Beleggen met ongekend lage tarieven?
Aandelen BE/NL €2+0,03% / VS €0,50+$0,004 p/st
Kernselectie: Geen kosten turbo's, ETF's en fondsen
DEGIRO: meer informatie / rekening openen
- Berichten: 480
- Lid geworden op: 23 apr 2020 13:51
- waarderingen: 478
Eigenlijk niets nieuws te vermelden.
Ze toonden hun slides (die deels uitleggen wat er in de voorgaande post van Kjell staat), gaven wat uitleg over waarom et de moeite waard is om in NDM/NAK te investeren.
Qua waarde materiaal in de grond + vgl met andere miners (en ontginningskosten) zou de prijs/aandeel x 5 of x10 moeten.
Ze kunnen de import van Koper/Rhenium/Zilver met 50% doen dalen voor de VS indien Pebble de mijn mag ontginnen.
Belangrijkste vragen die gesteld werden, waren uiteraard ivm de ROD en de mogelijke JV/ BO.
1. Bekomen ROD:
Ze hebben NU hun Migitation Plan ingediend nadat ze begin september ('very high bar') de eisen ivm de wetlands ed gekregen hadden. Hiervoor hebben ze veel tijd nodig gehad en hebben ze de volledige focus gelegd op hun dossier.
Hun werk is nu gedaan en het is wachten op een beslissing. Qua timing kan men eigenlijk niet veel zeggen aangezien er geen exacte (lees maximale) tijd opgegeven is waarbinnen de beslissing genomen moet worden.
In het algemeen duurt dit niet zo lang om alles te doorlopen (vergeet niet dat hun migitation plan ook imminent was).
De staat moet dit nog mee bekijken en als die akkoord zijn, staat er eigenlijk niets nog een positieve ROD in de weg. Men verwacht dat dit nog gebeurd onder de huidige adminitratie (Trump) en gaven een termijn op van Mid-Eind JAN/2021.
**persoonlijk gedacht : dit er wel erg close bij het aflopen van de termijn van Trump. Als er wat fout gaat, valt het onder Biden **
2. Kan ROD ongedaan gemaakt worden:
'we should be OK' Legaal staan ze sterk eenmaal ze de ROD hebben. Hij zegt wel dat er tegenspraak zal komen zodra ze de ROD krijgen (lees: rechtzaken zullen er komen).
JV of BO
1. Wie en wanneer:
Bezig geweest met Migitation en dus niet met BO of JV. Daar gaat wel veel tijd naar uitgegaan. Ook Covid heeft niet geholpen om de nodige contacten/bezoeken te doen ifv BO en JV.
Men had het wel over een mogelijk JV en naar alle waarschijnlijkheid met een consortium met 2/3 partijen (dus geen JV met 1 partij). Men focust ook op een JV en geen BO. Hier gaat in 2021 de gehele focus naartoe gaan.
** persoonlijk gedacht: komen ze nog lang toe met hun werkkapitaal of zal er weer verwatering komen? **
2. Wat na de ROD:
State permit (2022 start en ca 2,5 j duren)
Fundamental Construction permit (volgend op SP en voorzien ze gene problemen)
MAW: eigenlijk niets nieuws. Het is nu dus afwachten op de ROD en hopelijk een snelle JV in 2021.
- Berichten: 480
- Lid geworden op: 23 apr 2020 13:51
- waarderingen: 478
Pebble Partnership quietly submits mitigation plan amid political shifts opposing the mine
By Grant Robinson
Published: Nov. 18, 2020 at 12:29 AM GMT+1|Updated: 7 hours ago
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) - The day after a record number of Americans voted in the Nov. 3 election, the Pebble Partnership submitted a plan for how it would mitigate damage to wetlands when building the country’s largest open-pit mine, completing one of the final requirements needed before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decides whether or not to issue a federal permit for the project.
Though the permitting process is intended to be science-based and apolitical, candidates for both the presidency and Alaska’s congressional seats addressed a mine that has become controversial as it sits at the headwaters of the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world.
In late August, one month after the Army Corps published the project’s final environmental impact statement, the Army Corps said the project could not be permitted as proposed and gave the Pebble Partnership 90 days to provide a compensatory mitigation plan. Before the company would submit its mitigation plan, undercover recordings would lead to the resignation of the company’s CEO, both Alaska senators would state their clear opposition to the project and then-candidate Joe Biden pledged that his administration would block the project.
Despite the string of public relations setbacks, the company maintains that it will be able to move forward with the project, but with a transition in the executive branch expected to bring tighter environmental regulation, the company faces several potential threats during the home stretch of its federal permitting process.
Former EPA administrator expects less executive intervention from Biden’s EPA
Rollbacks of environmental regulation in the name of economic development were a hallmark of the Trump Administration. For the Pebble Project, the primary example of that action was the Environmental Protection Agency’s withdrawal of its 2014 Proposed Determination, which had preemptively vetoed the project.
The Clean Water Act allows the EPA to veto a permit that the Army Corps may issue if the project would have “unacceptable adverse impacts” to certain resources, such as the Bristol Bay fishery. The law allows the EPA to exercise its veto authority before a permit for a project has been issued, while the permit is being evaluated or after a permit is issued.
The EPA during former President Barack Obama’s administration conducted an analysis of impacts of mining the Pebble deposit based on hypothetical scenarios and data Northern Dynasty Minerals provided in the 2014 Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. The agency then executed its veto authority to block the project before the company applied for a permit. Then five years later under President Donald Trump, the EPA reversed that decision.
Though President-elect Biden vowed his administration would block the project, the president is not typically directly involved with such specific agency decisions.
“I think it depends on the administration," said Dennis McLerran, EPA Administrator for Region 10 under Obama. "Certainly during the Trump administration, there was a more direct engagement by the president. He met with the Alaska governor, Governor Dunleavy on his way to Korea apparently, and that resulted in some directives back down to EPA. But typically, and certainly, this was the process during the Obama administration, it really is a whole process.”
McLerran says that if the Army Corps grants a permit for the project, people in Alaska would be able to petition the EPA under a new administration to reexamine the issues.
However, Pebble Partnership spokesperson Mike Heatwole says that the Army Corps' environmental review has shown that the mine can be built responsibly.
“The Obama era EPA’s actions against the project came when there was not a mine plan in the permitting process, and now we have a plan that has gone through near completion to the federal environmental review process, where again, the EIS has stated that the project can successfully coexist with the fishery in Bristol Bay,” Heatwole said. “In terms of next steps if there is that type of challenge it would have to stand on a concrete record other than speculation.”
Biden campaigned promising more active steps to address climate change, and Heatwole says developing the Pebble deposit helps the country meet that need.
“As a nation, especially as we look to our president-elect and his stated goals of changing U.S. climate policy to a lower carbon future, that’s going to require a significant increase in domestic mining, especially copper, and there aren’t exactly a lot of sources of copper out there that can fill that demand. And we certainly think that a project like ours that can coexist responsibly with the environment can help the nation meet those goals, and that would be a key message that we would take to the incoming administration,” Heatwole said.
Mine opponents have long raised concerns that the 20-year plan the Pebble Partnership submitted a permit for was just the tip of the iceberg and that the company intended to build a larger, longer operating mine. That intention was confirmed in September when secretly recorded conversations with then Pebble Partnership CEO Tom Collier and Ron Thiessen, CEO of Pebble’s parent company Northern Dynasty Minerals, showed the executives detailing their intent and plans to further develop the deposit.
McLerran says that the 2014 Watershed Assessment produced on his watch is still valid and that the company’s long term plans could be taken into consideration. The watershed assessment was based on a document from Nothern Dynasty called an order report, which outlined scenarios for how the Pebble deposit could be mined.
“The watershed assessment really did take a look at the various mining scenarios and what the impacts could be,” McLerran said. “And if that intention is to fully develop the entire deposit, then I think the science is still valid, the concerns are still valid and certainly people have a right to petition the EPA to take another look at the current plans of Pebble and perhaps what’s been revealed in terms of their intentions longer term. The scope of the environmental impact statement done by the Corps was limited to a specific small mine proposal by Pebble, and we now know their intentions are much more than that.”
Senators stand against Pebble Mine
The late August letter from the Army Corps requesting a compensatory mitigation plan was interpreted by many, including Alaska’s senators, to mean that the Army Corps would not permit the mine.
In the race for senate, independent candidate Al Gross used the Pebble Tapes to amplify his attacks on Sen. Dan Sullivan for his position on the project. As a result, Sullivan tweeted his outright opposition to the project and during Senate Fisheries Debate the senator inaccurately declared that the permitting process was over.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski also said that she opposed the project and believed it could not be permitted because it was unlikely that the company could provide a compensatory mitigation plan sufficient enough to meet environmental standards given the damage the project would create.
Last week, Murkowski, who is the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee, drew flak from mine opponents after providing funds for the Army Corps in a 2021 appropriations bill. In the explanatory text accompanying the bill, the text reads, “If the Pebble Limited Partnership is unable to provide a full and functional compensatory mitigation plan that meets all requirements within the Corps' requested 90-day timeframe, the Committee encourages the agencies to proceed to a decision denying the permit for the project.”
Critics interpreted this as Murkowski being soft on the project by doing nothing more than telling the agencies to do their jobs. Some called on the senator to not allocate any funds to the Corps for completing the permit review process.
Murkowski said last Thursday that she and her staff struggled with the wording in the bill, but that she decided the best path forward was ensuring the Army Corps can finish its evaluation process given the belief that the Army Corps' final decision would be to deny a permit.
Pebble had not announced that it had submitted its compensatory mitigation plan on Nov. 4. As of Tuesday afternoon, the plan has not been made publicly available by either Pebble or the Army Corps.
“The message that I wanted to send very clearly in my appropriations language was you submit a compensatory mitigation plan that meets these requirements, which almost everyone will tell you is not possible, but you do it within this deadline, and after that it’s not an open-ended thing,” Murkowski said. “What I want to be able to do is say Corps, do your job, we’ve said it can’t be permitted, there was no compensatory mitigation plan that was submitted, or if there was within that time period, it didn’t meet that high threshold, deny that permit. Because once that permit is denied, that ends it.”
Murkowski says she prefers the project to be stopped by the Army Corps denying to issue a permit rather than an EPA veto because of the finality of the permit rejection and the potential negative impacts on other resource development projects should the EPA issue a veto after a permit is already granted. However, if the Army Corps were to grant Pebble a permit, Murkowski says an EPA veto would make sense as one way to end the project.
Also in the appropriations bill, Murkowski allocated funds for appraising lands such as those in the Bristol Bay ecosystem for a potential land exchange.
“If we’re going to move forward with an exchange or a conveyance, the first step is knowing what the value is because you have to be able to do like-kind exchanges,” Murkowski said. “So I’m not only ending the process and doing it now, I’m also beginning that next step which permanently takes this watershed area, this very environmentally sensitive ecosystem, taking it off the table through and exchange so that the people in the region don’t have to deal with yet another generation of folks who are worried about what may or may not happen there.”
The compensatory mitigation plan is the last major outstanding document the Army Corps has requested from Pebble before issuing a record of decision.
A spokesperson for the Army Corps told Alaska’s News Source that the agency is reviewing the document now, and if the Army Corps determines it to be compliant with applicable regulations, then the Army Corps will post it to the PebbleProjectEIS website. The spokesperson did not have a timeline for how long that may take.
The State of Alaska must also issue either a certification or waiver of certification under Sector 401 of the Clean Water Act before the Army Corps can issue a Record of Decision.
A spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said, “DEC continues to review the comments received during the public notice period and is deliberating on the 401 Certificate of Reasonable Assurance process. DEC has not yet received a copy of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan and are therefore unable to comment about the contents.”
Copyright 2020 KTUU. All rights reserved.
- Berichten: 480
- Lid geworden op: 23 apr 2020 13:51
- waarderingen: 478
Here's Why We're Watching Northern Dynasty Minerals' (TSE:NDM) Cash Burn Situation
Simply Wall St
Wed, November 18, 2020, 7:50 AM GMT+1
There's no doubt that money can be made by owning shares of unprofitable businesses. For example, although software-as-a-service business Salesforce.com lost money for years while it grew recurring revenue, if you held shares since 2005, you'd have done very well indeed. But while history lauds those rare successes, those that fail are often forgotten; who remembers Pets.com?
So, the natural question for Northern Dynasty Minerals (TSE:NDM) shareholders is whether they should be concerned by its rate of cash burn. In this article, we define cash burn as its annual (negative) free cash flow, which is the amount of money a company spends each year to fund its growth. Let's start with an examination of the business' cash, relative to its cash burn.
View our latest analysis for Northern Dynasty Minerals
How Long Is Northern Dynasty Minerals' Cash Runway?
A cash runway is defined as the length of time it would take a company to run out of money if it kept spending at its current rate of cash burn. As at September 2020, Northern Dynasty Minerals had cash of CA$63m and such minimal debt that we can ignore it for the purposes of this analysis. Looking at the last year, the company burnt through CA$58m. That means it had a cash runway of around 13 months as of September 2020. While that cash runway isn't too concerning, sensible holders would be peering into the distance, and considering what happens if the company runs out of cash. Depicted below, you can see how its cash holdings have changed over time.
How Is Northern Dynasty Minerals' Cash Burn Changing Over Time?
Because Northern Dynasty Minerals isn't currently generating revenue, we consider it an early-stage business. So while we can't look to sales to understand growth, we can look at how the cash burn is changing to understand how expenditure is trending over time. As it happens, the company's cash burn reduced by 13% over the last year, which suggests that management are maintaining a fairly steady rate of business development, albeit with a slight decrease in spending. Clearly, however, the crucial factor is whether the company will grow its business going forward. So you might want to take a peek at how much the company is expected to grow in the next few years.
How Hard Would It Be For Northern Dynasty Minerals To Raise More Cash For Growth?
Even though it has reduced its cash burn recently, shareholders should still consider how easy it would be for Northern Dynasty Minerals to raise more cash in the future. Companies can raise capital through either debt or equity. Commonly, a business will sell new shares in itself to raise cash and drive growth. By looking at a company's cash burn relative to its market capitalisation, we gain insight on how much shareholders would be diluted if the company needed to raise enough cash to cover another year's cash burn.
Northern Dynasty Minerals has a market capitalisation of CA$595m and burnt through CA$58m last year, which is 9.8% of the company's market value. Given that is a rather small percentage, it would probably be really easy for the company to fund another year's growth by issuing some new shares to investors, or even by taking out a loan.
So, Should We Worry About Northern Dynasty Minerals' Cash Burn?
Northern Dynasty Minerals appears to be in pretty good health when it comes to its cash burn situation. Not only was its cash burn reduction quite good, but its cash burn relative to its market cap was a real positive. Cash burning companies are always on the riskier side of things, but after considering all of the factors discussed in this short piece, we're not too worried about its rate of cash burn. Separately, we looked at different risks affecting the company and spotted 3 warning signs for Northern Dynasty Minerals (of which 1 is significant!) you should know about.
Of course, you might find a fantastic investment by looking elsewhere. So take a peek at this free list of companies insiders are buying, and this list of stocks growth stocks (according to analyst forecasts)
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
- Berichten: 480
- Lid geworden op: 23 apr 2020 13:51
- waarderingen: 478
- Berichten: 1998
- Lid geworden op: 19 feb 2015 09:29
- waarderingen: 1161
U.S. Rejects Controversial Alaska Pebble Gold, Copper Mine
Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Steven Frank
Thu, November 26, 2020, 1:00 AM GMT+1·4 min read
(Bloomberg) -- The Pebble mine in Alaska was dealt a potentially lethal blow after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected an essential permit for the project.
The proposed mine in southwestern Alaska, which would tap one of the world’s largest undeveloped copper and gold deposits, has been dogged by protests for years, as conservationists warn industrial mining operations near Bristol Bay threaten a flourishing sockeye salmon fishery.
The Army Corps issued a record of decision Wednesday denying Pebble’s permit, after determining the project “is contrary to the public interest,” said Col. Damon Delarosa, the agency’s Alaska district commander.
In August, the Army Corps concluded the mining plan from Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. “would likely result in significant degradation of the environment,” and the agency demanded a mitigation plan to offset the project’s effects on nearby wetlands. Northern Dynasty’s subsidiary Pebble Limited Partnership submitted the mitigation plan earlier this month, though the details weren’t released to the public.
Northern Dynasty called the decision “politically motivated” and said it was not supported by the Corps’ recently released environmental impact statement. The company said it intends to launch an appeal within 60 days. Developers also could challenge the rejection in federal court.
Delarosa said the Army Corps’ decision was “based on all available facts and complies with existing laws and regulations,” following “an in-depth analysis” of the project and roughly three years of review.
Pebble is in a remote area in southwestern Alaska that drains into Bristol Bay. Conservationists, local activists and fishing operations have fought the project for years, citing potential impacts on the environment and native cultures in the region. More recently, Pebble has drawn opposition from prominent Republicans including the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr. and skepticism from some prominent local politicians.
The decision was heralded by Alaska’s two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan. “This is the right decision, reached the right way,” Murkowski said in an emailed statement. “It will help ensure the continued protection of an irreplaceable resource – Bristol Bay’s world-class salmon fishery – and I hope it also marks the start of a more collaborative effort within the state to develop a sustainable vision for the region.”
But there were also voices in opposition. “Canceling Pebble Mine is disastrous for the unemployed and destitute people in southwest Alaska who need the high-paying jobs and economic activity the mine would provide for many decades,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. Alaska “urgently needs to diversify its economy away from oil and gas production. Canceling Pebble means that many other potential mining projects in Alaska will never be attempted,” he said.
If developed, the mine would be one of the largest producers of both copper and gold in the U.S., according to a recent presentation by Northern Dynasty, potentially producing an average of about 318 million pounds of copper, 1.8 million ounces of silver and 362,000 ounces of gold annually over a 20-year mine life.
Tim Bristol, executive director of SalmonState, a group dedicated to protecting Alaska’s salmon habitat, heralded the move Wednesday.
“Sometimes a project is so bad, so indefensible, that the politics fall to the wayside and we get the right decision,” Bristol said.
Northern Dynasty’s U.S. shares plunged 50% in New York, more than erasing its entire gain this year.
“How many other projects are strongly opposed by both Alaskan senators, by 80% of the people that live in the region, by commercial fishermen, by recreational fishermen, by Donald Trump Jr., and by Jane Fonda?” said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s astonishing the range of opposition, and that, I think, puts it in a unique category. This project really has no friends, other than a Canadian company and its shareholders.”
The project took a further public-relations blow in September after the release of covertly taped comments revealed a top mining executive boasting of his ties to state and federal leaders. The so-called Pebble Tapes incensed the project’s critics and led to the resignation of Pebble head Tom Collier.
Regardless of the Army Corps’ verdict, conservationists are pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to even more definitively kill the proposed mine by wielding its broad authority under the Clean Water Act to veto projects involving the discharge of dredged material. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to block the project, calling the area “no place for a mine” and noting the government reached the same conclusion while he was vice president.
“The Biden administration should take the next step and use the Clean Water Act to place permanent limits on mining in Bristol Bay to protect the salmon fishery and the communities that depend on it,” Bonnie Gestring, Northwest program director of environmental group Earthworks, said in a statement.
- Forum veteraan
- Berichten: 1873
- Lid geworden op: 28 jan 2018 18:54
- waarderingen: 989
Geen vergunning voor omstreden mijnbouwproject in Alaska
Pebble Limited Partnership reageert geschokt en verwijst daarbij naar een eerdere verklaring van het ingenieurskorps. Het bedrijf wil nu beroep aantekenen.
- Forum actieveling
- Berichten: 346
- Lid geworden op: 28 dec 2016 21:56
- waarderingen: 151
Is dit definitief volgens jullie of zijn er nog mogelijkheden tot beroep?
Deelnemen aan het forum + meer functies?
Deel kennis en vragen met duizenden beleggers,
minder advertenties, ideaal voor smartphone, betere
gebruikservaring en gratis abonneren op favoriete
onderwerpen. Registreer binnen 1 minuut!