Thanks paper, I'm not an attorney, but you're very gracious. I don't have a problem with skeptics, in fact I think it's healthy to be one when appropriate. But some folks play devil's advocate for its own sake and display a willful ignorance in the process.

LBSR is an exploration stage company. If they had things like assayed drill cores they wouldn't be one and they wouldn't be trading at 1.2 cents. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

I’ve found something interesting posted by geologist Andrew Jackson on Sprott’s channel on YouTube. It’s an introductory-level video of the fundamentals of porphyries, skarns, & IOCGs (Iron Oxide Copper Gold) deposits, and touches on the methods of finding such deposits (geophysics, vegetation, etc.) Click here -->

I'm pretty sure a funder can fund phase 1 with an clause that gets them out if the archaeology doesn't come back clear.

Since you aren't a fixed-income or equity capital markets professional, I can understand why you'd say that. Rest assured, the term is common in those circles and has no negative connotations whatsoever.

Rick Rule has some interest comments on King World news about folks from the Middle East, North Africa, India, and China trying to get control of product flows of, among other things, copper and lead.

click here --> http://bit.ly/1ts6UNt

My new screen saver.

Wasn't Snuffleupugus Bill Clinton's press secretary, and now he hosts ABC's This Week? Oh... wait.

Northern Dynasty issues a sharply-worded response to EPA proposal for Alaska's Pebble Project.

Yes, I know that it's a few years out at least and all eyes are on Hay mountain, but mark my words... LBSR's Pebble claims will be huge someday. If not for us, then for our kids. I regard it as a tool for intergenerational wealth transfer.
=================================================================================

July 18, 2014 Vancouver, BC -- Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (TSX: NDM; NYSE MKT: NAK) ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") reports that while today's announcement from the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Region 10 is only a proposal at this time, we note the agency is seemingly moving away from pre-emptively vetoing the Pebble Project in favor of imposing specific conditions on future development.

That said, we do not accept that EPA has the statutory authority to impose conditions on development at Pebble, or any development project anywhere in Alaska or the US, prior to the submission of a detailed development plan and its thorough review by federal and state agencies including review under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").

Moreover, EPA's attempt to pre-emptively impose conditions on future development at Pebble in the absence of completing an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIA"), as is required of every major development project in the United States, is causing significant and even critical harm to our business interests and our abilities to fairly advance our project. For this reason, we fully intend to continue our litigation against EPA in order to halt the pre-emptive and unprecedented regulatory process under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, and invalidate the conditions proposed by EPA Region 10.

It is important to remember that, in addition to the lawsuit brought by Pebble and the State of Alaska against EPA, there are a number of investigations yet underway with respect to EPA's Bristol Bay Assessment and its pre-emptive regulatory process, including one by the Office of the EPA Inspector General and another by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There are also two bi-partisan bills pending in the US House and Senate seeking to clarify that EPA does not have authority to pre-emptively veto or otherwise restrict development projects prior to the onset of federal and state permitting.

In aggressively pursuing each of these remedies, the Pebble Limited Partnership (the "Pebble Partnership") is aware that the precedent established by EPA taking pre-emptive action at Pebble would be devastating for the future of investment in the State of Alaska and throughout the United States. We have already seen a group in Wisconsin seeking pre-emptive action by the EPA on a mineral project in that state.

EPA's proposal is based on a watershed assessment that its peer reviewers found to be no better than a screening document, and that EPA's professionals have recognized is missing the information needed for a permitting decision. EPA's proposal is also based on mining scenarios that are outdated and, in any event, would never qualify for environmental permits. Thus, the EPA's use of the Bristol Bay Assessment for its agency decision making is fundamentally flawed as it is not scientifically or technically defensible.

The correct, legal, and defensible way forward is for EPA to suspend its pre-emptive 404(c) process and allow us the full opportunity to have our project reviewed by federal and state regulatory agencies, including EPA, under NEPA.

Finally, while we believe the conditions for development at Pebble proposed by EPA Region 10 are misguided and not based on sound science or regulatory precedent, we continue to believe the project must be developed in a way that protects clean water, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and the Alaska Native communities that rely on them. The Pebble Partnership is committed to working with EPA and other federal and state regulatory agencies during the permitting process for the Pebble Project to ensure that adequate protections exist for clean water, healthy fisheries and other important natural resources, and that the 'spirit' of EPA's proposed conditions are fulfilled.

New EPA shenanigans last Friday re: Pebble --> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/18/epa-to-block-alaska-proposed-pebble-mine-over-salmon-risk/

Thanks blue.

For crying out loud... would someone please make that a sticky?

It breaks my heart that the country I love is turning into a banana republic.

That isn't a bad idea go4, but having spent about 18 months in Kuwait working as a contractor, I can tell you the business culture of the Gulf, or the MENA region in general, necessitates a lot of face-to-face interaction and tea-drinking.

You may very well be correct Leif. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I shouldn't infer too much in the absence of solid facts. I can't wait for the next news release.

Sorry I just got lost in Fantasy Island... but hey, it's been a pretty long wait.

It's all speculation at this point... but the plan is to fund exploratory drilling in exchange for an education in mining & geology? That's it?! The Saudi's aren't asking for an equity interest in LBSR or anything? No dilution? IF TRUE and that is a very big IF because nothing has been signed, then JB has truly accomplished something amazing.

JB reminds me of Lieutenant Colombo as played by the late Peter Falk. He doesn't appear slick or polished and therefore many people underestimate him. But by the time the bad guys figure out he's the smartest guy in the room, they're in handcuffs.

I think you meant a week from Monday, not this Monday. Also, I agree with LBSR & Willy... that PR contains an awful lot of detail for something which hasn't been very carefully planned. Hopefully, the Saudi trip is just to get this deal "blessed" and to cross the Ts and dot the Is.

SCATHING WSJ ARTICLE ON EPA ABUSE RE: PEBBLE

A basic precept of American democracy is that petitioners before their government receive a full and fair hearing. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency is in urgent need of that remedial civics lesson.

The EPA inspector general's office last week announced it will investigate the agency's February decision to commence a pre-emptive veto of the Pebble Mine project, a jobs-rich proposal to develop America's largest U.S. copper and gold mine in southwest Alaska. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says her decision to strike down Pebble before it received a hearing shouldn't worry other developers because Pebble is a "unique" threat. She needs to say this because the truth might chill billions of dollars in investment in the U.S.

The IG is looking into internal EPA documents that we've also obtained that show agency officials were maneuvering to kill Pebble more than five years ago, and that EPA's main concern was building a façade of science and procedure to justify it.

This story goes back to the debate over the 1972 Clean Water Act, which gave the Army Corps of Engineers the power to evaluate projects and issue permits. Congress gave EPA only a secondary role of reviewing and potentially vetoing projects (with cause) under Section 404c. EPA has long chafed at this secondary role, which has made it harder to nix projects approved by the Corps.

EPA's decision to initiate a veto process before Pebble had even received an Army Corps review is a disturbing first—and a flouting of the law. The internal documents refute EPA's repeated claims that it began this process only in "response to petitions" from local Native American tribes in May 2010, and that peer-reviewed science drove its veto.

Emails show that EPA biologist Phillip North, based in Alaska and working on Pebble, was in 2008 advocating that his agency bring down the 404c hammer. "The 404 program has a major role" with Pebble, wrote Mr. North to Patricia McGrath, EPA's regional mining coordinator for Alaska, in August 2008. By August 2009, Mr. North was pushing for EPA's annual mining retreat to include a discussion about vetoing the project: "As you know, I feel that [Pebble] merit[s] consideration of a 404C veto." The retreat included that discussion, though Pebble's developer hadn't yet applied for a permit.

By early 2010 EPA staff made a Power Point presentation for former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson about Pebble that lists a "pre-emptive" veto under "future options." Emails also show that Mr. North was actively engaging outside critics of Pebble. When the Bristol Bay Native Corp. filed a veto request in August 2010, Mr. North responded in an email to the group's lawyer: "Hi Peter, We have been discussing 404c quite a bit internally at all levels of EPA. The letter will certainly stoke the fire."

The EPA veto decision looks to have been made by mid-2010. A Fish and Wildlife briefing paper dated that summer reads: "The [EPA] is seeking [Fish and Wildlife] support as they initiate a formal process to issue a determination that [the wetlands] within the potential pebble Mine action are unsuitable for the placement of fill material. This action would be conducted under the authority of Section 404(C) of the Clean Water Act."

A September 2010 email from U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist Phil Brna to colleagues—under the subject heading "Pebble and 404c"—reads: "I spoke with Phil North. . . . He believes EPA leaders have decided to proceed and they are just deciding when." All this happened before the EPA had done any scientific review.

There's also an internal EPA document from September 2010 laying out the "pros" and "cons" of the EPA vetoing in the "traditional" fashion, rather than pre-emptively. Listed under the many "pros" of ignoring the law is that a pre-emptive Pebble veto can serve as a "model of proactive watershed planning." So much for Ms. McCarthy's claim that this veto is a one-timer.

Only after all of this did EPA concoct its sham watershed study that provided the scientific cover for its veto. That study invented a hypothetical Pebble mine, then assumed outdated mining practices to predict environmental harm. The study included contributions from obvious opponents of the mine, including Mr. North. The EPA's own peer-review experts ridiculed the study; one pronounced its key sections "pure hogwash."

These documents depict an agency willing to do anything necessary to gut the permitting process that the Clean Water Act guaranteed for developers. The Pebble veto model sets up EPA as the sole regulator of watersheds across the country, trumping the authority of the Army Corps and state regulators. The EPA's actions on Pebble make clear why Congress was right not to trust it with the power it has now seized.

EPA has been trying to keep this record hidden. Pebble Partnership received some of these documents through a freedom of information request, but CEO Tom Collier confirms to us that the EPA didn't turn over others that we are reporting here. EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins has clearly decided that there is enough to warrant an investigation, and that's a start. This is merely the latest in the EPA's growing record of dishonesty aimed at denying U.S. companies their rights under the law.

EPA Inspector General heeds calls for Bristol Bay Assessment investigation BY PR Newswire

— 8:30 AM ET 05/06/2014
VANCOUVER, May 6, 2014 /PRNewswire/ - Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NAK) ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") reports that the Office of the Inspector General ("IG") of the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has announced it will investigate EPA conduct in prEPAring 'An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska' (the "Bristol Bay Assessment" or the "Assessment").
Northern Dynasty has submitted three letters to the EPA Inspector General since January 2014 raising serious issues of bias, process irregularities and collusion with environmental organizations in the federal agency's prEPAration of the Bristol Bay Assessment. Yesterday, in response to congressional and other requests, the IG's office announced its plans to "begin preliminary research to determine whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adhered to laws, regulations, policies and procedures in developing its assessment of potential mining impacts in Bristol Bay, Alaska."
"While the documents we've received to date through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are sparse and heavily redacted, they paint the picture of an agency launching a 'watershed assessment' to justify a pre-determined outcome," said Northern Dynasty President & CEO Ron Thiessen. "We are thankful that the IG's office has initiated this action, and hopeful that EPA's failure to conduct an objective, transparent and defensible scientific investigation will ultimately come to light."
Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Limited Partnership ("Pebble Partnership" or "PLP") have called on EPA to suspend the regulatory process under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act that it initiated on February 28, 2014. Despite the absence of a proposed development plan, EPA is threatening to take pre-emptive action to either veto or restrict development at Pebble - citing the Assessment as the principal evidentiary basis for its actions.
Northern Dynasty, the Pebble Partnership and the State of Alaska have encouraged EPA to wait for the submission of a proposed development plan for the Pebble Project and to participate in the federal and state permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including the prEPAration of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), before taking any regulatory action.
"Not only does EPA not have the statutory authority to undertake pre-emptive action at Pebble, they are threatening to do so based on a flawed study that is now the subject of an investigation by their own agency," Thiessen said. "There is absolutely no reason for EPA to press on with its pre-emptive regulatory process for Pebble when, by its own admission, an EIS process under NEPA will provide a more comprehensive, definitive and robust assessment of the true effects of mineral development in southwest Alaska."
To view the Pebble Partnership's April 29, 2014 submission to EPA, which includes copies of submission letters to the Office of the EPA Inspector General, visit www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ndm/Pebble_Bristol_Bay_Watershed_Assessment.asp.
About the Pebble Project
The Pebble Project is an initiative of the Pebble Partnership to responsibly develop a globally significant copper, gold and molybdenum deposit in southwest Alaska into a modern, long-life mine, which will benefit not only the owner, but the people, culture and industries of the State of Alaska, as well as suppliers, consultants and industries in the Lower 48 United States of America.
A 2013 study authored by IHS Global Insight, entitled The Economic and Employment Contributions of a Conceptual Pebble Mine to the Alaska and United States Economies found the Pebble Project has the potential to support 15,000 American jobs and contribute more than $2.5 billion annually to US GDP over decades of production. The IHS Global Insight study is available at www.northerndynasty.com.
The Pebble Project is located 200 miles southwest of Anchorage on state land designated for mineral exploration and development. It is situated in a region of rolling tundra approximately 1,000 feet above sea-level, 65 miles from tidewater on Cook Inlet and presents favourable conditions for successful mine site and infrastructure development.

About Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd

Northern Dynasty is a mineral exploration and development company based in Vancouver, Canada. Northern Dynasty's principal asset is the Pebble Project in southwest Alaska, USA, an advanced-stage initiative to develop one of the world's most important mineral resources.
Ronald W. Thiessen
President & CEO

Thanks HK... it doesn't make waiting any easier but it really puts things in perspective.

Thanks for looking into that PR. I'm confident LBSR will get this done, but boy, you really need the patience of Job and a strong stomach.

Wow... I realize they received the ZTEM only last Friday, but I really was looking forward to more information.

Agree Leif, DJ's posts are valuable and I really appreciate him. He's neither a pumper or a dumper; he just lays down the facts.

I don't think anyone here minds reading about negative sentiment about LBSR, as long as it's PRINCIPLED and HONEST.

Me too... nothing but the 8-K re: LL

From today's Opinion section of the WSJ, page A16:

If you want to know how the threat of regulation undermines economic growth, consider Monday's decision by British mining giant Anglo-American to withdraw from the Pebble Partnership to develop North America's richest copper and gold deposit in southwest Alaska.

The investors haven't even made a formal proposal. But the Environmental Protection Agency had threatened to issue a pre-emptive veto even before the traditional approving authorities in the state of Alaska and the Army Corps of Engineers had weighed in. The EPA typically regulates projects once they are approved, but in the Obama Administration such notions of regulatory restraint are considered quaint.

Anglo-American got the message, with CEO Mark Cutifani pointedly noting Monday that his company will focus on projects with "the highest value and lowest risks." The company will be walking away from the $541 million it has already invested in the project. Northern Dynasty Minerals, the other half of the partnership, says it will continue moving toward a formal proposal, but the political portents aren't good.

This is merely one example, albeit bigger than most, of the thousands of ways that Washington crushes private investment and job creation every day.

Yes I agree leif, that's why I think NAK is a pretty good speculative buy at these levels. If and when permitting is granted, the bargain basement opportunity might be gone. I think LBSR is actually a lower risk way for someone who'd like to speculate on the massive potential of the Pebble-area deposit.

Something else here folks: under the terms of the Partnership Agreement, Anglo is obligated to spend $1.425 billion towards the study & permitting etc of Pebble. They have already spent approx $520 million, so they are obligated to spend about $900 million more, all this for a 50% interest in the total project. NAK's market value is currently about $150 million, so Anglo (or anyone else) would be better off buying out NAK for double or triple their current price in order to own 100% of the project.

Sure hope something happens with the Chinese. India too of course, but the Rupee has been getting crushed these last 2 months, darn it.

I really appreciate your checking everyday LR. One day I hope to see the additional claims!

Pure. Unadulterated. Logic.