Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (TSX:NDM)(NYSE:NAK) ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") and its 100%-owned U.S.-based subsidiary Pebble Limited Partnership ("Pebble Partnership") announce that on October 3, 2025, they filed a Summary Judgement Brief in Alaska Federal Court as did the State of Alaska, and Iliamna Natives Ltd. and Alaska Peninsula Corp. The arguments presented clearly demonstrate the compelling reasons why the veto is illegal and should be withdrawn immediately.
"We are pleased to have filed the Summary Judgement Brief and to simultaneously be continuing our settlement discussions with the government to remove this illegal veto," said Ron Thiessen, Northern Dynasty's President and CEO. "We believe we have a strong case and, along with our fellow plaintiffs, are confident that we will win. And, frankly, we think the filing of this brief will help in our discussions with the government because it clearly highlights agency overreach of its mandate and interference in a project that is on state land which was designated, by statute, for mineral exploration and development. The facts cited by EPA in its veto decision are directly contradicted by the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), the official factual record in this proceeding."
The arguments made in the Summary Judgement Brief are too numerous to list here, but a few of the significant arguments on why the veto is illegal include:
A. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") significantly underestimated the negative impact of the very significant cost that its veto imposes on the economies of Alaska and the U.S., citing other U.S. projects would simply make up the shortfall. Projects such as Pebble are unique and not easily replaced, let alone the thousands of forgone jobs in Alaska. The economic analysis that was done was superficial, at best, and ignored basic economic principles.
B. EPA has made it impossible to mine the deposit even though Congress specified that the state lands in which Pebble is located should be available for mining. This violates the Alaska Statehood Act and The Cook Inlet Land Exchange.
C. EPA relied on unsubstantiated speculation, rather than being able to make findings, that any harm to fish populations and water habitats will actually occur; and the statute requires certainty, with scientific or factual basis, not mere hypothetical, unsubstantiated speculation.
D. EPA's finding of an unacceptable adverse effect is irrational because it has no basis to conclude that the very minor loss of streams at the mine site will actually lead to any decrease in salmon populations. This finding is in direct contrast to what was extensively detailed in the comprehensive FEIS.
E. EPA's finding of an unacceptable adverse effect is also based on filling of wetlands. But now that the Supreme Court has clarified which wetlands are regulated under the Clean Water Act, it's clear that the vast majority of the Pebble lands are not even subject to that regulation as they would not and should not be considered Jurisdictional Waters under the Clean Water Act.