Alaska Superior Court Confirms Pebble Exploration Permits 

VANCOUVER - Alaska Superior Court Judge Eric Aarseth has ruled in favour of the State of Alaska and the Pebble Limited Partnership (the "Pebble Partnership" or "PLP") in a case brought by anti-Pebble activists who charged that the state's system for permitting mineral exploration activity is unconstitutional, and that PLP's exploration program has caused environmental harm.

"This is not the first time that paid opponents of resource development in Alaska have sought to use the state's court system and its democratic processes to derail the Pebble Project before a development plan for the project has been proposed or state and federal permitting begun," confirmed Ron Thiessen President & CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. "We are pleased to see that, once again, the rule of law has prevailed. This decision confirms that mineral resources on state land in Alaska are owned by the citizens of the State, and the right to pursue responsible development of those resources for the benefit of all Alaskans cannot be extinguished by moneyed special interests."

The lawsuit in question was filed in Anchorage Superior Court in July 2009 by Trustees for Alaska (an environmental law firm) on behalf of Nunamta Aulukestai - an organization established and funded to oppose development of the Pebble Project. It alleged that the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had violated the state constitution by granting exploration and temporary water use permits to the Pebble Partnership, and that PLP exploration activities had caused harm to vegetation, water, fish and wildlife. The Pebble Partnership actively participated in the trial proceedings after being granted intervener status.

Superior Court Judge Aarseth denied each of the allegations made by Nunamta Aulukestai, and ruled that no evidence of environmental harm was presented. He described one of the prosecution's expert witnesses, Lance Trasky, as providing "seat of the pants assertions (that) were simply not persuasive to this Court."

"It is not often that persons who oppose responsible resource development in the United States are called upon to prove their accusations with facts and empirical science, whereas resource developers are required to demonstrate how their proposals will meet strict environmental standards," Thiessen said. "The totally unsupported allegations of Nunamta Aulukestai in this case are illustrative of the rhetoric that anti-Pebble activists have used to alarm local people about the potential effects of the Pebble Project, a project that has not yet even entered the permitting process.