Hi WB DT,

I understand your arguments as to why the judge should not remand.

However, my post is in regards to the statement made by Judge Du in which she indicates two things:

1. She may be considering the Rosemont case as the controlling case

2. She wants the parties to put together their requests/suggestions/plans for relief in the event that she remands the the case back to the BLM.

The first one indicates to me that she is giving serious credence to the Environmental Activists claims.  This is an issue we have discussed in my own group which we believed for the last several months that there may be merit (relative to the tribal and Rancher claims).

She has consistently indicated that she does believe the Environmtal Activists claims have some merits in various documents and rulings.

What the latest filing did for me was reaffirm our suspicions. 

So I ask you.  Why would she ask both parties to prepare relief statements ONLY for the event of her remanding the case back to the BLM?  (I can certainly understand preparing for both outcomes or neither, but to select one side, implies a bias for that outcome).

I have heard some people argue that it is to plug up appellate loop holes from the Plaintiff, but that makes no sense.  Soliciting relief statements from both sides on a Remand outcome doesn't impact any Appellant loophool for the Plaintiff.

Others have argued that this is procedural.  I have talked to a federal attorney on this and she informed me there is no such requirement.

In my view (which can be completely wrong, I know), this is an indication that the bench order that Judge Du likely has already in place is leaning towards remanding the case back to the BLM.

If I am right, then the primary question that remains is whether it is a Remand with or without vacatur or injunction.

If it is a Remand without vacatur or injunction, thatn all is good and the BLM will cure any deficiencies identified by the court in due course and we will be able to proceed with construction right away.

If it is a Remand with injunction but no vacature, then that is also okay because it means that construction start will likely still start this year, just delayed as everyone waits for the BLM/LAC to cure the deficiiencies.

If it is a Remand with vacatur, than that is a large problem, in that it is an effective "reset" which, while not as long as the prior application, will take some time.  It also opens the door for further motions, appeals, public hearings, etc...  That can drag the case out for a long time and construction would not likely start this year as a result.  It also potentially puts either or both any strategic relationships or DOE loans, as there is no certainty on the outcome any more and/or timeline.  Those two groups may not be willing to wait and hold funds in reserve while LAC dukes it out with legal system and it is not clear if the current administration will step in (as they have not done so in the past).

The question has little to do with whether WE (as investors) agree with Rosemont, but more about what Judge Du is thinking.  She has shown her hand, I believe, in part that she is leaning toward a remand.  I have run this by a federal attorney (in the capacity of no-legal advice and just as an opinion) and she agrees that statement from Judge Du seems to indicate a remand is likely.

I personally Judge Du will opt to do a Remand with injunction or without injunction, and no pursue a vacatur.  However, I have chose to pull my investment until I have a chance to hear the parties put forth there options for relief and to gauge the import of commentary and questions from Judge Du.

As I stated in my post, I still plan on going back into LAC next year either once the hearing ahs occurred or after a decision is rendered, and I do believe there is not a lot of room for the share price to fall (as it is trading around floor value as it is today).

Anyway, it is perfectly for us to disagree on the interpretation of that filing and I respect both sides (since I know I can easily be wrong).

Hope that helps,

IRR