Peer Review Panel confirms serious flaws in EPA’s draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment report

VANCOUVER, Nov. 15, 2012 /PRNewswire/ - Late last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released
the final judgment of a panel of independent experts retained to review
its work to date on the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA), in a
report entitled ‘External Peer Review of EPA’s Draft Document: An Assessment of Potential
Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.”

In a wide-ranging critique of the draft report’s methodology and
findings, Peer Review Panelists called the EPA’s effort to evaluate the
effects of a ‘hypothetical mining scenario’ on the water, fish,
wildlife and cultural resources of Southwest Alaska “inadequate,” “premature,” “unreasonable,” “suspect” and “misleading.” Reviewers consistently stated it is not possible to fully assess the
effects of a project like the proposed Pebble mine in a region like
Bristol Bay in the absence of a definitive mine plan.

“The authors have attempted to develop a hypothetical mine and attempted
to assess possible environmental effects associated with mine
development, operation, and closure,” said Dr. William Stubblefield, a senior professor at Oregon State
University and an expert in environmental toxicology. “Although interesting, the potential reality of the assessment is
somewhat questionable. It is also unclear why EPA undertook this
evaluation, given that a more realistic assessment could probably have
been conducted once an actual mine was proposed and greater detail
about operational parameters available.”

The EPA initiated the BBWA in February 2011 in response to requests from
certain opponents of the Pebble Project to use its power under section
404c of the US Clean Water Act to veto the project prior to the Pebble Limited Partnership (the
“Pebble Partnership” or “PLP”) submitting a proposed development plan
or applying for permits. After reducing the scope of its assessment on
a number of occasions, the federal agency completed the draft BBWA
report in just over a year, where previous EPA assessments of other
watersheds have taken 4 – 9 years to study significantly smaller areas
of land.

In addition to questioning the reasonableness of EPA efforts to assess
the effects of a project that has not yet been defined, a series of
other criticisms were consistently raised by Peer Review Panelists:

        --  the draft BBWA report suffers from a lack of sufficient data
            and information to support the conclusions reached, yet the
            report authors in many cases overlooked the voluminous
            site-specific data provided by PLP as part of its
            'Environmental Baseline Document'

        --  the draft BBWA report over-estimates both the likelihood and
            consequence of a range of potential systems and operational
            failures;

        --  the draft BBWA report presents inappropriate and misleading
            case studies;

        --  the 'hypothetical mining scenario' presented in the draft BBWA
            does not employ 'best mining practices', or the alternative
            engineering approaches, environmental safeguards and other
            mitigation strategies commonly used at modern mines to avoid
            environmental effects.

“The biggest uncertainty/variability in the evaluation of a hypothetical
project is associated with the potential range of design features,
waste management options and operational details that could be included,” said Dr. Dirk van Zyl, University of British Columbia professor of
mine engineering and noted expert on sustainable mineral development. “This was completely overlooked in the analysis by assuming a specific
design for the hypothetical mine. The failure likelihoods and
consequences on salmonid fish are very dependent on the assumptions for
the hypothetical mine. These uncertainties are neither clearly
identified nor included in the evaluations. This is a major shortcoming
of the present analysis.”

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (“Northern Dynasty” or the “Company”)
(TSX: NDM; NYSE MKT: NAK) President & CEO Ron Thiessen noted that the
summary portions of the Peer Review report actually understate the
criticisms of the 12 individual scientists who were on the Peer Review
Panel. He said it is clear that EPA has a significant amount of
revision to do if the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment is to provide a
meaningful analysis of the potential effects of hard rock mining in
Southwest Alaska. With the Pebble Partnership expected to finalize its
development plans for Pebble next year, and to initiate federal and
state permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Thiessen suggested that EPA should shelve the draft BBWA report, not
expend the many millions of dollars and possibly years necessary to
complete it, and prepare to participate in the NEPA review of Pebble.

“The Pebble Project has the potential to triple America’s strategic
reserves of copper and more than double her strategic reserves of
gold,” Thiessen said. “It could also nearly double American reserves of molybdenum, allowing
the US to rival China as a worldwide leader in the production of this
critical metal used to harden steel for US manufacturing and
construction industries.

“So this is an important project for Alaska and for the country, in
terms of its ability to generate massive capital investment, job
creation, government revenue and the raw materials to support America’s
manufacturing industries. It should be reviewed and assessed through
the NEPA permitting process like every other major project development
in the United States. The EPA’s flawed and rushed Bristol Bay Watershed
Assessment process should be shelved now.”

To view the Peer Review Panel report, or a summary of comments from
individual Peer Reviewers prepared by Northern Dynasty, visit www.northerndynasty.com.

About the Pebble Project

The Pebble Project is an initiative of PLP to responsibly develop a
globally significant copper, gold and molybdenum deposit in southwest
Alaska into a modern, long-life mine. The project is located 200 miles
southwest of Anchorage on state land designated for mineral exploration
and development. It is situated approximately 1,000 feet above
sea-level, 65 miles from tidewater on Cook Inlet and presents
favourable conditions for successful mine site and infrastructure
development.

The Pebble Project consists of the Pebble deposit, surrounding mineral
claims and a stream of financing being provided by Northern Dynasty’s
project partner Anglo American US (Pebble) LLC. The Pebble Partnership
was established in July 2007 as a 50:50 partnership between a
wholly-owned affiliate of Northern Dynasty and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Anglo American plc. Both Northern Dynasty and Anglo
American have equal ownership and direction of the Pebble Partnership.

Under the terms of the Pebble Limited Partnership Agreement, Anglo
American is required to elect to commit $1.5 billion in staged
investments in order to retain its 50% interest in the Pebble Project.
Funds provided by Anglo American are currently being invested in
comprehensive exploration, engineering, environmental and socioeconomic
programs toward the future development of the Pebble Project.

About Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.

Northern Dynasty is a mineral exploration and development company based
in Vancouver, Canada, which holds indirect interests in over 600 sq.
miles of mineral claims in southwest Alaska, USA. Northern Dynasty’s
principal asset is a 50% interest in the Pebble Partnership, owner of
the Pebble Project. The Pebble Project is an advanced-stage initiative
to develop one of the world’s most important mineral resources.

Review Canadian public filings at www.sedar.com and US public filings at www.sec.gov.

Ronald W. Thiessen

President & CEO

Sole Responsibility

No regulatory authority accepts responsibility for the adequacy or
accuracy of this release. Northern Dynasty is solely and entirely
responsible for the contents of this news release. No other party,
including any parties which have an interest in the project, are in any
way responsible for the contents hereof.

Forward Looking Information and other Cautionary Factors

This release includes certain statements that may be deemed
“forward-looking statements”. All statements in this release, other
than statements of historical facts, especially those that address
estimated resource quantities, grades and contained metals, are
forward-looking statements because they are generally made on the basis
of estimation and extrapolation from a limited number of drill holes
and metallurgical studies. Although diamond drill hole core provides
valuable information about the size, shape and geology of an
exploration project, there will always remain a significant degree of
uncertainty in connection with these valuation factors until a deposit
has been extensively drilled on closely spaced centers, which has
occurred only in specific areas on the Pebble Project. Although the
Company believes the expectations expressed in its forward-looking
statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements should
not be in any way construed as guarantees of the ultimate size, quality
or commercial feasibility of the Pebble Project or of the Company’s
future performance. The likelihood of future mining at the Pebble
Project is subject to a large number of risks and will require
achievement of a number of technical, economic and legal objectives,
including obtaining necessary mining and construction permits,
completion of pre-feasibility and final feasibility studies,
preparation of all necessary engineering for underground workings and
processing facilities as well as receipt of significant additional
financing to fund these objectives as well as funding mine
construction. Such funding may not be available to the Company on
acceptable terms or on any terms at all. There is no known ore at the
Pebble Project and there is no assurance that the mineralization at the
Pebble Project will ever be classified as ore. The need for compliance
with extensive environmental and socio-economic rules and practices and
the requirement for the Company to obtain government permitting can
cause a delay or even abandonment of a mineral project. The Company is
also subject to the specific risks inherent in the mining business as
well as general economic and business conditions. For more information
on the Company, Investors should review the Company’s annual Form 40-F
filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and
its home jurisdiction filings that are available at www.sedar.com.

SOURCE Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.