Northern Dynasty share price rises 12% as company officially reclaims 100% of Pebble project
With Anglo American (LON:AAL) officially out of the Alaskan Pebble Project, Northern Dynasty Minerals (TSE:NDM) has re-acquired full control of the proposed mine.
Diversified mining giant Anglo announced in September that it would pull out of the controversial copper project – part of the company’s cost-cutting efforts. On Friday, Anglo concluded its exit from the Pebble Partnership and will take a $300 million write-down as the asset is removed from its books.
At the same time, Northern Dynasty announced that it had taken over Anglo’s interest in the Partnership, giving it 100% ownership of the project once again. Northern Dynasty first acquired the site in 2001.
All Anglo representatives have resigned from the Pebble Mines Corporation board of directors.
Northern Dynasty shares were up 12% on the Toronto exchange on Friday, trading at $1.12 per share.
“During the course of the last six years and at a cost of $556 million …, substantial progress has been made toward our goal of permitting, constructing and operating a world-class, modern and environmentally responsible mine at Pebble that will co-exist with the fisheries resources of southwest Alaska,” Northern Dynasty CEO Ronald Thiessen said in a statement.
According to Thiessen, Northern Dynasty is now in a position to trigger federal and state permitting in the first quarter of 2014. The company is also working on getting a new partner for the project.
“Our primary focus is to select the right partner for Northern Dynasty and the right investor for Alaska, a company with sufficient financial resources and technical capabilities, working experience in the United States and a shared commitment to environmentally sound and socially responsible development. We have little doubt that Pebble will attract major mining company interest in the months ahead,” Thiessen said.
But over the past year the Pebble mine has attracted a lot of unwanted interest. Environmental groups have fiercely opposed the mine over fears that it would endanger fish populations and other wildlife.
Proponents of the mine argue that Alaska is in desperate need of the estimated 15,000 jobs the project would provide and the $400 million boost it would give to Alaska’s annual gross state product.
The Pebble deposit holds an estimated 55 billion pounds of copper and 67 million ounces of gold.
{{ commodity.name }}
{{ post.title }}
{{ post.date }}
2 Comments
frankinca
Wish I knew the real story and not the published one. When a deal seems to be too good to be true, then…………………. Everyone is frustrated by the lack of good science or the lack of money to be borrowed. Someone might know the details and publish them.
Rod Adams
frankinca
Sometimes it takes time for stories to become clear. It seems that the real problem with the Pebble deposit is that it represents a large competitive threat to established mining interests that would prefer to keep its gold, copper and molybdenum off of the market.
In mid 2014, Rio Tinto gave its share of the project away to two non profit groups, one of which was a known and active opponent of the project. That group – Bristol Bay Native Corporation Education Foundation – quickly sold off the stock and banked $6.5 million to help it with its ongoing campaigns, including the one fighting the mine.
In December 2014, Rio Tinto held an investor day. A story from that event includes the following quote.
“As we move into 2015 the copper industry will continue be oversupplied in the medium term which will drive continued volatility in price,” Jean-Sebastien Jacques, chief executive of the copper division, said during Rio Tinto’s investor day.
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45373583.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Another story published in December 2014 was headlined “BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto move to dominate in copper”
http://business.financialpost.com/news/mining/bhp-billiton-rio-tinto-move-to-dominate-in-copper
Does that help explain why “environmentalists” have successfully built a politically strong effort to halt development of the resources?
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights