NAK Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.

$NAK 19 years holding...Trump's coming soon again, I have no expectations. First time that I just dont care..could be the time this time!!!! OPEN PEBBLE MINE! Make Alaska Great Again Make America Great Again

$NAK My guess is a removal of the veto by Thanksgiving. This has been hanging over her head since July. Removal is essentially kicking the can down the road to incite other opposition. However, the opposition is the small vocal minority funded by…China.😳

$NAK Howard Lutnuck “Alaska is the most resource rich state in Union” as he announces the Alaska LBG pipeline deal. NAK is next!

$NAK this week we will finish in the green. Really looking forward to something good here.

$NAK strong buying wall at 1.50. Pressure is building. A catalyst will cause this to skyrocket.

$NAK I had a dream last night that this was at $7/share. I hope my dream comes true soon lol 😂

$NAK Hope you had a chance to load up on some cheapies🤑Trump needs a big win and here it comes. First Greenland for strategic data centers, now Alaska and NAK for the copper for those centers$$$

$NAK Sharon, please, for the love of America and all things good -- the ball's in your Court

$NAK is putting in a clean, orderly move here, no wild spikes, just steady steps up. MACD just crossed bullish underneath, which often lines up with buyers stepping in… could be a winner 🔥 Worth keeping this one on your radar. 👀

$NAK I don’t get on the NAK board very often. Looks like we have a new troll. Dee Dee went back to 2021 on this reply I had. if the VETO is removed, you can bet this moves to $5+ If the VETO remains in place, then .25 cents is probably where it’s going. Then to the appeals court. NAK remains high speculation. That’s all.

$NAK I’m not saying anything this week and will remain neutral to see if this helps change our luck lol God Speed! I will be watching and rooting for the bulls this week in silence 🤫

$NAK Nowhere to go but up!Copper needed and running low,this is going to be approved sooner than later,either way,like it or not DeeDee,troll of the year,it’s gonna get to the finish line.

$NAK fuck this mine, really lost 10k chasing this shit... The minerals are there no doubt but the reasoning for not mining makes absolutely zero sense

$NAK DumDum is just over here talking to herself at this point huh? No engagement whatsoever. 🤡

$NAK Higher volume today...they tryjng to scoop your shares retail. This thing is about to MOON!!!!

$NAK please stop tagging because you lack mineral development knowledge. It doesn’t matter how much metal is in the ground. Pebble has a lot of 0.5-6% copper equivalent as a RESOURCE. A Preliminary Economic Assessment can only identify RESOURCE classifications. You didn’t bother or didn’t understand previously posted links. It matters if its economic to mine. Only a Preliminary/Final Feasibility Study, or better yet a Bankable Feasibility Study (financing) can legally identify proven/probable RESERVES. After 39-years no RESERVES per any mine plan has ever been released. Anglo American, after sending $500 million determined not to proceed. So did Rio Tinto, Cominco, Teck, First Quantum, BHP, Barrick, and Freeport. No real miner will invest. No feasibility study=no reserves=no value=no government compensation. Simple. NAK has no intention to be a miner. Never did.

$NAK so, say again how terrible Pebble Mine is.....and how the politicians will protect the Alaskan territory. This is just what we know.....imagine what we dont know!!

$NAK buying again for the first time since march. These oversold levels are impossible to resist 🤤 2 1/2 years to go liberal dogs 😂😂

$NAK Maybe we have news coming? Lot of negative posts, up .08 during hours and now up .05.

$NAK Do they have a good argument? Yes — a genuinely mixed but non-trivial one. Northern Dynasty/Pebble Partnership make four main claims, and they're not equally strong: Wetlands jurisdiction (Sackett v. EPA argument) — probably their strongest claim. They argue that following the Supreme Court's 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision, which significantly narrowed which wetlands count as federally regulated "waters of the United States," much of the Pebble site's wetlands may no longer be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act at all — undercutting the legal basis for the veto. This is grounded in a real, recent, and significant precedent shift, not novel theorizing. The statutory standard argument ("may" vs. "will") — also fairly solid. Section 404(c) requires EPA find a discharge "will" have an unacceptable adverse effect; plaintiffs argue EPA only concluded harms "may" occur — a lower evidentiary bar than the statute allows.