net of allowance of $0 and $32,300
|
73,300
|
251,400
|
|||||
Affiliates
|
--
|
14,100
|
|||||
Prepaid
expenses and other current assets
|
292,100
|
215,000
|
|||||
Inventories
|
35,500
|
32,700
|
|||||
Total
current assets
|
19,866,200
|
7,840,600
|
|||||
INVESTMENTS:
|
|||||||
Non-affiliated
companies
|
957,700
|
14,760,800
|
|||||
Marketable
securities, held-to-maturity
|
6,810,200
|
6,761,200
|
|||||
Other
|
54,900
|
54,900
|
|||||
Total
investments
|
7,822,800
|
21,576,900
|
|||||
PROPERTIES
AND EQUIPMENT:
|
13,884,300
|
13,847,600
|
|||||
Less
accumulated depreciation,
|
|||||||
depletion
and amortization
|
(7,221,600
|
)
|
(7,481,800
|
)
|
|||
Net
properties and equipment
|
6,662,700
|
6,365,800
|
|||||
OTHER
ASSETS:
|
|||||||
Note
receivable trade
|
10,900
|
20,800
|
|||||
Real
estate held for resale
|
1,819,700
|
1,819,700
|
|||||
Deposits
and other
|
1,135,800
|
482,900
|
|||||
Total
other assets
|
2,966,400
|
2,323,400
|
|||||
Total
assets
|
$
|
37,318,100
|
$
|
38,106,700
|
|||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-4-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|||||||
LIABILITIES
AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
|||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
||||||
2006
|
2005
|
||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
CURRENT
LIABILITIES:
|
|||||||
Accounts
payable
|
$
|
174,100
|
$
|
433,000
|
|||
Accrued
compensation expense
|
283,600
|
177,100
|
|||||
Asset
retirement obligation
|
233,200
|
233,200
|
|||||
Current
portion of long-term debt
|
294,200
|
156,500
|
|||||
Other
current liabilities
|
354,000
|
232,400
|
|||||
Total
current liabilities
|
1,339,100
|
1,232,200
|
|||||
LONG-TERM
DEBT, net of current portion
|
1,104,900
|
880,300
|
|||||
ASSET
RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS,
|
|||||||
net
of current portion
|
6,138,000
|
5,669,000
|
|||||
OTHER
ACCRUED LIABILITIES
|
1,359,500
|
1,400,500
|
|||||
MINORITY
INTERESTS
|
4,959,000
|
1,767,500
|
|||||
COMMITMENTS
AND CONTINGENCIES
|
|||||||
FORFEITABLE
COMMON STOCK, $.01 par value
|
|||||||
442,740
shares issued, forfeitable until earned
|
2,599,000
|
2,599,000
|
|||||
PREFERRED
STOCK,
|
|||||||
$.01
par value; 100,000 shares authorized
|
|||||||
No
shares issued or outstanding
|
--
|
--
|
|||||
SHAREHOLDERS'
EQUITY:
|
|||||||
Common
stock, $.01 par value;
|
|||||||
unlimited
shares authorized; 19,309,080
|
|||||||
and
18,825,134 shares issued net of
|
|||||||
treasury
stock, respectively
|
193,100
|
188,200
|
|||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
70,595,500
|
68,005,600
|
|||||
Accumulated
deficit
|
(47,500,100
|
)
|
(40,154,100
|
)
|
|||
Treasury
stock at cost,
|
|||||||
1,004,174
and 999,174 shares respectively
|
(2,923,500
|
)
|
(2,892,900
|
)
|
|||
Unrealized
(loss) on marketable securities
|
(55,900
|
)
|
(98,100
|
)
|
|||
Unallocated
ESOP contribution
|
(490,500
|
)
|
(490,500
|
)
|
|||
Total
shareholders' equity
|
19,818,600
|
24,558,200
|
|||||
Total
liabilities and shareholders' equity
|
$
|
37,318,100
|
$
|
38,106,700
|
|||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-5-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|||||||||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||||||||
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
||||
OPERATING
REVENUES:
|
|||||||||||||
Real
estate operations
|
$
|
48,000
|
$
|
72,100
|
$
|
102,800
|
$
|
157,200
|
|||||
Management
fees and other
|
100,300
|
111,400
|
222,100
|
367,700
|
|||||||||
148,300
|
183,500
|
324,900
|
524,900
|
||||||||||
OPERATING
COSTS AND EXPENSES:
|
|||||||||||||
Real
estate operations
|
66,100
|
67,300
|
136,300
|
135,400
|
|||||||||
Mineral
holding costs
|
682,300
|
377,000
|
1,183,400
|
669,900
|
|||||||||
General
and administrative
|
2,367,300
|
2,160,100
|
4,916,000
|
3,324,500
|
|||||||||
3,115,700
|
2,604,400
|
6,235,700
|
4,129,800
|
||||||||||
OPERATING
LOSS
|
(2,967,400
|
)
|
(2,420,900
|
)
|
(5,910,800
|
)
|
(3,604,900
|
)
|
|||||
OTHER
INCOME & (EXPENSES):
|
|||||||||||||
Gain
on sales of assets
|
408,600
|
--
|
2,823,500
|
9,500
|
|||||||||
Gain
(loss) on sale of investment
|
--
|
51,200
|
(27,500
|
)
|
117,700
|
||||||||
Gain
(loss) from valuation of derivatives
|
(45,500
|
)
|
3,466,400
|
(630,900
|
)
|
3,466,400
|
|||||||
Loss
from Enterra share exchange
|
(3,848,600
|
)
|
--
|
(3,845,800
|
)
|
--
|
|||||||
Dividends
|
2,200
|
--
|
5,000
|
--
|
|||||||||
Interest
income
|
198,700
|
135,500
|
250,000
|
190,400
|
|||||||||
Interest
expense
|
(27,600
|
)
|
(3,358,900
|
)
|
(57,100
|
)
|
(3,632,000
|
)
|
|||||
(3,312,200
|
)
|
294,200
|
(1,482,800
|
)
|
152,000
|
||||||||
LOSS
BEFORE MINORITY INTEREST,
|
|||||||||||||
DISCONTINUED
OPERATIONS AND
|
|||||||||||||
PROVISION
FOR INCOME TAXES
|
(6,279,600
|
)
|
(2,126,700
|
)
|
(7,393,600
|
)
|
(3,452,900
|
)
|
|||||
MINORITY
INTEREST IN LOSS OF
|
|||||||||||||
CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES
|
43,400
|
307,600
|
47,600
|
361,400
|
|||||||||
LOSS
BEFORE DISCONTINUED
|
|||||||||||||
OPERATIONS
AND PROVISION
|
|||||||||||||
FOR
INCOME TAXES
|
(6,236,200
|
)
|
(1,819,100
|
)
|
(7,346,000
|
)
|
(3,091,500
|
)
|
|||||
DISCONTINUED
OPERATIONS, net of taxes
|
|||||||||||||
Gain
on sale of discontinued segment
|
--
|
15,721,600
|
--
|
15,721,600
|
|||||||||
Loss
from discontinued operations
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
(326,100
|
)
|
||||||||
|
--
|
15,721,600
|
--
|
15,395,500
|
|||||||||
(LOSS)
GAIN BEFORE PROVISION FOR
|
|||||||||||||
INCOME
TAXES
|
(6,236,200
|
)
|
13,902,500
|
(7,346,000
|
)
|
12,304,000
|
|||||||
PROVISION
FOR INCOME TAXES
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|||||||||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-6-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|||||||||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||||||||
Three
months ended June 30,
|
|
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
NET
(LOSS) GAIN
|
$
|
(6,236,200
|
)
|
$
|
13,902,500
|
$
|
(7,346,000
|
)
|
$
|
12,304,000
|
|||
PER
SHARE DATA
|
|||||||||||||
Loss
from continuing operations
|
$
|
(0.34
|
)
|
$
|
(0.12
|
)
|
$
|
(0.40
|
)
|
$
|
(0.20
|
)
|
|
Gain
from discontinued
|
|||||||||||||
operations
|
--
|
$
|
1.00
|
--
|
$
|
1.03
|
|||||||
$
|
(0.34
|
)
|
$
|
0.88
|
$
|
(0.40
|
)
|
$
|
0.83
|
||||
BASIC
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
|
|||||||||||||
SHARES
OUTSTANDING
|
18,300,530
|
15,795,706
|
18,213,107
|
14,896,431
|
|||||||||
DILUTED
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
|
|||||||||||||
SHARES
OUTSTANDING
|
18,300,530
|
15,352,966
|
18,213,107
|
15,339,171
|
|||||||||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-7-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
||||||
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|||
CASH
FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||
Net
(loss) gain
|
$
|
(7,346,000
|
)
|
$
|
12,304,000
|
||
Adjustments
to reconcile net (loss) gain
|
|||||||
to
net cash used in operating activities:
|
|||||||
Minority
interest in loss of
|
|||||||
consolidated
subsidiaries
|
(47,600
|
)
|
(361,400
|
)
|
|||
Amortization
of deferred charge
|
--
|
441,300
|
|||||
Depreciation
|
269,300
|
189,000
|
|||||
Accretion
of asset
|
|||||||
retirement
obligations
|
385,600
|
183,400
|
|||||
Initial
valuation of asset
|
|||||||
retirement
obligation
|
83,400
|
--
|
|||||
Amortization
of debt discount
|
--
|
2,767,000
|
|||||
Noncash
interest expense
|
--
|
671,700
|
|||||
(Gain)
on sale of assets
|
(2,823,500
|
)
|
(9,500
|
)
|
|||
Loss
on valuation of Enterra units
|
3,845,800
|
--
|
|||||
Loss
(gain) on valuation of derivatives
|
630,900
|
(3,466,400
|
)
|
||||
Gain
on sale of discontinued segment
|
--
|
(15,721,600
|
)
|
||||
Loss
on sale of marketable securities
|
27,500
|
--
|
|||||
Proceeds
on sale of trading securities
|
1,295,500
|
--
|
|||||
Gain
on sale of investments
|
--
|
(117,700
|
)
|
||||
Noncash
compensation
|
600,700
|
216,900
|
|||||
Noncash
services
|
18,900
|
35,600
|
|||||
Warrant
extension and repricing
|
484,700
|
--
|
|||||
Net
changes in assets and liabilities:
|
(37,800
|
)
|
655,700
|
||||
NET
CASH USED IN
|
|||||||
OPERATING
ACTIVITIES
|
(2,612,600
|
)
|
(2,212,000
|
)
|
|||
CASH
FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||
Proceeds
from sale of marketable securities
|
94,700
|
--
|
|||||
Sale
of RMG
|
--
|
(270,000
|
)
|
||||
Proceeds
from sale investments
|
--
|
117,700
|
|||||
Acquisition
of unproved mining claims
|
(21,100
|
)
|
(166,100
|
)
|
|||
Proceeds
on sale of property and equipment
|
2,263,100
|
9,500
|
|||||
Purchase
of property and equipment
|
(306,600
|
)
|
(240,300
|
)
|
|||
Escrow
proceeds
|
--
|
--
|
|||||
Net
change in restricted investments
|
(49,000
|
)
|
(8,300
|
)
|
|||
Net
change in notes receivable
|
(20,700
|
)
|
(14,000
|
)
|
|||
Net
change in investments in affiliates
|
65,400
|
--
|
|||||
NET
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN)
|
|||||||
INVESTING
ACTIVITIES
|
2,025,800
|
(571,500
|
)
|
||||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-8-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
||||||
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|||
CASH
FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||
Issuance
of common stock
|
$
|
915,900
|
$
|
1,579,600
|
|||
Issuance
of subsidiary stock
|
3,173,700
|
--
|
|||||
Proceeds
from long term debt
|
184,400
|
3,700,000
|
|||||
Repayments
of long term debt
|
(177,900
|
)
|
(958,600
|
)
|
|||
NET
CASH PROVIDED BY
|
|||||||
FINANCING
ACTIVITIES
|
4,096,100
|
4,321,000
|
|||||
Net
cash used in operating activities of
|
|||||||
discontinued
operations
|
--
|
(453,500
|
)
|
||||
Net
cash used in investing activities of
|
|||||||
discontinued
operations
|
--
|
(215,000
|
)
|
||||
Net
cash used in financing activities of
|
|||||||
discontinued
operations
|
--
|
(8,500
|
)
|
||||
NET
INCREASE IN
|
|||||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
3,509,300
|
860,500
|
|||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|||||||
AT
BEGINNING OF PERIOD
|
6,998,700
|
3,842,500
|
|||||
CASH
AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|||||||
AT
END OF PERIOD
|
$
|
10,508,000
|
$
|
4,703,000
|
|||
SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCLOSURES:
|
|||||||
Income
tax paid
|
$
|
--
|
$
|
--
|
|||
Interest
paid
|
$
|
57,100
|
$
|
193,300
|
|||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-9-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|||||||
CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|||||||
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
||||||
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|||
NON-CASH
INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|||||||
Conversion
of Enterra shares
|
|||||||
to
tradable units
|
$
|
13,880,100
|
$
|
--
|
|||
Issuance
of stock warrants in
|
|||||||
conjunction
with agreements
|
$
|
727,300
|
$
|
--
|
|||
Acquisition
of assets
|
|||||||
through
issuance of debt
|
$
|
355,800
|
$
|
50,000
|
|||
Unrealized
gain on securities
|
$
|
42,200
|
$
|
1,249,400
|
|||
Satisfaction
of receivable - employee
|
|||||||
with
stock in company
|
$
|
30,600
|
$
|
20,500
|
|||
Issuance
of stock warrants in
|
|||||||
conjunction
with debt
|
$
|
--
|
$
|
1,226,200
|
|||
Issuance
of stock as conversion of
|
|||||||
subsidiary
stock
|
$
|
--
|
$
|
499,700
|
|||
Issuance
of stock for services
|
$
|
--
|
$
|
35,600
|
|||
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these
statements.
-10-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
1) The
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2006, the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended June
30, 2006 and 2005 and the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for
the six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, have been prepared by the Company
without audit. The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2005
has
been taken from the audited financial statements included in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period then ended. In the opinion of the
Company, the accompanying financial statements contain all adjustments
(consisting of only normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly
the
financial position of the Company as of June 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005,
the
results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, and
2005
and cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2006 and 2005.
2) Certain
information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America have been condensed or omitted. It is suggested that
these financial statements be read in conjunction with the Company's December
31, 2005 Form 10-K. The results of operations for the periods ended June 30,
2006 and 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the
full year.
3) The
consolidated financial statements of the Company and subsidiaries include the
accounts of the Company, the accounts of its majority-owned or controlled
subsidiaries Plateau Resources Limited, Inc. (“Plateau”) (100%), Four Nines
Gold, Inc. ("FNG") (50.9%), Sutter Gold Mining Inc. (“SGMI”) (50.1%), Crested
Corp. (“Crested”) (71.0%), Yellow Stone Fuels, Inc. (“YSFI”) (35.9%), and the
USECC Joint Venture ("USECC"), a consolidated joint venture which is equally
owned by the Company and Crested, through which the bulk of their operations
are
conducted.
Investments
of less than 20% are accounted for by the cost method. All material
inter-company profits, transactions and balances have been eliminated. Because
of management control, YSFI is consolidated into the financial statements of
the
Company.
4) Stock-
based compensation
We
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment (SFAS 123R), effective January 1, 2006. SFAS 123R requires
the recognition of the fair value of stock-based compensation in net income.
Stock-based compensation primarily consists of stock options. Stock options
are
granted to employees at exercise prices equal to the fair market value of our
stock at the dates of grant. Generally, options fully vest immediately and
expire 90 days after the employee voluntarily terminates their employment with
the Company and twelve months after retirement, disability or death. We
recognize the stock-based compensation expense over the requisite service period
of the individual grantees, which generally equals the vesting period. We
provide newly issued shares to satisfy stock option exercises. There were no
option awards granted in the six months ended June 30, 2006. There are, however,
options that vest on July 1, 2006. The expense associated with the vesting
of
these shares was recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2006 as a result
of the adoption of SFAS 123(R). The total expense recorded during the six months
ended June 30, 2006 was $273,600.
Prior
to
January 1, 2006, we followed Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related interpretations in
accounting for our stock-based compensation. Under APB 25, no compensation
expense was recognized for stock options since the exercise price of our
employee stock options equals the market price of the underlying stock on the
date of grant. We have elected the modified prospective transition method for
adopting SFAS 123R. Under this method, the provisions of SFAS 123R apply to
all
awards granted or modified after the date of adoption.
-11-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
FAS
123R
requires us to present pro forma information for periods prior to the adoption
as if we had accounted for all our employee stock options and performance awards
under the fair value method of that statement. For purposes of pro forma
disclosure, the estimated fair value of the options and performance awards
at
the date of the grant is amortized to expense over the requisite service period,
which generally equals the vesting period. For pro forma purposes, the estimated
fair value of our stock-based awards to employees is amortized over the
respective vesting periods.
The
following table illustrates the effect on net gain and net gain per share if
we
had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation,” to our stock-based employee compensation for the
periods indicated:
Six
Months Ended
|
||||
June
30,
|
||||
2005
|
||||
Net
gain
|
$
|
12,304,000
|
||
Deduct:
|
||||
Stock-based
employee compensation determined under fair value method for all
awards,
net of related tax effects
|
(206,200
|
)
|
||
Net
income/(loss) available to common stockholders - pro forma
|
$
|
12,097,800
|
||
Basic
gain per share as reported
|
$
|
0.86
|
||
Diluted
gain per share as reported
|
$
|
0.81
|
||
Basic
gain per share pro forma
|
$
|
0.80
|
||
Diluted
gain per share pro forma
|
$
|
0.79
|
||
Weighted
average basic common stock outstanding
|
14,896,413
|
|||
Weighted
average diluted common stock outstanding
|
15,339,171
|
|||
The
weighted average remaining contractual term and aggregate intrinsic value of
options outstanding at June 30, 2006 was 6.25 years and $5,923,900. At June
30,
2006 all options that had been issued were vested and exercisable. Consequently
no additional expense will be recorded in future periods from options
outstanding as of June 30, 2006. No new options were issued during the six
months ended June 30, 2006.
5) Components
of Properties and Equipment at June 30, 2006, consist of land, buildings and
equipment.
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Depletion
and
|
|
Net
|
|
|||
|
|
Cost
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
Book
Value
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Mining
and oil properties
|
$
|
2,582,900
|
$
|
(1,773,600
|
)
|
$
|
809,300
|
|||
Buildings,
land and equipment
|
11,301,400
|
(5,448,000
|
)
|
5,853,400
|
||||||
Totals
|
$
|
13,884,300
|
$
|
(7,221,600
|
)
|
$
|
6,662,700
|
|||
The
Company has impaired a portion of historical costs associated with its
properties in prior periods. The Company will provide additional impairments
if
necessary in the future. No additional impairments are required at June 30,
2006.
-12-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
6) Comprehensive
Income
Unrealized
gains on investments are excluded from net income but are reported as
comprehensive income on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets under
Shareholders’ equity. The following table illustrates the effect on net income
(loss) if the Company had recognized comprehensive income:
Six
months ending June 30,
|
|||||||
|
2006
|
2005
|
|||||
Net
(loss) gain
|
$
|
(7,346,000
|
)
|
$
|
12,304,000
|
||
Comprehensive
loss from the
|
|||||||
unrealized
loss on marketable securities
|
(55,900
|
)
|
--
|
||||
Comprehensive
income from the
|
|||||||
unrealized
loss on hedging activities
|
--
|
1,249,400
|
|||||
Comprehensive
loss
|
$
|
(7,401,900
|
)
|
$
|
13,553,400
|
||
7) Based
on
the provisions of SFAS No. 115, the Company accounts for marketable equity
securities as marketable securities which are available for sale. Available
for-sale securities are measured at fair value, with net unrealized gains and
losses excluded from earnings and reported as a separate component of
comprehensive income until realized.
Investments
in marketable securities consisted of the following at June 30,
2006:
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|||||
|
|
Cost
|
|
Market
Value
|
|
Loss
|
|
|||
Equity
Securities
|
||||||||||
UPC
shares
|
$
|
946,700
|
$
|
890,800
|
$
|
(55,900
|
)
|
|||
Total
|
$
|
946,700
|
$
|
890,800
|
$
|
(55,900
|
)
|
|||
These
securities relate to 2,296,500 shares of UPC.
8) At
June
30, 2006 the Company held 582,345 units of Enterra Energy Trust (“Enterra”).
These units of Enterra are recorded as Trading Securities and have a market
value of $8,066,500 at June 30, 2006. The Company plans on selling these units
during the third and fourth quarters of 2006. These units of Enterra were
received by the company upon the conversion of Enterra Acquisition
(“Acquisitions”) shares on June 6, 2006. These securities were previously
classified in Investments:
Non-affiliated companies
in the
Company’s balance sheet. The Acquisition shares were received as a portion of
the compensation that the Company received when it sold its interest in Rocky
Mountain Gas (“RMG”).
During
the six months ended June 30, 2005 the Company recorded a gain on the valuation
of the derivative associated with the Acquisition shares which allowed them
to
be converted into shares of Enterra of $3,466,400. The value of the derivative
and the underlying Units increased to $13,803,100 at December 31, 2005. As
of
the date of conversion the Enterra shares had decreased in value which resulted
in a loss of $3,845,800 when the investment was moved to trading securities
in
addition to a final loss of $630,900 from the valuation of the derivative.
At
June 30, 2006 the Company had sold 100,000 of the Enterra shares for which
it
received $1,295,500 and recorded a realized loss of $27,500.
-13-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
9) The
Company presents basic and diluted earnings per share in accordance with the
provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings
per
Share". Basic earnings per common share is based on the weighted average number
of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share
is
computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding
adjusted for the incremental shares attributed to outstanding options to
purchase common stock, if dilutive. Potential common shares relating to options
and warrants are excluded from the computation of diluted earnings (loss) per
share, because they are anti-dilutive. These options and warrants totaled
5,552,773 and 5,845,733 at June 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Stock options
and warrants have a weighted average exercise price of $2.90 and $3.69
respectively at June 30, 2006 and $3.03 and $2.98 respectively per share at
June
30, 2005. Potential common shares relating to convertible debt are excluded
from
the computation of diluted loss per share, because they are
anti-dilutive.
10) Long
term
debt at June 30, 2006 consists of:
Current
portion of long term debt for the purchase of aircraft and equipment
and
insurance policies at various interest rates and due dates
|
$
|
294,200
|
||
Long
term portion of debt for the purchase of aircraft and equipment and
insurance policies at various interest rates and due dates
|
1,104,900
|
|||
$
|
1,399,100
|
11) The
Company has uranium properties that are in a shut down status in Wyoming and
southern Utah for which it is responsible for the reclamation expense. The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America, require management to make
estimates for these reclamation expenses based on certain assumptions. These
estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities
and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
reporting period.
The
Company accounts for the reclamation of its mineral properties and oil
properties pursuant to SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligation.” Under the provisions of this accounting statement, the Company
records the estimated fair value of the reclamation liability on its mineral
properties as of the date that the liability is incurred with a corresponding
increase in the property’s book value. Actual costs could differ from those
estimates. The reclamation liabilities are reviewed each quarter to determine
whether estimates for the total asset retirement obligation are sufficient
to
complete the reclamation work required.
The
Company deducts any actual funds expended for reclamation from the asset
retirement obligations during the quarter in which it occurs. As a result of
the
Company taking impairment allowances in prior periods on its shut-down mining
properties, it has no remaining book value for these properties. Any upward
revisions of retirement costs on its mineral properties will therefore be
expensed in the quarter in which they are recorded.
-14-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
The
following is a reconciliation of the total liability for asset retirement
obligations (unaudited):
Six
months ended June 30,
|
|
||||||
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
||
Balance
December 31, 2005
|
$
|
5,902,200
|
$
|
8,075,100
|
|||
Addition
to Liability
|
83,400
|
--
|
|||||
Liability
Settled
|
--
|
--
|
|||||
Sale
of RMG
|
--
|
(463,700
|
)
|
||||
Accretion
Expense
|
385,600
|
183,400
|
|||||
Balance
June 30, 2006
|
$
|
6,371,200
|
$
|
7,794,800
|
|||
12) During
the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company issued 483,946 shares of its
common stock. The following table details the number of shares issued and the
dollar values received.
Additional
|
||||||||||
Common
Stock
|
Paid-In
|
|||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
||||||||
Balance
December 31, 2005
|
18,825,134
|
$
|
188,200
|
$
|
68,005,600
|
|||||
Stock
issued to outside directors
|
3,140
|
100
|
17,900
|
|||||||
2001
stock compensation plan
|
30,000
|
300
|
174,100
|
|||||||
Exercise
of options
|
159,476
|
1,600
|
110,700
|
|||||||
Exercise
of warrants
|
221,400
|
2,200
|
801,400
|
|||||||
Expense
of employee options
|
||||||||||
vesting
|
-
|
-
|
273,600
|
|||||||
Stock
issued for a professional service
|
||||||||||
agreement
|
69,930
|
700
|
474,800
|
|||||||
Value
of company warrants issued
|
||||||||||
for
a professional service agreement
|
-
|
-
|
251,800
|
|||||||
Value
of company warrants issued and
|
||||||||||
extended
|
-
|
-
|
484,700
|
|||||||
Valuation
of Company warrants issued
|
||||||||||
for
professional services
|
-
|
-
|
900
|
|||||||
19,309,080
|
$
|
193,100
|
$
|
70,595,500
|
||||||
13) On
April
11, 2006, the Company signed a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement with
Cornell Capital Partners, LP (”Cornell”), under which Cornell committed to
provide up to $50 million of equity financing over 36 months. As of May 5,
2006,
that agreement and all related agreements were terminated and a new Standby
Equity Distribution Agreement (“SEDA”) was executed. The following is a summary
of the terms of the SEDA and related agreements;
The
Company entered into the SEDA agreement with Cornell to expand its business
by
purchasing acquisition targets with earnings and positive cash flows. Management
of the Company is establishing the parameters for such acquisition
targets.
-15-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
Under
the
SEDA, Cornell has committed to provide up to $50 million of equity financing
over 36 months. Each advance under the SEDA will have a maximum amount of $5
million, and there must be at least five trading days between each advance.
Access to the SEDA financing is subject to the Company having an effective
re-sale registration statement on file with the SEC for the securities
underlying the SEDA.
Each
advance under the SEDA will be a sale by the Company to Cornell of newly-issued
shares of common stock. Subject to a re-sale registration statement being in
effect, the Company will determine whether and when to request an advance,
and
the amount of the advance (subject to the $5 million maximum). The number of
shares to be sold to Cornell will be determined by dividing the advance amount
by 98% of market price for our stock. Market price is defined in the SEDA as
the
lowest daily volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) of the Company’s common
stock during the five trading days (the “pricing period”) immediately following
the date the Company sends an advance notice to Cornell.
The
SEDA
(of May 5, 2006) gives the Company a floor price below which the Company cannot
sell stock to Cornell: The “market price” cannot be less than 95% of the VWAP
price (defined in the SEDA as the “minimum acceptable price”) on the trading day
before the Company sends an advance notice to Cornell. If, during the pricing
period, the market price is less than the minimum acceptable price, then the
amount of the advance (and the number of shares sold) will be reduced 20% for
each day in the pricing period when the minimum acceptable price is less than
the market price during the pricing period. The Company also will pay Cornell
a
cash fee equal to 2% of each advance the Company receives, plus $500, for each
advance under the SEDA.
On
signing of the original agreement, the Company paid Cornell $20,000 for a
structuring and due diligence fee, and issued to Cornell 68,531 shares of
restricted common stock (the “investor shares”). These payments have been
treated as fully earned for purposes of the SEDA signed on May 5, 2006. The
Company also issued a new three year warrant (the “initial warrant”), replacing
the warrant signed on April 11, 2006) to purchase 100,000 shares of restricted
common stock at $7.15 per share. The terms of this warrant are unchanged from
the original warrant. If the closing bid price for the Company’s stock exceeds
150% of the exercise price of the applicable exercise price in a ten consecutive
trading day period, the warrant will expire 20 trading days later unless
exercised (but will not expire to the extent not exercised, if the closing
bid
price should be equal to or lower than $7.15 during the 20 day period). This
kind of provision is often referred to as “forced exercise.”
In
addition, each time the Company takes advances aggregating $5 million under
the
SEDA, the Company will issue a “milestone warrant” to Cornell, to purchase
100,000 shares at the average VWAP for our stock for the ten trading days
immediately preceding the date of the $5 million advance (or the last advance
which brings the aggregate to $5 million). Like the warrant already issued,
the
milestone warrants will have a forced exercise provision.
The
Company has engaged Newbridge Securities Corporation, a registered
broker-dealer, to act as the Company’s placement agent in connection with the
SEDA. The Company has issued 1,399 restricted shares of restricted common stock
(the “Newbridge shares”) to Newbridge as compensation for services. The prior
agreement with Newbridge was terminated, however, the Newbridge shares are
being
treated as fully earned.
-16-
U.S.
ENERGY CORP. & SUBSIDIARIES
Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
(Continued)
By
a
registration rights agreement with Cornell, the Company has agreed to file
with
the SEC a registration statement covering public resale of the shares to be
sold
to Cornell under the SEDA, the investor shares issued to Cornell, the Newbridge
shares, and the shares issuable under the initial warrant issued to Cornell.
If
the Company issues milestone warrants to Cornell, the Company will file
additional registration statements to cover resale of shares issued on exercise
thereof.
On
May
15, 2006 and June 5, 2006, the Company signed amendments to the May 5, 2006
SEDA
with Cornell. In addition, on June 5, 2006, the three year warrant issued to
Cornell to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s stock (at $7.15 per share)
was amended and restated. The original warrant was issued to Cornell on May
5,
2006.
The
first
amendment to the SEDA is an amendment to provide, with respect to the minimum
acceptable price for any advance, that if Cornell sells stock of the Company
after receipt of an advance notice, but the VWAP price during the pricing period
(following the date of the advance notice) is below the minimum acceptable
price, then the Company shall be obligated to sell to Cornell (and Cornell
shall
be obligated to buy from the Company) that number of shares equal to the number
sold by Cornell during the pricing period, at a price equal to the greater
of
the purchase price stated in the advance notice, or the minimum acceptable
price.
The
second amendment to the SEDA clarifies the total number of “transaction shares”
which can be issued to Cornell without approval of the company’s shareholders to
waive the limitations of the 20% rule. “Transaction shares” includes the shares
already issued to Cornell and Newbridge Securities Corporation, shares issuable
under the SEDA, shares issuable under the warrant, and shares issuable under
milestone warrants (if any milestone warrants are issued).
The
warrant was amended and restated to include the same limit on the number of
shares issuable on exercise of the warrant in the context of the transaction
shares, consistent with the limit affected by the second amendment to the SEDA.
This amended and restated warrant replaced the original warrant.
14) On
July
20, 2006 a hearing was held in the United States District Court of Colorado
regarding underlying disputes in the case between the Company, Crested and
Phelps Dodge Corporation, (“PD”). Pursuant to that hearing, a Judgment for
attorney fees and costs was rendered by the Court on July 25, 2006. In its
Judgment, the Court awarded PD attorney fees and costs in the amount of
$3,223,047 and operational expenses for the water treatment plant on the Lucky
Jack molybdenum property, formerly the Mt. Emmons molybdenum property, in the
amount of $4,315,293. The total amount of the award is $7,538,340 plus interest
at 5 ½% interest. The Company and Crested share in this potential liability on a
50 - 50 basis. The Company and Crested have determined that they will appeal
the
Judgment to the 10th
Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Company has reviewed FAS 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies”, and has determined that the likelihood of prevailing in the
appeal is reasonably possible. Although a completely accurate prediction can
not
be made of the ultimate outcome or timing of an appeal, the Company’s legal
expert in the matter believes that the Company will ultimately prevail in
overturning the U.S. District Court’s award of attorney fees and
costs.
15) On
June
12, 2006, the Company received the Final Arbitration Award from the Arbitrator
in the litigation initiated by Coastline Capital Partners (“Coastline”). The
Arbitrator found in favor of the plaintiff for recovery of partial performance
fees related to a breach of contract claim, related to an engagement letter
and
various transactions in 2004. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties
setting the lower and upper limits of recovery from arbitration, the Company
paid $395,000 to Coastline. Upon
payment, the dispute was fully resolved and was dismissed with prejudice by
the
parties.
-17-
ITEM
2. Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
The
following is Management's Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of the
significant factors which have affected our liquidity, capital resources and
results of operations during the periods included in the accompanying financial
statements. For a detailed explanation of the Company's Business Overview,
it is
suggested that Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and
Results of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 be read
in conjunction with the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005. The discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks
and
uncertainties. Due to uncertainties in our business, actual results may differ
materially from the discussion below.
Overview
of Business
U.S.
Energy Corp. ("USE" or the "Company") and its subsidiaries historically have
been involved in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of
properties prospective for hard rock minerals including lead, zinc, silver,
molybdenum, gold, uranium, and oil and gas. The Company also has been engaged
to
a limited extent in commercial real estate, primarily in connection with
acquiring mineral properties which included commercial real estate.
The
Company manages its operations through a joint venture, USECC Joint Venture
("USECC"), with one of its subsidiary companies, Crested Corp. ("Crested")
of
which it owns a consolidated 71%. The narrative discussion of this MD&A
refers only to USE or the Company but includes the consolidated financial
statements of USECC, Crested, Plateau Resources Limited, Inc. ("Plateau"),
Sutter Gold Mining Inc. (“SGMI”), Yellowstone Fuels Inc. and one other minor
subsidiary. Historically the Company has entered into partnerships through
which
it either joint ventured or leased properties with non-related parties for
the
development and production of certain of its mineral properties. The Company
had
no production from any of its mineral properties during the quarter ended June
30, 2006.
During
the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004, the Company’s uranium and gold
properties were shut down due to depressed metals prices. During 2005 and 2006,
the market prices for gold, uranium and molybdenum increased to levels which
may
allow the Company to place these properties into production or sell part or
all
of them to industry participants. Exploration work was resumed on the uranium
properties in 2005 and continues in 2006. New uranium properties have also
been
acquired. Development drilling is being conducted on the SGMI properties to
further delineate the previously completed exploration drilling.
Uranium
- The
price of uranium concentrate has increased from a five year low of $7.25 per
pound in January 2001 to a five year high of $46.50 per pound on June 30, 2006.
(Ux Weekly)
Gold
- The
five year low for gold was $265 per ounce in July of 2001. The market price
for
gold has risen since that time to a five year high of $719.88 per ounce on
May
11, 2006. The price for gold on June 30, 2006 was $613.50 per ounce. (Metal
Prices.com).
Molybdenum
- Annual
Metal Week Dealer Oxide mean prices for molybdic oxide averaged $24.73 per
pound
during the six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with annual averages of:
$32.94 per pound in 2005, $16.41 per pound in 2004, $5.32 per pound in 2003
and
$3.77 per pound in 2002. The mean price for Dealer Oxide on June 30, 2006 was
$25.75 per pound. (Metal Prices.com). Continued strong demand, which has
outpaced supply over the past several years (deficit market conditions), has
reduced inventory levels throughout the industry.
-18-
The
Company holds mineral and related properties in uranium and gold and, with
Crested, received the Mt. Emmons project which is now known as the Lucky Jack
project, a significant molybdenum property from Phelps Dodge Corporation (“PD”)
on February 28, 2006. The rebound in uranium, gold and molybdenum therefore
presents an opportunity for the Company to either develop or sell all or a
portion of these properties to a third party.
Management’s
strategy to generate a return on shareholder equity is first, to demonstrate
prospective value in the mineral properties sufficient to support substantial
investments by large industry partners and second, to structure these
investments to bring capital and long term development expertise to move the
properties into production.
The
principal uncertainties in the successful implementation of our strategy
are:
· |
Whether
a feasibility study will show volumes and grades of mineralization
and
manageable costs of mining, transportation and processing, which
are
sufficient to make a profit and to bring industry partners to the
point of
investment; and
|
· |
Whether
the Company can negotiate terms with industry partners which will
return a
profit to the Company for its retained interest and the project’s
development costs to that point in
time.
|
To
some
extent, the economic feasibility of a particular property can be changed with
modifications to the mining, transportation, milling and/or processing plans.
However, overall, the principal drivers to attainment of the business strategy
are the quality and volume of the minerals in the ground, cost of production
and
commodity prices.
Please
see the risk factor disclosures elsewhere in this Report for more information
on
the risks and uncertainties in the business.
Forward
Looking Statements
This
Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2006 and Form 10-K for
the
year ended December 31, 2005, includes "forward-looking statements" within
the
meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the
Exchange Act"). All statements other than statements of historical fact included
in this Report are forward-looking statements. In addition, whenever words
like
"expect", "anticipate”, or "believe" are used, the Company is making forward
looking statements. Actual results may vary materially from the forward-looking
statements and there is no assurance that the assumptions used will be realized
in fact.
Critical
Accounting Policies
Asset
Impairments
- We
assess the impairment of property and equipment whenever events or circumstances
indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable.
Mineral
Claims
- We
follow the full cost method of accounting for mineral properties. Accordingly,
all costs associated with acquisition, exploration and development of mineral
reserves, including directly related overhead costs, are capitalized and are
subject to ceiling tests to ensure the carrying value does not exceed the fair
market value.
-19-
All
capitalized costs of mineral properties subject to amortization and the
estimated future costs to develop proved reserves, are amortized using the
unit-of-production method using estimates of proved reserves. Investments in
unproved properties and major construction and development projects are not
amortized until proved reserves associated with the projects can be determined
or until impairment occurs. If the results of an assessment indicate that the
properties are impaired, the capitalized cost of the property will be added
to
the costs to be amortized.
Asset
Retirement Obligations
- The
Company's policy is to accrue the liability for future reclamation costs of
its
mineral properties based on the current estimate of the future reclamation
costs
as determined by internal and external experts.
Revenue
Recognition
-
Revenues are reported on a gross revenue basis and are recorded at the time
services are provided or the commodity is sold. Sales of proved and unproved
properties are accounted for as adjustments of capitalized costs with no gain
or
loss recognized, unless such adjustments would significantly alter the
relationship between capitalized costs and proved reserves, in which case the
gain or loss is recognized in income. Abandonment of properties is accounted
for
as an adjustment of capitalized costs with no loss recognized.
Use
of Accounting Estimates
- The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions.
These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date
of
the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses
during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Income
Taxes
- The
Company accounts for income taxes under the provisions of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 109 ("SFAS 109"), "Accounting for Income Taxes". This
statement requires recognition of deferred income tax assets and liabilities
for
the expected future income tax consequences, based on enacted tax laws, of
temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets,
liabilities and carry forwards.
SFAS
109
requires recognition of deferred tax assets for the expected future effects
of
all deductible temporary differences, loss carry forwards and tax credit carry
forwards. Deferred tax assets are reduced, if deemed necessary, by a valuation
allowance for any tax benefits which, based on current circumstances, are not
expected to be realized.
Marketable
Securities -
The
Company accounts for its marketable securities under Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in
Debt and Equity Securities, which requires certain securities to be categorized
as either; trading, available-for-sale or held-to-maturity. Based on the
Company's intent to sell its holdings in Enterra Energy Trust (“Enterra”),
582,345 units, the investment in these units is reported as a trading security.
The Company's available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value with
net
unrealized gain or (loss) recorded as a separate component of shareholders'
equity. If a decline in fair value of held-to-maturity securities is determined
to be other than temporary, the investment is written down to fair
value.
-20-
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
SFAS
123(R)
In
December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued its
final standard on accounting for employee stock options, FAS No. 123 (Revised
2004), "Share-Based Payment" ("FAS123(R)"). FAS 123(R) replaces FAS No. 123,
"Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation” (“FAS 123"), and supersedes Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees”. FAS
123(R) requires companies to measure compensation costs for all share-based
payments, including grants of employee stock options, based on the fair value
of
the awards on the grant date and to recognize such expense over the period
during which an employee is required to provide services in exchange for the
award. The pro forma disclosures previously permitted under FAS 123 will no
longer be an alternative to financial statement recognition. FAS 123 (R) is
effective for all awards granted, modified, repurchased or cancelled after,
and
to unvested portions of previously issued and outstanding awards vesting after,
interim or annual periods, beginning after June 15, 2005, which for us is first
quarter of fiscal 2006. During the six months ended June 30, 2006 the Company
recognized $273,600 in employee compensation related to options which vest
on
July 1, 2006. All future issuances of options under the plan will be evaluated
using the Black Scholes model and expensed over the term of the
option.
The
Company has reviewed other current outstanding statements from the FASB and
does
not believe that any of those statements will have a material adverse affect
on
the financial statements of the Company when adopted.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
The
Company continues to maintain a strong cash position at June 30, 2006, of
$10,508,000 which is an increase of $3,509,300 from the cash position at
December 31, 2005. Financing activities generated $4,096,100, investing
activities generated $3,321,300 and operating activities consumed
$3,908,100.
Although
the Company’s cash position increased during the six months ended June 30, 2006,
management intends on selling some or all of the remaining Enterra Energy Trust
(“Enterra”) units that were converted from the Enterra Acquisitions Class D
(“Acquisitions”) shares on June 8, 2006, as well as seek industry partners or
equity financing to fund mine exploration and development costs and also fund
reclamation and general and administrative expenses. The Enterra units are
carried as trading securities at June 30, 2006 and have a market value at that
time of $8,066,500. The Company, through Crested, had sold 100,000 units of
Enterra as of June 30, 2006 and received $1,295,500 in cash as a result of
the
sales.
As
a
result of the decision of the U.S. Federal District Court of Colorado, and
the
Company’s decision to appeal that decision, the Company must bond $7,538,340 as
an award granted by the Court to Phelps Dodge Corporation (“PD”) in relation to
ongoing litigation regarding the Lucky Jack molybdenum project in Colorado.
The
Company will also have to continue to pay interest at the rate of 5 ½% on the
judgment until such time as the judgment is either overturned or ultimately
paid. The Company has reviewed FAS 5, “Accounting for Contingencies”, and has
determined that the likelihood of prevailing in the appeal is reasonably
possible. Although a completely accurate prediction can not be made of the
ultimate outcome or timing of an appeal, the Company’s legal expert in the
matter believes that the Company will ultimately prevail in overturning the
U.S.
District Court’s award of attorney fees and costs. The proceeds from the sale of
the Enterra units are expected to be sufficient to fund the bonding requirements
of the appeal.
-21-
Operations
resulted in a net loss of $7,346,000 of which $3,437,900 consisted of non-cash
transactions. The largest of these non cash transactions were: depreciation,
$269,300; accretion of asset retirement obligations relating to the Company’s
mining properties, $385,600; loss on the valuation of the Enterra Acquisition
units of $3,845,800; loss on valuation of the imbedded derivative associated
with the Enterra Acquisition units, $630,900; non-cash compensation relating
to
the 2001 stock award plan, expensing of employee options and the accrual of
the
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, $600,700; the expense associated with the
extension of warrants of $484,700 and the payment for services by the issuance
of common stock, $18,900. These non-cash increases in the net loss for the
six
months ended June 30, 2006 were off partially set by a gain on the sale of
assets of $2,823,500. The sale of assets represents primarily the cash and
stock
receipts from UPC for its purchase of a 50% undivided interest in certain of
our
Uranium properties.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2006 the Company received $1,295,500 from the
sale
of 100,000 units of Enterra and $94,700 from the sale of 203,500 shares of
UPC.
The company also received $2,263,100 in proceeds from the sale of property
and
equipment. The revenues from the sale of property and equipment relate primarily
to cash receipts from UPC in the amount of $1,975,000, the sale of a no longer
used office building, $126,500 and the sale of other miscellaneous equipment
which was no longer needed. During the six months ended June 30, 2005 the
Company had no similar cash flows from the sale of marketable securities and
property and equipment. During the six months ended June 30, 2006 the Company
purchased equipment to manage the Lucky Jack molybdenum property. The assets
purchased consisted of a loader, vehicles and miscellaneous other smaller
equipment. The net cash used in these purchases during the six months ended
June
30, 2006 was $306,600.
Cash
flows from Financing activities were primarily as a result of: the issuance
of
the Company’s common stock as a result of the exercise of stock warrants and
options, $915,900; the issuance of SGMI common stock in private placements,
$3,173,700 and proceeds from long term debt of 184,400 for the financing of
the
purchase of equipment and the financing of liability insurance premiums. These
sources of cash from Financing activities were off set by payments made on
long
term debt in the amount of $177,900.
The
Company believes that the current market prices for gold, uranium and molybdenum
are at levels that warrant further exploration and development of the Company’s
mineral properties. Management of the Company anticipates these metals prices
will remain at levels which will allow the properties to be produced
economically. Management of the Company therefore believes that sufficient
capital will be available to develop its mineral properties from strategic
industry partners, debt financing, and the sale of equity or a combination
of
the three. The successful development and production of these properties could
greatly enhance the liquidity and financial position of the
Company.
Although
the Company has sufficient liquidity through the sale of its Enterra units
to
fund limited exploration, development and reclamation projects on its mineral
properties as well as general and administrative costs and expenses and the
Federal Court award relating to the PD case, it will need to continue to attract
an equity or industry partner capital to fully develop its mineral properties.
The Company entered into a three year financing agreement with Cornell Capital,
(“Cornell”) whereby it has available to it a $50 million equity line of credit.
Although the Company can use the Cornell financing for any purpose, Management
of the Company plans on using it for the expansion of its business through
the
funding of development work on its mineral properties and the acquisition of
companies with net profits and positive cash flows.
-22-
Capital
Resources
Enterra
Acquisitions Class D shares
The
Company received 436,586 and Crested received 245,759 units of Enterra Energy
Trust (“Enterra”) respectively in June of 2006 as an automatic conversion from
Enterra Acquisition (“Acquisitions”) shares for a consolidated 682,345 units.
The shares of Acquisitions were received when Rocky Mountain Gas, Inc. (“RMG”)
was sold during calendar 2005. During the month of June, 2006, Crested sold
100,000 of the Enterra units. It received $1,295,500 for the sale of these
units. Management of the Company plans on selling the balance of the Enterra
units, 582,345 units, during the third and fourth quarters of calendar 2006.
At
June 30, 2006 the market price for the Enterra units was $13.49 per share.
The
price for the Enterra units has decreased since that time and at July 28, 2006
it was $11.97 per share. Part of the decrease in the price of Enterra units
is
attributed to Enterra announcing that it was going to cut its monthly dividend
from $0.18 per share to $0.12 per share. In the event that the Company can
obtain the current market price for its Enterra units it would receive
approximately $6.9 million.
Pinnacle
Gas Resources, Inc.
USECC
owns a minority interest in Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (“Pinnacle”). Enterra
is entitled to be paid an amount of up to (but not more than) $2,000,000, if
proceeds from a future disposition by USECC to a third party of their minority
equity interest in Pinnacle exceeds $10,000,000. On May 10, 2006, Pinnacle
filed
a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating
to
sales of its common stock by the selling stockholders named therein. Information
about Pinnacle can be obtained from its registration statement, on file with
the
SEC at www.sec.gov. This registration statement has not yet become effective.
USECC owns 9.8% of the outstanding common stock of Pinnacle and is participating
in the public offering. Once this registration statement becomes effective,
management of the Company and Crested may sell some or all of its equity in
Pinnacle.
Uranium
Power Corp.
On
December 8, 2004 Uranium Power Corp. (“UPC”) signed a Purchase and Sales
Agreement with USECC to purchase an undivided 50% interest in the Sheep Mountain
properties. The agreement was amended on January 13, 2006.
UPC
paid
USECC $850,000 in calendar 2005, and issued 1,000,000 UPC shares to USECC (1/2
each to USE and Crested) in 2004 and 2005. As a result of the amendment, UPC
has
paid an additional $1,975,000 and issued 1.5 million more shares for a total
of
2.5 million shares, against the purchase price. USECC sold 203,500 of these
shares as of June 30, 2006 which generated $78,000 in net cash. These funds
are
used to pay operating costs of USECC.
An
additional $4.1 million and 1.5 million shares are required to pay the full
purchase price: $1.5 million on April 29, 2007 and $1.25 million on October
29,
2007 (provided UPC is required to pay 50% of all money it raises after January
13, 2006 until the two $1.5 million payments are made); and two additional
payments each of $800,000 cash and 750,000 UPC shares (total $1,600,000 cash
and
1,500,000 UPC shares) on June 29, 2007 and December 29, 2007.
USECC
and
UPC will each be responsible for paying 50% of (i) current and future Sheep
Mountain reclamation costs in excess of $1,600,000, and (ii) all costs to
maintain and hold the properties. UPC will contribute up to $10,000,000 to
the
joint venture (at $500,000 for each of 20 exploration projects). USECC and
UPC
each will be responsible for 50% of costs on each jointly approved project
in
excess of $500,000. As of June 30, 2006, UPC had funded $613,600 of the costs
related to the properties in the venture. Of that amount the venture had
expended $568,500.
-23-
Closing
of the agreement is required on or before December 29, 2007. UPC may terminate
the agreement before closing, in which event UPC (i) would forfeit all payments
made up to the termination date; (ii) lose all of its interest in the properties
to be contributed by USECC under the agreement; (iii) lose all rights to
additional properties acquired in the joint venture as well as forfeit all
cash
contributions to the joint venture, and (iv) be relieved of its share of
reclamation liabilities existing at December 8, 2004.
Sutter
Gold
On
April
11, 2006, SGMI announced that it closed a non-brokered $759,100 private
placement of 4,250,000 shares of its common stock at $0.18 per share. Each
share
also had an attached transferable warrant exercisable for two years at $0.27.
Proceeds from this private placement will be used to fund additional
exploratory/development core drilling on its Lincoln Gold Project.
On
May
31, 2006, SGMI announced successfully closing a
$2,818,900. The private placement consisted of 12,062,000 units at $0.225 per
unit. Each unit comprises one common share and one 24-month warrant. Each
warrant can be exercised to purchase one common share at a price of $0.315
per
share. Proceeds from this private placement will fund a combined underground
and
surface diamond drill program and, if warranted, a feasibility study on its
Sutter Gold Mine which is an advanced stage gold project in the historic Mother
Lode located about 50 miles southeast of Sacramento, California.
Cornell
Capital Partners, LP.
On
April
11, 2006, the Company signed a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement with
Cornell Capital Partners, LP (”Cornell”), under which Cornell committed to
provide up to $50 million of equity financing over 36 months. As of May 5,
2006,
that agreement and all related agreements were terminated and a new Standby
Equity Distribution Agreement (“SEDA”) was executed. The following is a summary
of the terms of the SEDA and related agreements;
The
Company entered into the SEDA agreement with Cornell to expand its business
by
purchasing acquisition targets with earnings and positive cash flows. Management
of the Company is establishing the parameters for such acquisition
targets.
Under
the
SEDA, Cornell has committed to provide up to $50 million of equity financing
over 36 months. Each advance under the SEDA will have a maximum amount of $5
million, and there must be at least five trading days between each advance.
Access to the SEDA financing is subject to the Company having an effective
re-sale registration statement on file with the SEC for the securities
underlying the SEDA.
Each
advance under the SEDA will be a sale by the Company to Cornell of newly-issued
shares of common stock. Subject to a re-sale registration statement being in
effect, the Company will determine whether and when to request an advance,
and
the amount of the advance (subject to the $5 million maximum). The number of
shares to be sold to Cornell will be determined by dividing the advance amount
by 98% of market price for our stock. Market price is defined in the SEDA as
the
lowest daily volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) of the Company’s common
stock during the five trading days (the “pricing period”) immediately following
the date the Company sends an advance notice to Cornell.
-24-
The
SEDA
(of May 5, 2006) gives the Company a floor price below which the Company cannot
sell stock to Cornell: The “market price” cannot be less than 95% of the VWAP
price (defined in the SEDA as the “minimum acceptable price”) on the trading day
before the Company sends an advance notice to Cornell. If, during the pricing
period, the market price is less than the minimum acceptable price, then the
amount of the advance (and the number of shares sold) will be reduced 20% for
each day in the pricing period when the minimum acceptable price is less than
the market price during the pricing period. The Company also will pay Cornell
a
cash fee equal to 2% of each advance the Company receives, plus $500, for each
advance under the SEDA.
On
signing of the original agreement, the Company paid Cornell $20,000 for a
structuring and due diligence fee, and issued to Cornell 68,531 shares of
restricted common stock (the “investor shares”). These payments have been
treated as fully earned for purposes of the SEDA signed on May 5, 2006. The
Company also issued a new three year warrant (the “initial warrant”), replacing
the warrant signed on April 11, 2006) to purchase 100,000 shares of restricted
common stock at $7.15 per share. The terms of this warrant are unchanged from
the original warrant. If the closing bid price for the Company’s stock exceeds
150% of the exercise price of the applicable exercise price in a ten consecutive
trading day period, the warrant will expire 20 trading days later unless
exercised (but will not expire to the extent not exercised, if the closing
bid
price should be equal to or lower than $7.15 during the 20 day period). This
kind of provision is often referred to as “forced exercise.”
In
addition, each time the Company takes advances aggregating $5 million under
the
SEDA, the Company will issue a “milestone warrant” to Cornell, to purchase
100,000 shares at the average VWAP for our stock for the ten trading days
immediately preceding the date of the $5 million advance (or the last advance
which brings the aggregate to $5 million). Like the warrant already issued,
the
milestone warrants will have a forced exercise provision.
The
Company has engaged Newbridge Securities Corporation, a registered
broker-dealer, to act as the Company’s placement agent in connection with the
SEDA. The Company has issued 1,399 restricted shares of restricted common stock
(the “Newbridge shares”) to Newbridge as compensation for services. The prior
agreement with Newbridge was terminated, however, the Newbridge shares are
being
treated as fully earned.
By
a
registration rights agreement with Cornell, the Company has agreed to file
with
the SEC a registration statement covering public resale of the shares to be
sold
to Cornell under the SEDA, the investor shares issued to Cornell, the Newbridge
shares, and the shares issuable under the initial warrant issued to Cornell.
If
the Company issues milestone warrants to Cornell, the Company will file
additional registration statements to cover resale of shares issued on exercise
thereof.
On
May
15, 2006 and June 5, 2006, the Company signed amendments to the May 5, 2006
SEDA
with Cornell. In addition, on June 5, 2006, the three year warrant issued to
Cornell to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s stock (at $7.15 per share)
was amended and restated. The original warrant was issued to Cornell on May
5,
2006.
The
first
amendment to the SEDA is an amendment to provide, with respect to the minimum
acceptable price for any advance, that if Cornell sells stock of the Company
after receipt of an advance notice, but the VWAP price during the pricing period
(following the date of the advance notice) is below the minimum acceptable
price, then the Company shall be obligated to sell to Cornell (and Cornell
shall
be obligated to buy from the Company) that number of shares equal to the number
sold by Cornell during the pricing period, at a price equal to the greater
of
the purchase price stated in the advance notice, or the minimum acceptable
price.
-25-
The
second amendment to the SEDA clarifies the total number of “transaction shares”
which can be issued to Cornell without approval of the company’s shareholders to
waive the limitations of the 20% rule. “Transaction shares” includes the shares
already issued to Cornell and Newbridge Securities Corporation, shares issuable
under the SEDA, shares issuable under the warrant, and shares issuable under
milestone warrants (if any milestone warrants are issued).
The
warrant was amended and restated to include the same limit on the number of
shares issuable on exercise of the warrant in the context of the transaction
shares, consistent with the limit affected by the second amendment to the SEDA.
This amended and restated warrant replaced the original warrant.
Line
of Credit
USECC
has
a $500,000 line of credit with a commercial bank. The line of credit is secured
by certain real estate holdings and equipment. This line of credit is used
for
short term working capital needs associated with operations. At June 30, 2006,
the entire amount of $500,000 under the line of credit was available to
USECC.
Other
On
May
15, 2006, the Arbitration Panel (“Panel”) in the Nukem and Sheep Mountain
Partners (“SMP”) case issued a Clarification of the Arbitration Award as a
result of the remand to the Panel by the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado pursuant to the Order of the 10th
Circuit
Court of Appeals. In its Clarification of the Arbitration Award, the Panel
held
that the Constructive Trust was intended to secure the payment of the original
damage award of $15 million and it was extinguished upon Nukem’s payment of that
damage award to USECC. The Company therefore will not receive the previously
disclosed $20 million judgment from Nukem.
Capital
Requirements
The
direct capital requirements of the Company during 2006 remain its general and
administrative costs; expenses and funding of exploration drilling; the holding
costs of the Sheep Mountain uranium properties in Wyoming, a uranium mill in
Utah and uranium properties in southern Utah, Colorado and Arizona and the
maintenance of jointly owned real estate. During the six months ended June
30,
2006, USECC reacquired the Mt. Emmons molybdenum property, now known as the
Lucky Jack Project (“Lucky Jack”), from Phelps Dodge Corporation (“PD”). In
addition to receiving the Lucky Jack property, USECC became the owner of a
water
treatment plant which is attached to the property and thereby responsible for
the operation of the plant.
Maintaining
Mineral Properties
Uranium
Properties
The
agreement with UPC calls for UPC to fund 50% of the expenses associated with
maintaining the Sheep Mountain uranium properties in central Wyoming and five
other uranium projects and performing exploration drilling on them. A budget
of
$2.3 million for the year ending December 31, 2006 has been approved, relating
to reclamation work at the uranium properties, exploration drilling, geological
and engineering work, and other costs. UPC has also agreed to fund the first
$500,000 of all approved projects up to a total of $10,000,000 and has advanced
$613,600 against the 2006 approved budget. In the first half of 2006, a total
of
$568,500 was expended under these approved projects. The average care and
maintenance costs associated with the Sheep Mountain uranium mineral properties
in Wyoming is approximately $200,000 per year of which UPC is required to pay
50% annually.
-26-
Plateau
Resources Limited, Inc., Properties
Plateau
owns and maintains the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill (the “Shootaring Mill”).
In March 2005, Plateau filed an application with the State of Utah to restart
the Shootaring Mill. If management’s projections of placing the Shootaring Mill
into production hold, reclamation on the property is not anticipated to commence
until some time in 2033.
It
is
anticipated that $31 million will be required to modify the Shootaring Mill’s
tailings facility to the state of Utah standards and complete other mill
upgrades before production can begin. Additionally, a circuit to process
vanadium, which is contained in almost all of the mineralized material found
in
nearby properties, may be added to the Shootaring Mill. In order to fund the
refurbishment of the Shootaring Mill and acquire additional uranium properties
from which to produce uranium bearing ores, USECC is seeking joint venture
partners or equity participants. Once the State of Utah grants Plateau an
operating license for the Shootaring Mill, the bonding requirement will be
increased.
On
February 27, 2006, Plateau re-acquired, by Foreclosure Sale, the Ticaboo
townsite operations (“Ticaboo”) located in southern Utah near Lake Powell. The
Ticaboo property includes a motel, restaurant and lounge, convenience store,
recreational boat storage and service facility, and improved residential and
mobile home lots. On April 12, 2006, Plateau signed a contract with ARAMARK
Sports and Entertainment Services, Inc. for the management and operation of
Ticaboo. Initially, the Company will be responsible for capital up-grades to
the
Ticaboo properties, which are currently estimated to be approximately
$250,000.
Agreement
with Uranium Power Corp.
USECC
and
Uranium Power Corp. (“UPC”) signed an option agreement on May 11, 2006 to add
two new projects; the Green River North and the Green River South projects,
located in Emery County, Utah. USECC and UPC will hold equal interests in UPC’s
rights to earn 70% under the Initial Option, and another 15% under the
Additional Option, in the Green River South project. For the Initial Option,
UPC
will provide the first $500,000, and USECC will provide the second $500,000.
The
cash payment and the exploration and development commitment for the Additional
Option will be equally funded by UPC and USECC. For the UPC stock component
on
both the Initial Option and the Additional Option, USECC will pay UPC (in cash,
UPC stock, or the Company and USE stock) 50% of the lesser of (i) UPC’s stock
price at the time the stock is issued by UPC, and (ii) Cdn $1.00 per
share.
The
Green
River South project, previously known as the Sahara Property, was optioned
by
UPC from the Uranium Group (“UG”) pursuant to an Amended and Restated Option and
Joint Venture Agreement. Under this agreement, UPC has an option to earn a
70%
interest (the “Initial Option”) by making payments to UG of $585,000 and 200,000
shares of UPC stock and paying $1,365,000 for exploration and development
activities, all over the four years ending December 31, 2009. Until the Initial
Option is exercised, UPC will be solely responsible for paying property
maintenance costs. At any time after UPC has paid the full price for the Initial
Option (whether with the last installment on December 31, 2009, or earlier),
UPC
can earn a further 15% interest (the “Additional Option”) by paying UG an
additional $300,000, issuing to UG 400,000 more UPC shares, and spending an
additional $700,000 (over the year following exercise of the Additional Option)
on exploration and development work.
If
the
long term price of uranium oxide is below $20.00 per pound for four consecutive
weeks in any calendar year, the payments for that year will be reduced by 50%
and the balance deferred to the next year. If the uranium oxide price continues
below $20.00, (or recovers but then falls below $20.00 in one or more subsequent
years) the balance will be deferred to the next year or years after
2010.
-27-
After
exercise of the Initial Option (and the Additional Option, if exercised), UG
and
UPC will fund programs and budgets in proportion to their interests in the
property. A party’s interest will be reduced in proportion to its non-funding of
costs. If a party’s interest is reduced to 10% or less, its interest will be
converted to either a 10% net profits interest or a 2% gross income royalty.
At
such
time as the Initial Option is exercised, UPC is required to make available
to UG
a three year $1 million revolving loan (8% simple interest on outstanding
balance) for purposes of UG funding its obligations on the project.
UPC
(or
its designee) is the manager of the project, and will be entitled to
compensation (for reasonable management costs, not for profit) of not more
than
10% of direct costs associated with exploration activities, plus not more than
2% of direct costs associated with contract work related to development and
mining and the purchase of capital equipment. These percentages are subject
to
adjustment by the parties.
UPC
will
own a 50% interest in the Green River North project through its participation
in
the Mining Venture Agreement with USECC, consistent with UPC’s 50% participation
in the other uranium properties held by that joint venture.
Sutter
Gold Mining Inc. (SGMI) Properties
Sutter
Gold has initiated an 18,000 foot underground drilling program to delineate
the
currently drilled out property to further define the number of ounces available
for mining. The 2006 drill program will be divided between underground and
surface holes. The 24 hole underground step-out and infill drill program will
further define areas with significant mineralized material in six vein
structures at the southern end of the Comet zone. The underground drill stations
will be located at the end of the existing 2,850 foot decline. The 9 to 12
hole
surface drill program is to grid test an area containing what may be another
significant mineralized zone in the K5 Vein, historically mined on Sutter's
property at the South Spring Hill Mine. Historical records from this area of
the
K5 Vein reported that portions of the vein were mined with widths ranging from
8
to 70 feet from the mine's drifts and crosscuts.
The
estimated cost of these projects is $1.2 million during the balance of calendar
2006. Capital to fund these projects was obtained from private placements of
SGMI’s common stock. See Capital Resources above.
Lucky
Jack Molybdenum Project
USECC
re-acquired the Lucky Jack molybdenum project, formerly known as the Mt. Emmons
molybdenum property, located near Crested Butte, Colorado on February 28, 2006.
The property was returned to USECC by Phelps Dodge Corporation (“PD”) in
accordance with a 1987 Amended Royalty Deed and Agreement between USECC and
Amax
Inc. (“Amax”).
USECC
is
evaluating the possibilities of permitting and development of the property
and
is therefore now engaged in the active pursuit of a sizable mining industry
partner to co-develop and mine the property. In order to do so, USECC may have
to obtain a mine feasibility study which is estimated to cost approximately
$2.5
million. Of this total amount, it is anticipated by management that
approximately $1.0 million will be spent during the year ended December 31,
2006.
Conveyance
of the property by PD to USECC also included the transfer of ownership and
operational responsibility of the mine water treatment plant located on the
properties. Operating costs for the water treatment plant are expected to
approximate $1 million annually. In an effort to assure continued compliance,
USECC has retained the technical expert and contractor hired by PD on January
2,
2006 to operate the water treatment plant.
-28-
On
July
25, 2006 the U.S. District Court of Colorado awarded PD attorney fees and costs
in the amount of $3,223,047 and operational expenses for the water treatment
plant on the Lucky Jack molybdenum property in the amount of $4,315,293. The
total amount of the award is $7,538,340. The Company and Crested have determined
that they will appeal the decision of the U.S. District Court to the
10th
Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Company has reviewed FAS 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies”, and has determined that the likelihood of prevailing in the
appeal is reasonably possible. Although a completely accurate prediction can
not
be made of the ultimate outcome or timing of an appeal, the Company’s legal
expert in the matter believes that the Company will ultimately prevail in
overturning the U.S. District Court’s award of attorney fees and
costs.
Debt
Payments
Debt
to
non-related parties at June 30, 2006 was $1,399,100. This debt consists of
debt
related to the purchase of vehicles, a corporate aircraft and insurance
policies. The total amount of debt as of June 30, 2006 that will be paid during
the balance of 2006 is $294,200.
Reclamation
Costs
The
asset
retirement obligation on the Plateau uranium mineral properties and mill in
Utah
at June 30, 2006 was $3,847,200. This liability is fully funded by cash
investments that are recorded as long term restricted investments. It is
currently anticipated that the reclamation of the Plateau uranium mill will
not
commence until 2033.
The
asset
retirement obligation of the Sheep Mountain uranium properties in Wyoming at
June 30, 2006 is $2,413,600 and is covered by a reclamation bond which is
secured by a pledge of certain real estate assets of the Company and Crested.
It
is anticipated that $233,200 of reclamation work on the Sheep Mountain
properties will be performed during 2006.
The
asset
retirement obligation for SGMI at December 31, 2005 is $22,400 which is covered
by a cash bond. It is not anticipated that any cash resources will be used
for
asset retirement obligations at SGMI during the year ending December 31,
2006.
As
a
result or the re-acquisition of the Lucky Jack molybdenum property during the
six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recorded an asset retirement
obligation of $88,000 at June 30, 2006. It is not anticipated that this
reclamation work will occur in the near term.
Other
The
employees of the Company are not given raises on a regular basis. In
consideration of this and in appreciation of their work, board of directors
from
time to time has accepted the recommendation of the Compensation Committee
to
grant bonuses to employees and directors.
Results
of Operations
Six
months Ended June 30, 2006 compared with the Six Months Ended June 30,
2005
Operating
revenues were reduced by $200,000 to $324,900 at June 30, 2006 from $524,900
at
June 30, 2005. Components of this reduction of revenues were reductions in
real
estate operations of $54,400 and management fees of $145,600. Revenues from
real
estate operations decreased as a result of the Company selling one of its office
buildings which was no longer needed.
-29-
Mineral
property holding costs increased by $513,500 during the six months ended June
30, 2006 to $1,183,400 as compared to $669,900 during the six months ended
June
30, 2005. During the quarter ended June 30, 2006 mineral property holding costs
increased $305,300 over those recorded during the same quarter of 2005. The
increase is due to the increased geological and engineering activity on the
Company’s mineral properties and the holding costs associated with the Lucky
Jack molybdenum property and associated water treatment plant. The water
treatment plant costs approximately $100,000 per month to operate.
General
and Administrative expenses increased by $1,591,500 during the six months ended
June 30, 2006 over those recorded during the same six months of the prior year.
General and Administrative expenses for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 were
$207,200 higher than those recognized during the quarter ended June 30, 2005.
The increase of $1,591,500 during the six months ended June 30, 2006 over the
six months ended June 30, 2005 was as a result of non-cash expenditures of:
(1)the expensing of employee options pursuant to SFAS 123(R) which will vest
on
July 1, 2006, $273,600; (2) accrual of the executive retirement benefits adopted
in October 2005, $141,900; (3) expensing the value of the extension of warrants
to non affiliates of $484,700; along with cash expenditures of: (a) the
settlement of litigation, $395,000; and (b) repairs to the Company’s airplane
$353,700. These increases were partially offset by reductions in professional
services related to financings which were completed during the six months ended
June 30, 2005 as well as bonuses which were paid during the six months ended
June 30, 2005 to employees and directors at the conclusion of the sale of RMG.
No similar expenses were recorded during the six months ended June 30, 2006.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recognized $2,823,500 from
the
sale of assets while during the six months ended June 30, 2005 the Company
only
recognized $9,500 from the sale of assets. This increase of $2,814,000 was
primarily due to the receipt of $1,975,000 from UPC along with 1,500,000 shares
of UPC common stock valued at $677,700; the sale of a no longer needed office
building, $126,500 and the sale of miscellaneous equipment, $50,900.
During
the six months ended June 30, 2006 the Company recognized a non-cash loss of
$630,900 from the valuation of the imbedded derivative associated with the
Acquisitions Class D shares discussed above under Capital Resources. Further
the
Company recorded a non-cash loss of $3,845,800 due to the depressed price of
the
Enterra units at the time that the Acquisitions Class D shares were exchanged
for units of Enterra along with management’s decision to sell the Enterra units
during the third and fourth quarters of 2006. During the six months ended June
30, 2005 the Company recorded a non-cash gain from the valuation of the imbedded
derivative of $3,466,400.
Interest
revenues increased by $59,600 during the six months ended June 30, 2006 and
by
$63,200 during the quarter ended June 30, 2006 over those amounts of interest
revenues recorded during the same periods of calendar 2005. The reason for
the
increase in interest revenues is larger sums of cash being invested for longer
periods of time during 2006. Interest expense decreased during the six months
ended June 30, 2006 by $3,574,900 and a similar amount during the quarter ended
June 30, 2006 from those amounts of interest expense recorded during 2005.
The
reason for the decrease in interest expense is that there were no major
financing activities with prepaid interest and attached warrants during the
first six months of 2006 while there were such financings during the first
six
months of 2005.
During
the six and three months ended June 30, 2006, the Company recognized losses
of
$7,346,000 or $0.40 per share and $6,236,200 or $0.34 per share respectively
as
compared to gains of $12,304,000 or $0.83 per share and $13,902,500 or $0.88
per
share respectively for the periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005. Operations
for
the six and three months ended June 30, 2005 resulted in gains as a result
of
the sale of RMG. No similar sales occurred during the six months ended June
20,
2006.
-30-
Six
Months Ended June 30, 2005 compared with the Six Months Ended June 30,
2004
During
the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 the only revenues recorded
by the Company were from real estate operations and management fees charged
for
management services provided for various subsidiary companies and fees
associated with the management of three oil wells in Montana which are owned
by
the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. Also included in management fees are revenues
received from UPC during the six months ended June 30, 2005 in the amount of
$175,000. The payment of cash from UPC is classified as management fees because
title to the properties, which have no book basis, is retained by the Company
and Crested until UPC makes all the contractually scheduled payments of cash
and
stock. The receipt of the funds from UPC is the primary reason that management
revenues increased by $197,500 during the six months ended June 30, 2005 when
compared with management revenues recognized during the six months ended June
30, 2004. Other increases in management fee revenues for the six and three
months ended June 30, 2004 and 2005 are as a result of increased activity at
the
subsidiary companies.
Costs
and
expenses incurred in operations during the six and three months ended June
30,
2005 increased $1,088,300 and $1,138,200 respectively over the costs and
expenses recognized from operations during the comparative periods of the prior
year. Expenses from real estate operations remained constant during the six
and
three months ended June 30, 2005 when compared with those recorded during the
six and three months ended June 30, 2004. Mineral holding costs decreased during
both the six and three months ended June 30, 2005 by $166,300 and $70,000
respectively. These decreases were as a result of holding costs at both the
uranium properties in Wyoming and Utah as well as those at the California gold
mine being reduced due to cost cutting measures.
General
and administrative costs and expenses increased by $1,257,000 during the six
months ended June 30, 2005 when compared to the general and administrative
costs
and expenses recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2004. The general
and administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2005 also
increased by $1,201,200 over those recognized during the quarter ended June
30,
2004. The primary reasons for these increases were; costs associated with a
$4,000,000 convertible debt financing in February of 2005 - commissions of
$280,000, legal fees of $20,000 along with $114,500 of expenses recorded for
the
issuance of warrants granted to seven accredited investors; $160,600 in expenses
for legal and accounting services to comply with Sarbanes Oxley; increased
activity levels at Sutter which increased general and administrative costs
and
expenses by $70,000; and a bonus paid to directors, officers and employees
of
the Company after the close of the sale of RMG to Enterra.
One
outside director of RMG was paid a bonus of $10,000 and another RMG director
was
paid a bonus of $5,000 for their work on the development of RMG, and the four
outside directors of USE were paid $5,000 each for a total bonus to the
directors of $35,000. The employees were paid a total bonus of $435,750 at
the
close of the sale of RMG. All employees of the Company and USE participated
in
the bonus which was paid at the close of the sale of RMG. The bonus was paid
in
consideration for the dedicated work put forth by the employees in the
development of RMG and due to the fact that many of the employees have not
received increases in compensation for a number of years.
Officers
of the Company, USE and RMG received the following bonuses: Mark Larsen,
President of RMG $140,000, officers of the Company and USE - Keith Larsen and
Scott Lorimer $40,000 each, and John L. Larsen, Daniel P. Svilar and Harold
F.
Herron $20,000 each. In addition to these Officers, Mr. Steve Youngbauer who
serves as Assistant General Counsel to Mr. Svilar, received a bonus of $40,000.
There were two additional members of John L. Larsen’s family who received
bonuses for a total compensation amount of bonuses to Mr. Larsen’s family of
$226,000. The total amount paid in bonuses to the directors, officers and
employees for extraordinary work in closing the Enterra purchase of RMG was
$470,750 which represents 2.5% of the total consideration received by the
Company and its affiliates from the sale of RMG to Enterra.
-31-
During
the six and three months ended June 30, 2005 other income and expenses resulted
in a loss of $152,000 and $294,200. Both these decreases are primarily the
result of reduced gains on the sales of investments and significant increases
in
interest expense.
Interest
expense increased from $235,500 during the six months ended June 30, 2004 by
$3,396,500 to $3,632,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2005. Interest
expense during the quarter ended June 30, 2005 increased by a similar amount,
$3,309,500, over the amount of interest expense recorded during the quarter
ended June 30, 2004. The reason of these increases in interest expense is
related directly to the senior convertible debentures which were issued in
February 2005 in the amount of $4,000,000 with $720,000 of prepaid interest.
(Please see Capital Resources above). As discussed above, only $268,000 in
principal and $48,400 in interest remained outstanding at June 30, 2005. The
payment of the interest of $671,600 plus the amortization of virtually all
of
the discount taken for the issuance of warrants in the amount of $1,016,700
and
the amortization of the beneficial conversion feature associated with the
convertible debenture in the amount of $1,640,500 during the six and three
months ended June 30, 2005 were the primary factors which resulted in the
increase in interest expense.
All
previously reported operations of RMG are reported in this filing as
discontinued operations. The gain on sale of discontinued operations at June
30,
2005 was $15,721,600 along with a loss from discontinued operations of RMG
of
$326,100. The total gain from discontinued operations therefore is $15,395,500
for the six months ended June 30, 2005. The gain on sale of discontinued
operations for the three months ended June 30, 2005 was $15,271,600. No loss
from discontinued operations was recorded during the quarter ended June 31,
2005
as the sale of RMG was effective April 1, 2005 which resulted in no operations
during the quarter ended June 30, 2005. There are no discontinued operations
for
the three months ended June 30, 2005 as a result of the Enterra transaction
having an effective date of April 1, 2005.
After
a
provision of alternative minimum taxes due in income recognized during the
six
months ended June 30, 2005 the Company recognized a net gain of $12,304,000
or
$0.83 per share basic as compared to a net loss of $3,384,200 or $0.27 per
share
basic for the six months ended June 30, 2004. During the quarter ended June
30,
2005 the Company recognized a net gain of $13,902,500 or $0. 88 per share basic
as compared to a net loss of $1,609,200 or $0.13 per share basic.
Contractual
Obligations
The
Company has two divisions of contractual obligations as of June 30, 2006: debt
to third parties of $1,399,100, and asset retirement obligations of $6,411,500
which will be paid over a period more than five years. The following table
shows
the schedule of the payments on the debt, and the expenditures for budgeted
asset retirement obligations.
|
|
Less
|
|
One
to
|
|
Three
to
|
|
More
than
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
than
one
|
|
Three
|
|
Five
|
|
Five
|
|
|||||
|
|
Total
|
|
Year
|
|
Years
|
|
Years
|
|
Years
|
||||||
Long-term
debt obligations
|
$
|
1,399,100
|
$
|
294,200
|
$
|
1,031,900
|
$
|
73,000
|
-
|
|||||||
Other
long-term liabilities
|
6,371,200
|
233,200
|
430,600
|
2,099,800
|
3,607,600
|
|||||||||||
Totals
|
$
|
7,770,300
|
$
|
527,400
|
$
|
1,462,500
|
$
|
2,172,800
|
$
|
3,607,600
|
||||||
-32-
Subsequent
Events
Exclusivity
Agreement for potential sale of uranium properties
On
July
10, 2006, USECC signed an Exclusivity Agreement with sxr Uranium One Inc.
(“Uranium One” or “SXR”), which is headquartered in Toronto, Canada with offices
in South Africa and Australia (TSE and JSE “SXR”). Upon signing the Exclusivity
Agreement, the Term Sheet (signed by Uranium One, and by USE and Crested on
June
22, 2006) became effective. The Term Sheet sets forth the indicative terms
of a
proposed sale of the majority of USE and Crested’s uranium assets to Uranium
One.
Under
the
terms of the Exclusivity Agreement, Uranium One paid USECC $750,000
(nonrefundable, except for material breach of the Exclusivity Agreement) for
the
exclusive right to purchase the USECC uranium assets, including the Shootaring
Canyon uranium mill in southeast Utah (and all geological libraries and other
intellectual property related to the acquired assets and the mill), for a period
of up to 270 days (an initial six month period, plus an optional three month
extension). During this time, the parties will prepare definitive acquisition
agreements. Subject to satisfactory results on Uranium One’s due diligence
review and obtaining all required approvals associated with the sale and
purchase of the assets, the definitive agreements will be signed and the sale
closed as soon as possible.
The
Exclusivity Agreement provides that when the assets acquisition is closed,
Uranium One will reimburse USECC for those expenses which have been pre-approved
by Uranium One.
Under
the
Term Sheet, Uranium One has the right to purchase the assets under the following
terms:
· |
$49,250,000
in Uranium One common stock at a set price at closing (the set price
is
the volume weighted average price of Uranium One stock for the 10
days
prior to signing the Exclusivity Agreement, which is $7.45 per share).
This represents the $50 million portion, less the cash paid for the
Exclusivity Agreement.
|
· |
$20
million in cash upon the start of commercial operation of the Shootaring
Canyon uranium mill.
|
· |
$7.5
million in cash upon the first delivery of mineralized material to
a
commercial uranium mill from any of the purchased properties that
are
subject to the Agreement.
|
· |
A
cash royalty equivalent to 5% of the revenues derived from the sales
value
of any commodity produced from the Shootaring Canyon uranium mill,
to a
maximum royalty payment of $12.5
million.
|
USECC
holds a 4% net profits interest on Rio Tinto’s Jackpot uranium property located
on Green Mountain in Wyoming. This interest will not be included in the
agreement to sell uranium assets to SXR. SXR has announced that it may acquire
the Sweetwater mill and the Green Mountain properties from Rio Tinto, separate
from the proposed transaction with USECC.
-33-
Litigation
with Phelps Dodge
On
July
25, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered
an order granting a motion for attorney fees and costs in favor of Phelps Dodge
Corporation and Mt. Emmons Mining Company. A hearing on the motion was held
on
July 20, 2006. The motion was made in the case of Phelps
Dodge Corporation and Mt. Emmons Mining Company v. U.S. Energy Corp. and Crested
Corp
(Civil
Cases No. 02-cv-00796-LTB-PAC), subsequent to the plaintiffs (Phelps Dodge
Corporation and Mt. Emmons Mining Company) prevailing in a declaratory judgment
action against U.S. Energy Corp. and Crested Corp. regarding the parties’ rights
related to molybdenum properties located near Crested Butte, Colorado (the
“Mt.
Emmons properties”). The court had entered an order in the declaratory judgment
action on February 4, 2005. As a result of that earlier order, U.S. Energy
Corp.
and Crested Corp. have taken title to the subject mineral properties with an
existing water treatment plant located thereon.
The
court
ordered that U.S. Energy Corp and Crested Corp. pay Phelps Dodge for (i)
attorney fees and costs of $3,223,047; plus (ii) operations expenses of
$4,315,293for the Mt. Emmons properties (including costs for Phelps Dodge to
operate the water treatment plant for the period from July 2002 through August
2005). The total amount of the award is $7,538,340 and 5 ½% interest on the
outstanding judgment amount.
The
Company and Crested have determined that they will appeal the decision of the
U.S. District Court to the 10th
Court of
Appeals.
Patent
Mining Claims at Lucky Jack Molybdenum Project
United
States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmation of Lower Court Dismissal
of
Challenges to Mt. Emmons Patents.
On July
21, 2006, the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “10th
CCA”)
affirmed the January 12, 2005 United States District Court for the District
of
Colorado dismissal of challenges to the issuance of mining patents (by the
United States Bureau of Land Management) on certain of the properties comprising
the Mt. Emmons properties, to Phelps Dodge Corporation and Mt. Emmons Mining
Company. The case is High
Country Citizen’s Alliance, Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, and The Board of
County Commissioners of the County of Gunnison, Colorado v. Kathleen Clarke,
Director of the Bureau of Land Management et. al., Gale Norton, Secretary of
Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior; Phelps Dodge Corporation; Mt. Emmons
Mining Company
(the
10th
CCA case
number is D.C. No. 04-MK-749PAC).
The
subject patents (and adjacent properties) are held by U.S. Energy Corp. and
Crested Corp. For further information on the Mt. Emmons property, and the
background of this litigation (to which neither U.S. Energy Corp. nor Crested
Corp. have been parties), please see the Form 10-Ks for the year ended December
31, 2005 filed by U.S. Energy Corp. and Crested Corp.
ITEM
3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk
Risk
Factors
The
following risk factors should be considered in evaluating the information in
this Form 10-Q.
As
noted
above, Pinnacle filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission relating to sales of its common stock. This registration statement
has not yet become effective. USECC owns 9.8% of the outstanding common stock
of
Pinnacle; and is participating in the public offering. The cash the Company
can
realize from this investment presently is not determinable.
-34-
The
Company has a history of operating losses, and our working capital needs have
primarily come from the receipt of funds from liquidating investments and
selling equity. These sources of capital may not be sufficient to develop our
mineral properties, none of which have proved reserves.
Cash
on
hand and future receipt of proceeds from liquidating the Enterra units are
expected to be adequate to fund the Company’s portion of the cost of a bond
needed to appeal the judgment relating to the PD judgment. USECC is seeking
financing sources or large-company industry partners for our gold and molybdenum
properties, but have not entered into final agreements therefore. USECC has
successfully negotiated an Exclusivity Agreement with SXR to sell a majority
of
their uranium assets. The development of some or all of the properties likely
will be delayed to the extent and for so long as USECC is unsuccessful in
obtaining financing, either in direct capital or through arrangements with
industry partners.
Uncertainties
in the value of the mineral properties.
While
USECC believes that their mineral properties are valuable, substantial work
and
capital will be needed to establish whether they are valuable in
fact.
· |
In
the event that SXR does not purchase the uranium assets owned by
USECC, we
will have to continue to pursue an equity or industry partner to
assist in
the development of the properties. Profitability of the uranium properties
will depend on several factors which include continued sustained
higher
prices for uranium oxide, :, we need to maintain cost controls at
the
Shootaring Uranium property in Southern Utah on the mining, transportation
and milling of ores and successfully finance and commence refurbishment
of
the mill.. Additionally we may need to either acquire additional
mineral
properties in the vicinity of the Shootaring mill or acquire ore
from
contract miners in the area.
|
· |
The
profitable mining and processing of gold by Sutter Gold Mining Inc.
will
depend on many factors, including compliance with permit conditions;
delineation through extensive drilling and sampling of sufficient
volumes
of mineralized material, with sufficient grades, to make mining and
processing economic over time; continued sustained high prices for
gold;
and obtaining the capital required to initiate and sustain mining
operations and build and operate a gold processing
mill.
|
· |
The
Lucky Jack molybdenum property has had extensive work conducted by
prior
owners, but this data will have to be updated to the level of a current
feasibility study to determine the viability of starting mining
operations. Obtaining mining and other permits to begin mining the
molybdenum property may be very difficult, and, like any mining operation,
capital requirements for a molybdenum mine/mill operation will be
substantial. There is a history of opposition by local government
entities
and environmental organizations to the prior owners seeking permits
to
mine this property. This opposition has been expressed in litigation
from
time to time. Continued legal challenges may delay putting the Lucky
Jack
Project into production.
|
-35-
· |
USECC
has not yet obtained feasibility studies on any of our mineral properties.
These studies would establish the economic viability, or not, of
the
different properties based on extensive drilling and sampling, the
design
and costs to build and operate gold and uranium/vanadium mills, the
cost
of capital, and other factors. Feasibility studies can take many
months to
complete. These studies are conducted by professional third party
consulting and engineering firms, and will have to be completed,
at
considerable cost, to determine if the deposits contain proved reserves
(amounts of minerals in sufficient grades that can be extracted profitably
under current pricing assumptions for development and operating costs
and
commodity prices). A feasibility study usually must be completed
in order
to raise the substantial capital needed to put a property into production.
USECC has not established any reserves (economic deposits of mineralized
materials) on any of our molybdenum, uranium/vanadium, or gold properties,
and future studies may indicate that some or all of the properties
will
not be economic to put into production.
|
Compliance
with environmental regulations may be costly.
Our
business is intensely regulated by government agencies. Permits are required
to
explore for minerals, operate mines, build and operate processing plants. The
regulations under which permits are issued change from time to time to reflect
changes in public policy or scientific understanding of issues. If the economics
of a project cannot withstand the cost of complying with changed regulations,
USECC might decide not to move forward with the project.
The
Company must comply with numerous environmental regulations on a continuous
basis, to comply with the United States: Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act ("CERCLA"). For example,
water
and dust discharged from mines and tailings from prior mining or milling
operations must be monitored and contained and reports filed with federal,
state
and county regulatory authorities. Additional monitoring and reporting is
required by the Utah Division of Radiation Control for uranium mills even if
not
currently operating (like the Shootaring Mill near Ticaboo, Utah). The Abandoned
Mine Reclamation Act in Wyoming and similar laws in other states where USECC
has
properties, impose reclamation obligations on abandoned mining properties,
in
addition to or in conjunction with federal statutes. Environmental regulatory
programs create potential liability for our operations, and may result in
requirements to perform environmental investigations or corrective actions
under
federal and state laws and federal and state Superfund
requirements.
Failure
to comply with these regulations could result in substantial fines,
environmental remediation orders and/or potential shut down of the project until
compliance is achieved. Failure to timely obtain required permits to start
operations at a project could cause delay and/or the failure of the project
resulting in a potential write-off of the investments therein.
Possible
Dilution to Shareholders.
Because
the Company does not have enough capital to put our properties into production,
shareholders may be diluted in their ownership if the Company raises capital.
Direct dilution would occur if the Company sells preferred stock, common stock,
or debt, convertible into common stock, with conversion and other terms which
large institutions can negotiate for substantial capital financings which result
in more favorable terms than buying stock in the market. Indirect dilution
would
occur if institutional financing is raised for a subsidiary company. In this
scenario, the percentage of the subsidiary held by us would be
diluted.
-36-
ITEM
4. Controls and Procedures
Management
of the Company, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief
Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), has evaluated the
effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as defined
in
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) as of
the end of the period covered by this Report. Based upon that evaluation,
management has concluded that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures
are effective to ensure that information it is required to disclose in reports
that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act is communicated
to
management, including the CEO and CFO, as appropriate to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure and is recorded, processed, summarized and
reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and
forms.
During
the six months covered by this Report, there have been no significant changes
in
internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or
are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
-37-
PART
II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM
1. Legal
Proceedings
Material
proceedings pending at June 30, 2006, and developments in those proceedings
from
that date to the date this Report was filed, are summarized below. The legal
status of the legal proceedings, which were pending during the year has either
not changed, been settled or is otherwise immaterial.
Sheep
Mountain Partners Arbitration/Litigation
On
May
15, 2006, the Arbitration Panel (“Panel”) in the Nukem and Sheep Mountain
Partners (“SMP”) case issued a Clarification of the Arbitration Award as to the
Constructive Trust as a result of the remand to the Panel by the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to the Order of the
10th
Circuit
Court of Appeals.
The
Constructive Trust has been the subject of numerous proceedings in the U.S.
District Court of Colorado and three appeals to the 10th
Circuit
Court of Appeals. As a result of these proceedings, the U.S. District Court
entered an Order and Judgment in favor of USECC and against Nukem on July 30,
2003 for an additional $20,044,200. In Nukem’s third appeal, the 10th
Circuit
reversed this Order and Judgment and remanded the case to the Panel for
clarification of the Constructive Trust.
In
the
Remand Hearing before the Panel, Nukem was also seeking a judgment against
USECC
for over four million dollars claiming an overpayment of the damage award,
plus
attorney’s fees, costs and expenses. USECC asked the Panel to impress the
Constructive Trust on four CIS Contracts in favor of SMP concurrent with the
expiration dates of the contracts. In its Clarification of the Arbitration
Award, the Panel denied both Nukem’s and USECC’s claims. The Panel held that the
Constructive Trust was intended to secure the payment of the original damage
award and it was extinguished upon Nukem’s payment of that damage award to
USECC.
Phelps
Dodge Corporation Litigation
On
October 31, 2005, PD filed a motion with the District Court to recover
attorney’s fees and expenses in the declaratory judgment action against USECC.
PD claimed $4,050,200 in attorney’s fees and expenses and $3,692,100 in costs
incurred for the operation of the water treatment plant for the last three
years. These claims were not part of the initial litigation with PD. USECC
filed
a response with the Court denying that USECC owes PD such monies.
A
hearing
on PD’s motion for attorney’s fees and cost was held on July 20, 2006. On July
25, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered
an order granting a motion for attorney fees and costs in favor of Phelps Dodge
Corporation and Mt. Emmons Mining Company.
The
court
ordered that the Company and Crested pay Phelps Dodge $7,538,340for (i) attorney
fees and costs of $3,223,047; plus (ii) operations expenses of $4,315,293for
the
Mt. Emmons properties (including costs for Phelps Dodge to operate the water
treatment plant for the period from July 2002 through August 2005). The Company
and Crested have determined that they will appeal the decision of the U.S.
District Court to the 10th
Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Company has reviewed FAS 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies”, and has determined that the likelihood of prevailing in the
appeal is reasonably possible. Although a completely accurate prediction can
not
be made of the ultimate outcome or timing of an appeal, the Company’s legal
expert in the matter believes that the Company will ultimately prevail in
overturning the U.S. District Court’s award of attorney fees and
costs.
-38-
United
States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmation of Lower Court Dismissal
of
Challenges to Mt. Emmons Patents.
On
July
21, 2006, the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “10th
CCA”)
affirmed the January 12, 2005 United States District Court for the District
of
Colorado dismissal of challenges to the issuance of mining patents (by the
United States Bureau of Land Management) on certain of the properties comprising
the Mt. Emmons properties, to Phelps Dodge Corporation and Mt. Emmons Mining
Company. The case is High
Country Citizen’s Alliance, Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, and The Board of
County Commissioners of the County of Gunnison, Colorado v. Kathleen Clarke,
Director of the Bureau of Land Management et. al., Gale Norton, Secretary of
Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior; Phelps Dodge Corporation; Mt. Emmons
Mining Company
(the
10th
CCA case
number is D.C. No. 04-MK-749PAC).
The
subject patents (and adjacent properties) are held by U.S. Energy Corp. and
Crested Corp. For further information on the Mt. Emmons property, and the
background of this litigation (to which neither U.S. Energy Corp. nor Crested
Corp. have been parties), please see the Form 10-Ks for the year ended December
31, 2005 filed by U.S. Energy Corp. and Crested Corp.
Coastline
Capital Partners
On
May
16, 2005, Coastline Capital Partners (“Coastline”) filed a complaint against the
Company in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, Case No. 05-CV-0143-J for breach
of contract. Coastline claimed that a partial performance fee of $75,000 plus
Company equity warrants were due Coastline for a private placement that was
unsuccessful. The parties agreed to submit this matter to binding arbitration
and that any award to Coastline for damages by the arbitrator would be limited
to a minimum of $115,000 and a maximum of $395,000, with specific performance
of
the contract not allowed.
On
June
12, 2006, the Company received the Final Arbitration Award from the Arbitrator
in the litigation initiated by Coastline. The Arbitrator found in favor of
the
plaintiff for recovery of partial performance fees related to a breach of
contract claim, related to an engagement letter and various transactions in
2004. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties setting the lower and upper
limits of recovery from arbitration, the Company paid $395,000 to Coastline.
Upon
payment, the dispute was fully resolved and was dismissed with prejudice by
the
parties.
Plateau
Resources Ltd.
Christian
Murer vs. Plateau Resources Limited, Inc.
On
May
11, 2006, Christian F. Murer (“Murer”) filed a lawsuit against Plateau in the
United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division (Case Number
2:06cv00393 BSJ) claiming that: 1) Plateau was required to deliver certain
geological and engineering data for some unpatented mining claims located in
Utah pursuant to an April 8, 1977 agreement between Murer and Century 21 Mining,
Inc. and 2) that Murer will be economically damaged by the differential in
royalty payments he would otherwise receive under an agreement with IUC
Exploration LLC on August 31, 2005. Murer is seeking specific performance and
damages. Plateau has retained Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless of Salt
Lake City, Utah to represent Plateau in the case. An answer to the complaint
was
filed on June 8, 2006. Management of Plateau does not believe that it is
obligated to provide the geological and engineering data to Murer or that it
owes Mr. Murer damages.
-39-
ITEM
2. Changes in Securities and Use of Proceeds
During
the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company issued a total of 483,946 shares
of its common stock. These shares were issued pursuant to the exercise of
warrants, 221,400 shares; employee options, 159,476 shares; the 2001 stock
compensation plan, 30,000 shares; shares issued to outside directors for
services rendered, 3,140 and the issuance of shares in connection with the
Cornell SEDA, 69,930.
ITEM
3. Defaults
Upon Senior Securities
Not
Applicable
ITEM
4. Submission
of Matter to a Vote of Shareholders
On
June
23, 2006, the annual meeting of shareholders was held for the election of two
directors. Keith G. Larsen and John L. Larsen were elected for a term expiring
on the third succeeding annual meeting and until their successor is duly elected
or appointed and qualified. With respect to the election of the directors,
the
votes cast were as follows:
Name
of Director
|
Votes
For
|
Abstain
|
||
Keith
G. Larsen
|
15,923,436
|
1,280,607
|
||
John
L. Larsen
|
15,922,591
|
1,281,452
|
The
Company's board consists of seven members being Messrs. Don C. Anderson, Michael
Feinstein, H. Russell Fraser, Michael T. Anderson, John L. Larsen, Keith G.
Larsen, and Harold F. Herron.
The
shareholders also voted on three additional items:
Votes
For
|
Votes
Against
|
Abstain
|
||||
Amendment
of the Articles of Incorporation to Allow Shareholders to Remove
Directors
Only for Cause
|
5,822,094
|
1,768,550
|
26,428
|
Votes
For
|
Votes
Against
|
Abstain
|
||||
To
comply with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4350(i)(1)(D), approve the issuance
of
more than 3,726,400 shares of common stock in connection with the
transaction with Cornell Capital Partners, LP (“Cornell”), comprised of :
3,556,470 shares of common stock to Cornell pursuant to the Standby
Equity
Distribution Agreement, plus 100,000 shares of common stock on exercise
of
a stock purchase warrant held by Cornell, plus 1,000,000 shares of
common
stock on exercise of milestone stock purchase warrants (as such milestone
warrants may be issued to Cornell; plus 68,531 shares already issued
to
Cornell; plus 1,399 shares already issued to Newbridge Securities
Corporation.
|
5,805,671
|
1,713,100
|
98,301
|
|||
Votes
For
|
Votes
Against
|
Abstain
|
||||
Appoint
Epstein, Weber and Conover, PLC as Independent Auditors for
2006
|
16,609,830
|
575,764
|
18,449
|
-40-
ITEM
5. Other
Information
Not
Applicable
ITEM
6. Exhibits
and Reports on Form 8-K
(a)
|
Exhibits.
|
||
31.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-15(e) / Rule
15d-15(e)
|
||
31.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule
15(e)/15d-15(e)
|
||
32.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
||
32.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
||
(b)
|
Reports
on Form 8-K.
The Company filed 8 reports on Form 8-K for the quarter ended June
30,
2006. The events reported were as follows:
|
||
1.
|
The
report filed on April 13, 2006, under Item 1.01 referenced the April
11,
2006 Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (“SEDA”) with Cornell Capital
Partners, LP.
|
||
2.
|
The
report filed on May 9, 2006, under Item 1.01 referenced the termination
of
the April 11, 2006 SEDA and a new SEDA executed on May 5, 2006 with
Cornell Capital Partners, LP.
|
||
3.
|
The
report filed on May 12, 2006, under Item 8.01 referenced the May
9, 2006
agreement with Uranium Power Corp. on two new uranium
projects.
|
||
4.
|
The
report filed on May 19, 2006, under Item 8.01 referenced the receipt
of
the May 15, 2006 Clarification of the Arbitration Award in the Nukem
litigation.
|
||
5.
|
The
report filed on May 31, 2006, under Item 8.01 referenced the $3 million
(Cdn) private placement for Sutter Gold Mining, Inc.
|
||
6.
|
The
report filed on June 8, 2006, under Item 8.01 referenced the May
15 and
June 5, 2006 amendments to the SEDA with Cornell Capital Partners,
LP
|
||
7.
|
The
report filed on June 15, 2006, under Item 8.01 referenced the June
12,
2006 Final Arbitration Award in the Arbitration with Coastline Capital
Partners
|
||
8.
|
The
report filed on June 26, 2006, under Item 8.01 referenced the results
of
the June 23, 2006 Annual Shareholders
Meeting.
|
-41-
SIGNATURES
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company has
duly
caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, there unto
duly authorized.
U.S.
ENERGY CORP.
|
||||
(Company)
|
||||
Date:
August 11, 2006
|
By:
|
/s/
Keith G. Larsen
|
||
KEITH
G. LARSEN,
|
||||
Chairman
and CEO
|
||||
Date:
August 11, 2006
|
By:
|
/s/
Robert Scott Lorimer
|
||
ROBERT
SCOTT LORIMER
|
||||
Principal
Financial Officer and
|
||||
Chief
Accounting Officer
|
-42-