Legal, Regulatory and Market Risks

We are currently involved in ongoing legal disputes that may materially adversely affect us.

There are several ongoing legal disputes in which we are involved, and additional actions may be filed against us. We may be subject to future claims, including those relating to environmental damage, safety conditions at our mines, and other matters. The outcomes of these pending and potential claims are uncertain. We may not resolve these claims favorably. Depending on the outcome, these actions could cause adverse financial effects or reputational harm to us. If any of these disputes result in a substantial monetary judgment against us, are settled on terms in excess of our current accruals, or otherwise impact our operations, our financial results or condition could be materially adversely affected. For a description of some of the lawsuits and other claims in which we are involved, see Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

We are required to obtain governmental permits and other approvals in order to conduct mining operations.

In the ordinary course of business, mining companies are required to seek governmental permits and other approvals for continuation or expansion of existing operations or for the commencement of new operations. Obtaining the necessary governmental permits is a complex, time-consuming and costly process. The duration and success of our efforts to obtain permits are contingent upon many variables not within our control. Obtaining environmental permits, including the approval of reclamation plans, may increase costs and cause delays or halt the continuation of mining operations depending on the nature of the activity to be permitted and the interpretation of applicable requirements implemented by the permitting authority. Interested parties including governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations or civic groups may seek to prevent issuance of permits and intervene in the process or pursue extensive appeal rights. Past or ongoing violations of laws or regulations involving obtaining or complying with permits could provide a basis to revoke existing permits, deny the issuance of additional permits, or commence a regulatory enforcement action, each of which could have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial condition. In addition, evolving reclamation or environmental concerns may threaten our ability to renew existing permits or obtain new permits in connection with future development, expansions and operations. There can be no assurance that all necessary approvals and permits will be obtained and, if obtained, that the costs involved will not exceed those that we previously estimated. It is possible that the costs and delays associated with the compliance with such standards and regulations could become such that we would not proceed with a particular development or operation.   We are often required to post surety bonds or cash collateral to secure our reclamation obligations and we may be unable to obtain the required surety bonds or may not have the resources to provide cash collateral, and the bonds or collateral may not fully cover the cost of reclamation and any such shortfall could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.

We face substantial governmental regulation, including the Mine Safety and Health Act, various environmental laws and regulations and the 1872 Mining Law.

Our business is subject to extensive U.S. and foreign federal, state and local laws and regulations governing environmental protection, natural resources, prospecting, development, production, post-closure reclamation, taxes, labor standards and occupational health and safety laws and regulations, including mine safety, toxic substances and other matters. The costs associated with compliance with such laws and regulations are substantial. Possible future laws and regulations, or more restrictive interpretations of current laws and regulations by governmental authorities, could cause additional expense, capital expenditures, restrictions on or suspensions of operations and delays in the development of new properties.

U.S. surface and underground mines like the Lucky Friday and Greens Creek mines are continuously inspected by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), which inspections often lead to notices of violation under the Mine Safety and Health Act. Any of our U.S. mines could be subject to a temporary or extended shutdown as a result of a violation alleged by MSHA.

In addition, we have been and are currently involved in lawsuits or regulatory actions in which we have been accused of causing environmental damage, violating environmental laws, or violating environmental permits, and we may be subject to similar lawsuits or actions in the future. Moreover, such environmental matters have involved both our current and historical operations as well as the historical operations of entities and properties we have acquired. See the risk factors below titled " Our operations are subject to complex, evolving and increasingly stringent environmental laws and regulations," "Compliance with environmental regulations, and litigation based on such regulations, involves significant costs and can threaten existing operations or constrain expansion opportunities ," and "Our environmental obligations may exceed the provisions we have made."

There can be no assurance that we will at all times be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and permitting requirements. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and permitting requirements may result in lawsuits or regulatory actions, including orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities causing operations to cease or be curtailed, which may require corrective measures including capital expenditures, installation of additional equipment or remedial actions. Any one or more of these liabilities could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition.

In addition to existing regulatory requirements, legislation and regulations may be adopted, regulatory procedures modified, or permit limits reduced at any time, any of which could result in additional exposure to liability, operating expense, capital expenditures or restrictions and delays in the mining, production or development of our properties. Mining accidents and fatalities or toxic waste releases, whether or not at our mines or related to metals mining, may increase the likelihood of additional regulation or changes in law or enhanced regulatory scrutiny. In addition, enforcement or regulatory tools and methods available to regulatory bodies such as MSHA or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which have not been or have infrequently been used against us or the mining industry, in the future could be used against us or the industry in general.

From time to time, the U.S. Congress considers proposed amendments to the 1872 Mining Law, which governs mining claims and related activities on federal lands. The extent of any future changes is not known and the potential impact on us as a result of U.S. Congressional action is difficult to predict. Changes to the 1872 Mining Law, if adopted, could adversely affect our ability to economically develop mineral reserves on federal lands. Although we are not currently mining on federal land, we do explore, and future mining could occur, on federal land.

Our operations are subject to complex, evolving and increasingly stringent environmental laws and regulations. Compliance with environmental regulations, and litigation based on such regulations, involves significant costs and can threaten existing operations or constrain expansion opportunities.

Our operations, both in the United States and internationally, are subject to extensive environmental laws and regulations governing wastewater discharges; remediation, restoration and reclamation of environmental contamination; the generation, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances; solid waste disposal; air emissions; protection of endangered and protected species and designation of critical habitats; mine closures and reclamation; and other related matters. In addition, we must obtain regulatory permits and approvals to start, continue and expand operations.

New or revised environmental regulatory requirements are frequently proposed, many of which result in substantially increased costs for our business. See the risk factor below, " Mine closure and reclamation regulations impose substantial costs on our operations, and include requirements that we provide financial assurance supporting those obligations. These costs could significantly increase ."

Our U.S. operations are subject to the Clean Water Act, which requires permits for certain discharges into waters of the United States. Such permitting has been a frequent subject of litigation and enforcement activity by environmental advocacy groups and the EPA, respectively, which has resulted in declines in such permits or extensive delays in receiving them, as well as the imposition of penalties for permit violations. In 2015, the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” that are protected by the Clean Water Act was expanded by the EPA, thereby imposing significant additional restrictions on waterway discharges and land uses. In early, 2018, implementation of the relevant rule was suspended for two years. If these changes are ultimately implemented, they could increase litigation involving water discharge permits, which may result in delays in, or in some instances preclude, the commencement or continuation of development or production operations. Enforcement actions by the EPA could also result. Adverse outcomes in lawsuits challenging permits or failure to comply with applicable regulations or permits could result in the suspension, denial, or revocation of required permits, or the imposition of penalties, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our cash flows, results of operations, or financial condition. See Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements .

Some of the mining wastes from our U.S. mines currently are exempt to a limited extent from the extensive set of EPA regulations governing hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). If the EPA were to repeal this exemption, and designate these mining wastes as hazardous under RCRA, we would be required to expend additional amounts on the handling of such wastes and to make significant expenditures to construct hazardous waste storage or disposal facilities. In addition, if any of these wastes or other substances we release or cause to be released into the environment cause or has caused contamination in or damage to the environment at a U.S. mining facility, that facility could be designated as a “Superfund” site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”). Under CERCLA, any present owner or operator of a Superfund site or the owner or operator at the time of contamination may be held jointly and severally liable regardless of fault, and may be forced to undertake extensive remedial cleanup action or to pay for the cleanup efforts. The owner or operator also may be liable to federal, state and tribal governmental entities for the cost of damages to natural resources, which could be substantial. Additional regulations or requirements also are imposed on our tailings and waste disposal areas in Alaska under the federal Clean Water Act.

Legislative and regulatory measures to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are in various phases of consideration. If adopted, such measures could increase our cost of environmental compliance and also delay or otherwise negatively affect efforts to obtain permits and other regulatory approvals with regard to existing and new facilities. Proposed measures could also result in increased cost of fuel and other consumables used at our operations, including the diesel generation of electricity at our Greens Creek operation, used when we are unable to access hydroelectric power. Climate change legislation may also affect our smelter customers who burn fossil fuels, resulting in fewer customers or increased costs to us, and may affect the market for the metals we produce with effects on prices that are not possible for us to predict.

Adoption of these or similar new environmental regulations or more stringent application of existing regulations may materially increase our costs, threaten certain operating activities and constrain our expansion opportunities.

In addition to evolving and expanding environmental regulations providing governmental authorities with the means to make claims against us, private parties have in the past and may in the future bring claims against us based upon damage to property and injury to persons resulting from the environmental, health and safety impacts of prior and current operations (including for exposure to or contamination by lead). Laws in the U.S. such as CERCLA and similar state laws may expose us to joint and several liability, or claims for contribution made by the government (state or federal) or private parties. Moreover, exposure to these liabilities arises not only from our existing but also from closed operations, operations sold to third parties, or operations in which we had a leasehold, joint venture, or other interest. Because liability under CERCLA is often alleged on a joint and several basis against any property owner or operator or arranger for the transport of hazardous waste, and because we have been in operation since 1891, our exposure to environmental claims may be greater because of the bankruptcy or dissolution of other mining companies which may have engaged in more significant activities at a mining site than we but which are no longer available for governmental agencies or other claimants to make claims against or obtain judgments from. Similarly, there is also the potential for claims against us based on agreements entered into by certain affiliates and predecessor companies relating to the transfer of businesses or properties, which contained indemnification provisions relating to environmental matters. In each of the types of cases described in this paragraph, the government (federal or state) or private parties could seek to hold Hecla Limited or Hecla Mining Company liable for the actions of their subsidiaries or predecessors.

The laws and regulations, changes in such laws and regulations, and lawsuits and enforcement actions described in this risk factor could lead to the imposition of substantial fines, remediation costs, penalties and other civil and criminal sanctions against us. Further, substantial costs and liabilities, including for restoring the environment after the closure of mines, are inherent in our operations. There is no assurance that any such law, regulation, enforcement or private claim, or reclamation activity would not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Uncertainty due to ballot initiative or related legislation regarding salmon in Alaska.

In 2017, a citizen ’s initiative entitled “An Act providing for protection of wild salmon and fish and wildlife habitat" was filed with the Alaska Division of Elections petitioning for a ballot initiative under Alaska’s Constitution that would revise Alaska’s fish habitat law. Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott rejected the proposed ballot initiative in September 2017 because he determined that it improperly appropriated a valuable public resource which the Alaska Constitution prohibits. A lawsuit challenging Lt. Gov. Mallott’s decision was filed and a trial court overturned the Lt. Gov.’s decision and ordered the State to certify the petition and allow the citizens group to collect signatures in an effort to qualify the initiative for consideration by the public. The State of Alaska has appealed the trial judge’s ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court which has established a briefing schedule that is anticipated to result in a ruling on whether the proposed initiative complies with the Constitution prior to the time by which the State would be required to print ballot booklets for the election at which the initiative would be considered (summer 2018). Also, under Alaska’s Constitution if the state legislature adopts substantially similar legislation, the ballot initiative is rendered void.

The citizens group proposal closely resembles H.B. 199, legislation introduced during the 2017 Alaska l egislative session by Rep. Louise Stutes (R-Kodiak), and would create a new multi-tiered system of permits for projects in fish habitat.   Based on our review of the ballot initiative and H.B. 199, if either were adopted, “anadromous fish habitat” would be redefined to be “…a naturally occurring permanent or intermittent seasonal water body, and the bed beneath, including all sloughs, backwaters, portions of the floodplain covered by the mean annual flood, and adjacent riparian areas, that contribute, directly or indirectly, to the spawning, rearing, migration, or overwintering of anadromous fish.”  Major projects, including mining operations like Greens Creek, will require a Major Fish Habitat Permit in order to have adverse impacts on habitat.  A Major Fish Habitat Permit, under the initiative or the statute, may not be granted if an activity will, amongst other things, “store or dispose of mining waste, including overburden, and tailings in a way that could result in the release or discharge of sulfuric acid, other acids, dissolved metals, toxic pollutants, or other compounds that will adversely affect, directly or indirectly, anadromous fish habitat, fish or wildlife species that depend on anadromous fish habitat.”

At this time, we cannot determine with certainty whether the initiative or H.B.199 will be approved by the voters or enacted by the legislature in their current or a revised form; how the Alaska Supreme Court will rule on appeal; if legislation is enacted by the legislature whether it will be substantially similar to the ballot initiative; or how the initiative or H.B.199 would be applicable to Greens Creek in the future.  However, tailings and waste rock at Greens Creek are currently placed in storage facilities that are located in what would be defined as “anadromous fish habitat” under the initiative, and otherwise could be impacted by H.B. 199’s prohibition against any facility in defined habitat that “…necessitates water treatment, groundwater pumping, or other means of mechanical, chemical, or human intervention in perpetuity”.   Therefore, if either is passed, renewal of permits associated with these facilities would be difficult, if not impossible, and any future expansion of Greens Creek tailings and waste facilities could be disallowed.

Legal challenges could prevent the Rock Creek or Montanore projects from ever being developed.

The proposed development of our Rock Creek project has been challenged by several regional and national conservation groups at various times since the U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") issued its initial Record of Decision ("ROD") in 2003 approving Revett Mining Company ’s plan of operation (Revett is now our wholly-owned subsidiary, named Hecla Montana, Inc.). Some of these challenges have alleged violations of a variety of federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to Revett’s permitting activities at Rock Creek, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the General Mining Law of 1872 ("1872 Mining Law"), the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the Wilderness Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Forest Service Organic Act of 1897, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Although Revett successfully addressed most of these challenges, Revett was directed by the Montana Federal District Court in May 2010 to produce a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) to address NEPA procedural deficiencies that were identified by the court. We cannot predict how possible future challenges will be resolved. Possible new court challenges in the future to the final SEIS and ROD may delay the planned development at Rock Creek. If we are successful in completing the SEIS and defending any challenges to Rock Creek, we would still be required to comply with a number of requirements and conditions as development progresses, failing which could make us unable to continue with development activities.

A joint final Environmental Impact Statement on our Montanore project was issued in December 2015 by the USFS and Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and each agency issued a Record of Decision ("ROD") in February 2016 providing approval for development of the Montanore project. However, private conservation groups have taken and may in the future take actions to oppose or delay the Montanore project. On May  30, 2017, the Montana Federal District Court issued Opinions and Orders in three lawsuits challenging previously granted environmental approvals for the Montanore project. The Orders overturned the approvals for the project granted by the USFS and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and in each case remanded the ROD and associated planning documents for further review by the agencies consistent with its Opinions. In June 2017, the Court vacated the agencies' approvals for the project. As a result, additional work must be performed by the agencies to address the deficiencies in the ROD and associated planning documents identified by the Court, and new approvals must be granted, before the project may proceed beyond certain preliminary actions. In addition, there are two lawsuits pending which involve potential defects in title or limiting our access to the properties comprising the Montanore project. A development or outcome from one of these or any other lawsuit could limit our ability to access, develop or operate the Montanore project.

Rock Creek and Montanore are significant projects obtained in the acquisitions of Revett and Mines Management in 2015 and 2016, respectively. However, even if Rock Creek and Montanore are permitted, there is no assurance that they will be successfully developed or operated, including, among other reasons, because financing necessary to develop the projects may be unavailable.

Mine closure and reclamation regulations impose substantial costs on our operations, and include requirements that we provide financial assurance supporting those obligations. These costs could significantly increase.

We are required by U.S. federal and state laws and regulations and by laws and regulations in the foreign jurisdictions we operate in to reclaim our mining properties. The specific requirements vary among jurisdictions. In some cases, we are required to provide financial assurances as security for reclamation costs, which may exceed our estimates for such costs. Conversely, our reclamation costs may exceed the financial assurances in place and those assurances may ultimately be unavailable to us.

The EPA and state agencies may also require financial assurance for investigation and remediation actions that are required under settlements of enforcement actions under CERCLA or equivalent state regulations. Currently there are no financial assurance requirements for active mining operations under CERCLA, but in January 2017, in response to a lawsuit filed previously by several environmental organizations, the EPA proposed rules for financial assurance regulations under CERCLA governing the hard rock mining industry, which includes us. In December 2017, the EPA issued a notice of their decision not to issue final regulations for the proposed rules. However, the EPA may propose similar rules in the future, and it is uncertain how any such requirements, if adopted, would affect the amount and form of our existing and future financial assurance obligations or the extent to which they will supplement or replace state requirements. However, based on the draft of the rules proposed in January 2017, any new requirements, if adopted, may be financially material and adverse to us.

  Our environmental obligations may exceed the provisions we have made.

We are subject to significant environmental obligations.   At December 31, 2017, we had accrued $86.0 million as a provision for environmental obligations. There can be no assurance that we have accurately estimated these environmental obligations, and in the future our accrual could materially change. Our environmental obligations could have a material adverse impact on our cash flows, results of operations, or financial condition. For information on our potential environmental liabilities, see Note 4 and Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements .

We face risks relating to transporting our products, as well as transporting employees and materials at Greens Creek.

Certain of the products we ship to our customers are subject to regulatory requirements regarding shipping, packaging, and handling of products that may be considered dangerous to human health or the environment. Although we believe we are currently in compliance with all material regulations applicable to shipping, packaging, and handling our products, the chemical properties of our products or existing regulations could change and cause us to fall out of compliance, or force us to incur substantial additional expenditures to maintain compliance with applicable regulations. Further, we do not ship our own products but instead rely on third party carriers to ship our products to our customers. To the extent that any of our carriers are unable or unwilling to ship our products in accordance with applicable regulations, including because of difficulty in obtaining, or increased cost of, insurance, or are involved in accidents during transit, we could be forced to find alternative shipping arrangements, assuming such alternatives would be available, and we could face liability as a result of any accident. Any such changes to our current shipping arrangements or accidents involving the shipment of our products could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial results.

In addition, Greens Creek operates on an island and is substantially dependent on various forms of marine transportation for the transportation of employees and materials to the mine and for the export of its products from the mine. Any disruption to these forms of marine transportation could adversely impact mine operations, and possible effects could include suspension of operations.

The titles to some of our properties may be defective or challenged.

Unpatented mining claims constitute a significant portion of our undeveloped property holdings in the United States. For our operations in Canada and Mexico, we hold mining claims, mineral concession titles and mining leases that are obtained and held in accordance with the laws of the respective countries, which provide Hecla the right to exploit and explore the properties. The validity of the claims, concessions and leases could be uncertain and may be contested. Although we have conducted title reviews of our property holdings, title review does not necessarily preclude third parties (including governments) from challenging our title. In accordance with mining industry practice, we do not generally obtain title opinions until we decide to develop a property. Therefore, while we have attempted to acquire satisfactory title to our undeveloped properties, some titles may be defective.

The price of our stock has a history of volatility and could decline in the future.

Shares of our common and outstanding preferred stock are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The market price for our stock has been volatile, often based on:

The market price of our stock at any given point in time may not accurately reflect our value, and may prevent stockholders from realizing a profit on, or recovering, their investment.

Our Series B preferred stock has a liquidation preference of $50 per share or $7.9 million.

If we were liquidated, holders of our preferred stock would be entitled to receive approximately $7.9 million (plus any accrued and unpaid dividends) from any liquidation proceeds before holders of our common stock would be entitled to receive any proceeds, but after holders of all notes issued under the indenture governing our Senior Notes received any proceeds.

We may not be able to pay common or preferred stock dividends in the future.

Since January 2010, we have paid all regular quarterly dividends on our Series B preferred stock.   The annual dividend payable on the Series B preferred stock is currently $0.6 million. Prior to 2010, there were numerous occasions when we did not declare dividends on the Series B Preferred Stock, but instead deferred them. There can be no assurance that we will continue to pay preferred stock dividends in the future.

Our board of directors adopted a common stock dividend policy that has two components: (1) a dividend that links the amount of dividends on our common stock to our average quarterly realized silver price in the preceding quarter, and (2) a minimum annual dividend of $0.01 per share of common stock, in each case payable quarterly, when declared. See Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on our common stock dividend policy.

From the fourth quarter of 2011 through and including the fourth quarter of 2017, our board of directors has declared a common stock dividend under the policy described above (although in some cases only a minimum dividend was declared and none relating to the average realized price of silver due to the prices not meeting the policy threshold). The declaration and payment of common stock dividends, whether pursuant to the policy or in addition thereto, is at the sole discretion of our board of directors, and there can be no assurance that we will continue to declare and pay common stock dividends in the future. In addition, the indenture governing our Senior Notes limits our ability to pay dividends.

  Our existing stockholders are effectively subordinated to the holders of our Senior Notes.

In the event of our liquidation or dissolution, stockholders' entitlement to share ratably in any distribution of our assets would be subordinated to the holders of our Senior Notes. Any rights that a stockholder may have in the event of bankruptcy, liquidation or a reorganization of us or any of our subsidiaries, and any consequent rights of stockholders to realize on the proceeds from the sale of any of our or our subsidiaries' assets, will be effectively subordinated to the claims of the holders of our Senior Notes.

Additional issuances of equity securities by us would dilute the ownership of our existing stockholders and could reduce our earnings per share.

We may issue securities in the future in connection with raising capital, acquisitions, strategic transactions or for other purposes. To the extent we issue any additional equity securities (or securities convertible into equity), the ownership of our existing stockholders would be diluted and our earnings per share could be reduced.

The issuance of additional shares of our preferred or common stock in the future could adversely affect holders of common stock.

The market price of our common stock may be influenced by any preferred or common stock we may issue.   Our board of directors is authorized to issue additional classes or series of preferred stock without any action on the part of our stockholders.  This includes the power to set the terms of any such classes or series of preferred stock that may be issued, including voting rights, dividend rights and preferences over common stock with respect to dividends or upon the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the business and other terms.  If we issue preferred stock in the future that has preference over our common stock with respect to the payment of dividends or upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of our common stock, the rights of holders of the common stock or the market price of the common stock could be adversely affected.

If a large number of shares of our common stock are sold in the public market, the sales could reduce the trading price of our common stock and impede our ability to raise future capital.

We cannot predict what effect, if any, future issuances by us of our common stock or other equity will have on the market price of our common stock. Any shares that we may issue may not have any resale restrictions, and therefore could be immediately sold by the holders. The market price of our common stock could decline if certain large holders of our common stock, or recipients of our common stock, sell all or a significant portion of their shares of common stock or are perceived by the market as intending to sell these shares other than in an orderly manner. In addition, these sales could also impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional common stock in the capital markets.

The provisions in our certificate of incorporation, our by-laws and Delaware law could delay or deter tender offers or takeover attempts.

Certain provisions in our certificate of incorporation, our by-laws and Delaware law could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us, even if that transaction could be beneficial to stockholders. These impediments include:

In addition, amendment of most of the provisions described above requires approval of at least 80% of the outstanding voting stock.

  If we cannot meet the New York Stock Exchange continued listing requirements, the NYSE may delist our common stock.

Our common stock is currently listed on the NYSE. In the future, if we are not able to meet the continued listing requirements of the NYSE, which require, among other things, that the average closing price of our common stock be above $1.00 over 30 consecutive trading days, our common stock may be delisted. Our closing stock price on February 12, 2018 was $3.75.   

If we are unable to satisfy the NYSE criteria for continued listing, our common stock would be subject to delisting. A delisting of our common stock could negatively impact us by, among other things, reducing the liquidity and market price of our common stock; reducing the number of investors willing to hold or acquire our common stock, which could negatively impact our ability to raise equity financing; decreasing the amount of news and analyst coverage of us; and limiting our ability to issue additional securities or obtain additional financing in the future.   In addition, delisting from the NYSE might negatively impact our reputation and, as a consequence, our business.

Risks Relating to Our Debt

Our level of debt could impair our financial health and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under our existing and future indebtedness.

As of December  31, 2017, we had total indebtedness of approximately $514.0 million. Our level of debt and our debt service obligations could:

We and our subsidiaries may incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. Although the indenture governing our Senior Notes contains restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of significant qualifications and exceptions and, under certain circumstances, the amount of indebtedness that could be incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. In May 2016, we entered into our senior credit facility, which allows us to draw up to $100 million on a revolving basis.

If new debt is added to our and our subsidiaries ’ existing debt levels, the risks associated with such debt that we currently face would increase. In addition, the indenture governing the Senior Notes does not prevent us from incurring additional indebtedness under that agreement.

Our Senior Notes and the guarantees thereof are effectively subordinated to any of our and our guarantors ’ secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the collateral securing that indebtedness.

Our Senior Notes and the guarantees thereof are not secured by any of our assets or the assets of our subsidiaries. The indenture governing the Senior Notes permits us to incur secured debt up to specified limits. As a result, the Senior Notes and the guarantees thereof are effectively subordinated to our and our subsidiary guarantors ’ future secured indebtedness with respect to the collateral that secures such indebtedness, including any borrowings under our revolving credit facility. Upon a default in payment on, or the acceleration of, any of our secured indebtedness, or in the event of bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or other insolvency proceeding involving us or such guarantor, the proceeds from the sale of collateral securing any secured indebtedness will be available to pay obligations on the Senior Notes only after such secured indebtedness has been paid in full. As a result, the holders of the Senior Notes may receive less, ratably, than the holders of secured debt in the event of a bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or other insolvency proceeding involving us or such guarantor.

Any draw-downs on our $100 million revolving credit facility would be secured debt.

We may be unable to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness and meet our other ongoing liquidity needs and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness, which may be unsuccessful.

Our ability to make scheduled payments or to refinance our debt obligations and to fund our planned capital expenditures and other ongoing liquidity needs depends on our financial and operating performance, which is subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and to certain financial, business and other factors beyond our control. There can be no assurance that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that borrowings will be available to us to (1) pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness, including the Senior Notes which are due May 1, 2021, or (2) to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our debt on or before maturity; however, we may be unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

In addition, we conduct substantially all of our operations through our subsidiaries, certain of which are not guarantors of our indebtedness. Accordingly, repayment of our indebtedness is dependent on the generation of cash flow by our subsidiaries and their ability to make such cash available to us, by dividend, debt repayment or otherwise. Unless they are guarantors of our indebtedness, our subsidiaries do not have any obligation to pay amounts due with respect to our indebtedness or to make funds available for that purpose. Our subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable us to make payments in respect of our indebtedness. Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries. While the credit agreement governing our revolving credit facility and the indenture governing our Senior Notes limit the ability of our subsidiaries to incur consensual restrictions on their ability to pay dividends or make other intercompany payments to us, these limitations are subject to qualifications and exceptions. In the event that we do not receive distributions from our subsidiaries, we may be unable to make required principal and interest payments on our indebtedness.

If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we may be forced to reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures or to sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. Our ability to restructure or refinance our debt will depend on the condition of the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. The terms of existing or future debt instruments and the indenture governing our Senior Notes may restrict us from adopting some of these alternatives. In addition, any failure to make payments of interest and principal on our outstanding indebtedness on a timely basis would likely result in a reduction of our credit rating, which could harm our ability to incur additional indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations.

The terms of our debt impose restrictions on our operations.

The indenture governing our Senior Notes includes a number of significant restrictive covenants. These covenants could adversely affect us by limiting our ability to plan for or react to market conditions or to meet our capital needs. These covenants, among other things:

In addition, our revolving credit facility requires us to comply with various covenants. A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default under the agreement governing our revolving credit facility that, if not cured or waived, could give the holders of the defaulted debt the right to terminate commitments to lend and cause all amounts outstanding with respect to the debt to be due and payable immediately. Acceleration of any of our debt could result in cross-defaults under our other debt instruments, including the indenture governing our Senior Notes, as well as certain forward sales contracts which may be outstanding from time to time. Our assets and cash flow may be insufficient to repay borrowings fully under all of our outstanding debt instruments if any of our debt instruments are accelerated upon an event of default, which could force us into bankruptcy or liquidation. In such an event, we may be unable to repay our debt obligations. In addition, in some instances, this would create an event of default under the indenture governing our Senior Notes.

Our Senior Notes are structurally subordinated to all liabilities of our non-guarantor subsidiaries.

The Senior Notes are structurally subordinated to the indebtedness and other liabilities of our subsidiaries that are not guaranteeing the Senior Notes, which include all of our non-domestic subsidiaries and certain other subsidiaries. These non-guarantor subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due pursuant to the Senior Notes, or to make any funds available therefor, whether by dividends, loans, distributions or other payments. Any right that we or the guarantors have to receive any assets of any of the non-guarantor subsidiaries upon the liquidation or reorganization of those subsidiaries, and the consequent rights of holders of the Senior Notes to realize proceeds from the sale of any of those subsidiaries ’ assets, will be effectively subordinated to the claims of those subsidiaries’ creditors, including trade creditors and holders of preferred equity interests of those subsidiaries. Accordingly, in the event of a bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization of any of our non-guarantor subsidiaries, these non-guarantor subsidiaries will pay the holders of their debts, holders of preferred equity interests and their trade creditors before they will be able to distribute any of their assets to us or any guarantor. Unless they are guarantors of the Senior Notes or our other indebtedness, our subsidiaries do not have any obligation to pay amounts due on the Senior Notes or our other indebtedness or to make funds available for that purpose.

For the year ended December  31, 2017, our non-guarantor subsidiaries represented 48% of our sales of metals and 46% of our operating expenses. As of December 31, 2017, our non-guarantor subsidiaries represented 37% of our total assets and 20% of our total liabilities, including trade payables, deferred tax liabilities and royalty obligations but excluding intercompany liabilities.

Our variable rate indebtedness subjects us to interest rate risk, which could cause our indebtedness service obligations to increase significantly.

Borrowings under our credit facility are at variable rates of interest and expose us to interest rate risk. If interest rates increase, our debt service obligations on the variable rate indebtedness would increase even though the amount borrowed remained the same, and our net income and cash flows, including cash available for servicing our indebtedness, would correspondingly decrease. Assuming all revolving loans were fully drawn, each one percentage point change in interest rates would result in a $1.0 million change in annual cash interest expense on our credit facility.

Key terms of the Senior Notes will be suspended if the Senior Notes achieve investment grade ratings and no default or event of default has occurred and is continuing.

Many of the covenants in the indenture governing the Senior Notes will be suspended if the Senior Notes are rated investment grade by Standard  & Poor’s and Moody’s provided at such time no default or event of default has occurred and is continuing, including those covenants that restrict, among other things, our ability to pay dividends, incur debt and to enter into certain other transactions. There can be no assurance that the Senior Notes will ever be rated investment grade. However, suspension of these covenants would allow us to engage in certain transactions that would not be permitted while these covenants were in force, and the effects of any such transactions will be permitted to remain in place even if the Senior Notes are subsequently downgraded below investment grade.

We may be unable to repurchase Senior Notes in the event of a change of control as required by the indenture.

Upon the occurrence of certain kinds of change of control events specified in the indenture, holders of the Senior Notes will have the right to require us to repurchase all of the Senior Notes at a repurchase price equal to 101% of their principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of repurchase. Any change of control also would constitute a default under our revolving credit facility. Therefore, upon the occurrence of a change of control, the lenders under our revolving credit facility would have the right to accelerate their loans and, if so accelerated, we would be required to repay all of our outstanding obligations under such facility. We may not be able to pay the Senior Note holders the required price for their notes at that time because we may not have available funds to pay the repurchase price. In addition, the terms of other existing or future debt may prevent us from paying the Senior Note holders. There can be no assurance that we would be able to repay such other debt or obtain consents from the holders of such other debt to repurchase the Senior Notes. Any requirement to offer to purchase any outstanding Senior Notes may result in us having to refinance our outstanding indebtedness, which we may not be able to do. In addition, even if we were able to refinance our outstanding indebtedness, such financing may be on terms unfavorable to us.

Holders of the Senior Notes may not be able to determine when a change of control giving rise to their right to have the Senior Notes repurchased has occurred following a sale of “substantially all” of our assets.

The definition of change of control in the indenture governing the Senior Notes includes a phrase relating to the sale of “all or substantially all” of our assets. There is no precise established definition of the phrase “substantially all” under applicable law. Accordingly, the ability of a holder of Senior Notes to require us to repurchase its notes as a result of a sale of less than all our assets to another person may be uncertain.

Federal and state fraudulent transfer laws may permit a court to void the Senior Notes or any of the guarantees thereof, and if that occurs, holders of the Senior Notes may not receive any payments on the notes.

Federal and state fraudulent transfer and conveyance statutes may apply to the issuance of the Senior Notes and the incurrence of any guarantees of the Senior Notes. Under federal bankruptcy law and comparable provisions of state fraudulent transfer or conveyance laws, which may vary from state to state, the Senior Notes or any guarantees thereof could be voided as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance if we or any existing or future subsidiary guarantors, as applicable, (a)  issued the Senior Notes or incurred such guarantee with the intent of hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors or (b) received less than reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration in return for either issuing the Senior Notes or incurring the guarantee and, in the case of (b) only, one of the following is also true at the time thereof:

As a general matter, value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or a valid antecedent debt is satisfied. A court would likely find that any subsidiary guarantor did not receive reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration for its guarantee to the extent such subsidiary guarantor did not obtain a reasonably equivalent benefit from the issuance of the Senior Notes.

We cannot be certain as to the standards a court would use to determine whether or not we or any subsidiary guarantor was insolvent at the relevant time or, regardless of the standard that a court uses, whether the Senior Notes or any guarantees would be subordinated to our or any subsidiary guarantor ’s other debt. In general, however, a court would deem an entity insolvent if:

The subsidiary guarantees contain a “savings clause” intended to limit the subsidiary guarantor ’s liability to the maximum amount that it could incur without causing the incurrence of obligations under its subsidiary guarantee to be a fraudulent transfer. This provision may not be effective to protect any subsidiary guarantees from being avoided under fraudulent transfer law. Furthermore, in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v Citicorp North America, Inc. , the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida held that a savings clause similar to the savings clause used in the indenture was unenforceable. As a result, the subsidiary guarantees in that case were found to be fraudulent conveyances. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the liability findings of the Bankruptcy Court without ruling directly on the enforceability of savings clauses generally. If the TOUSA decision were followed by other courts, the risk that the guarantees would be deemed fraudulent conveyances would be significantly increased.

To the extent that any subsidiary guarantee is avoided, then, as to that subsidiary, the guaranty would not be enforceable.

If a court were to find that the issuance of the Senior Notes or the incurrence of any guarantee was a fraudulent transfer or conveyance, the court could (1) void the payment obligations under the Senior Notes or such guarantee, (2) subordinate the Senior Notes or such guarantee to presently existing and future indebtedness of ours or of the related subsidiary guarantor or (3) require the holders of the Senior Notes to repay any amounts received with respect to such guarantee. In the event of a finding that a fraudulent transfer or conveyance occurred, holders of the Senior Notes may not receive any repayment on the Senior Notes. Further, the avoidance of the Senior Notes could result in an event of default with respect to our and our subsidiaries ’ other debt that could result in acceleration of that debt.

Finally, as a court of equity, a bankruptcy court could subordinate the claims in respect of the Senior Notes to other claims against us under the principle of equitable subordination if the court determines that (1)  the holders of the Senior Notes engaged in some type of inequitable conduct, (2) the inequitable conduct resulted in injury to our other creditors or conferred an unfair advantage upon the holders of the Senior Notes and (3) equitable subordination is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Our credit ratings may not reflect all risks associated with an investment in our Senior Notes.

Credit rating agencies rate our debt securities on factors that include our results of operations, actions that we take, their view of the general outlook for our industry and their view of the general outlook for the economy. Actions taken by the rating agencies can include maintaining, upgrading, or downgrading the current rating or placing us on a watch list for possible future downgrading. At February 12, 2018, our Senior Notes were rated “B" with a stable outlook by Standard and Poor ’s and “B3" with a stable outlook by Moody’s Investors Service. In February 2016, Standard and Poor's lowered their rating of our Senior Notes from a previous "B" rating to a "B-" rating, prior to restoring it to "B" in June 2017. In January 2016, Moody's indicated that they had placed us, along with other mining companies, on review for downgrade. Downgrading the credit rating of our debt securities or placing us on a watch list for possible future downgrading would likely increase our cost of financing, limit our access to the capital markets and have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities, including our Senior Notes. We cannot be assured that our credit ratings will not be downgraded in the future.