Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd (NAK) News & EventsNAKNorthern Dynasty Minerals Ltd

Northern Dynasty Minerals Board Member Wayne Kirk Resigns for Personal Reasons

Northern Dynasty Minerals reports that Wayne Kirk has stepped down from its Board of Directors for personal reasons.

Northern Dynasty Files Response in Alaska Federal Court

Northern Dynasty announced that it filed a brief in Alaska Federal Court responding to the Department of Justice brief filed on February 17 on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The State of Alaska, Iliamna Natives and Alaska Peninsula also filed response briefs. The arguments presented clearly demonstrate the flaws in the DOJ brief and the compelling reasons why the veto is illegal and should be withdrawn immediately. Ron Thiessen, Northern Dynasty President and CEO commented: "Our assertion has consistently been that this veto is illegal, and we have a high level of confidence that the court will agree with us. The conclusions upon which the government rested its veto determination are directly contradicted by the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") prepared pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") with the assistance of AECOM, an independent and very experienced consulting firm. Moreover, EPA did not even attempt to provide an explanation of why its conclusions contradict those reached in the FEIS. The FEIS is the 'gold standard' for resolving complex scientific and factual issues where various parties hold different views. We are confident the court will conclude that EPA's conclusions, which are contrary to the conclusions reached in the FEIS, are 'arbitrary and capricious' and require that the issuance of the veto be vacated. In addition to making this arbitrary and capricious argument, the brief that we filed today powerfully argues that the economic analysis failed to comply with the law because it did not calculate the positive economic impacts of the project and exaggerated the negative impact costs. The EPA's choice to arbitrarily ignore the potential of the proposed mine to generate billions of dollars of economic activity based on capital investments and tax revenues alone[1], benefiting the region, Alaska and the U.S., is irresponsible. Further, the standard used by EPA to determine that the veto should be issued was much lower than what the statute requires, and EPA only concluded that certain negative impacts "may" occur rather than that they "will" occur as the statute also requires, among many other obvious failures to comply with the statute. In direct contradiction to the progress this administration has made to advance its pro-energy, pro-mining, and pro-development agenda, the DOJ brief supports the establishment of a legal precedent that can and will be used by future Democratic administrations to unwind this progress. This issue is bigger than just Pebble. Projects across the whole of the U.S., not just Alaska - be it those with previously issued permits that have been operational for years or any of the other 60-75,000 Clean Water Act 404 permits applied for and issued each year in the U.S., representing hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity - are all put at risk with such a precedent."

Northern Dynasty Responds to DOJ Brief Filed in Alaska

Northern Dynasty Minerals and its 100%-owned, U.S.-based subsidiary Pebble Limited Partnership respond to the Department of Justice brief filed in Alaska Federal Court on February 17. Ron Thiessen, Northern Dynasty President and CEO commented: "Our strategy has always been grounded in a solid legal case that this veto was illegal, and a high level of confidence that the court will agree with us. This DOJ brief makes many arguments that we have seen before and that directly contradict the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The flaws in this brief only increase that confidence. We are eager to file our response on or before April 15 which will delineate those flaws, and to take this case to court for a decision as soon as possible. It is important to remember that Tuesday's filing by the DOJ represents the Environmental Protection Agency's side of the complex issues in this case. In October, we submitted to the court our opening brief for why the veto is unlawful, and our April 15 brief will address the DOJ filing to further establish that the court should order the veto invalid. We will, of course, continue to explore settlement with EPA as we prepare our brief, but we will also push for a decision by the court as soon as possible. When you consider the significant negative impacts the Obama/Biden veto will bring about, it is surprisingly short-sighted that the EPA would file a brief in support of it. This precedent will be used by future Democratic administrations to reverse the progress this administration has made to advance its pro-energy, pro-mining, and pro-development agenda. Every permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and others will be at risk. Projects with permits issued years before and that have been operational for years or any of the other 60-75,000 Clean Water Act 404 permits issued each year in the U.S., representing hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity - are at risk. This brief makes a number of arguments that we do not believe any pro-business Republican Administration has made before, including that a major EPA ruling like this one involving a project that has the potential to generate very significant revenue in Alaska can be issued without a comprehensive cost impact analysis; that a veto can be based on speculative conclusions; that a veto can cover hundreds of square miles beyond the footprint of the project, thus turning valuable Alaska state land into what would essentially be a federal park; that a veto can be issued using a standard substantially lower than the statute requires; that a veto can be issued even though the supposed factual "findings" are contradicted by findings in the FEIS, signed off by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, among many other flawed positions. The brief reads like it was written by an Obama/Biden/Anti-mining/Anti-oil/Anti-development coalition. Unfortunately, these arguments can be cited repeatedly by the next Democratic administration as it seeks to unravel this administration's laudable progress in moving forward so many new energy/mining/development projects."