ALASKA SUPERIOR COURT CONFIRMS PEBBLE EXPLORATION PERMITS

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. (“Northern Dynasty”) (TSX: NDM), (NYSE

Amex: NAK). “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.

“The good news for supporters of responsible resource development in Alaska and the United States is

that the legal system, the regulatory and permitting system and the rule of law in these jurisdictions are

strong. The Pebble Project will ultimately be judged on its merits and the quality of the environmental

safeguards it has established to protect fish, water, subsistence activities and other important values in

the region. On that basis, we remain confident that Pebble is a technically sound and economically

robust project that will provide significant benefits for local residents and the State of Alaska for

decades into the future.”