Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd
WKN: 906169 / ISIN: CA66510M2040Northern Dynasty Minerals WKN 906169
| eröffnet am: | 17.10.09 20:08 von: | nullkommanix |
| neuester Beitrag: | 18.02.26 19:57 von: | Schakal1975 |
| Anzahl Beiträge: | 1707 | |
| Leser gesamt: | 646757 | |
| davon Heute: | 48 | |
bewertet mit 6 Sternen |
||
|
|
||
14.11.16 16:13
#202
ubsb55
Klippenkuckuck
Hast du die Aktie schon mal gekauft oder verkauft?.Geh in die Orderübersicht und klicke die Aktie an, dann geh auf " außerbörslich". Entweder sie geben dir einen Preis vor, oder du setzt einfach eine limmitierte Order. Die wird wahrscheinlich ausgeführt, auch wenn in dem Feld Rechts Oben kein Wert erscheint. Ich hab es so gemacht.
14.11.16 17:36
#203
Klippenkuckuck
Hat geklappt
Hat eine Stunde später wieder wie gewohnt funktioniert. Manchmal ist anscheinend der Wurm drin.
15.11.16 10:08
#204
gibbywestgerman.
Der Rumpel
könnte doch recht haben. Das erklärt auch, warum Nak mit den anderen Goldminen nicht gemeinsam abgestürzt ist. Der Myron Ebell ist ebenso wie Donald selbst Leugner des Klimawandels, beide wollen die Umweltbehörde bzw. das Pariser Klimaabkommen abschaffen. Von daher ist es durchaus möglich, dass Nak in nicht allzu ferner Zukunft, zumal in einer strukturschwachen Region, die erforderliche Genehmigung über den Kopf anderer Behörden bzw. der Gegner des Projekts hinweg erhält. Einfacher sind Arbeitsplätze sind nicht zu schaffen und das ist ja eines der Hauptziele von Donald neben der Verbesserung der Infrastruktur.
15.11.16 12:22
#205
rumpelofen
Der Ebell ist schon ein gewaltiger
Schwachapfel!
Naja...mir solls recht sein...solange er die EPA führt oder evtl. sogar Umweltminister wird...
und Dynasty eine schnelle Genehmigung erhält.
Naja...mir solls recht sein...solange er die EPA führt oder evtl. sogar Umweltminister wird...
und Dynasty eine schnelle Genehmigung erhält.
15.11.16 12:30
#206
rumpelofen
Ebell zu Dynasty....
"I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the EPA’s draft watershed assessment for the vast Bristol Bay region of Alaska because it sets a dangerous precedent, is wholly unnecessary, and relies on dubious source material from biased anti-mining organizations and scientists that recently admitted to falsifying reports submitted in legal proceedings," reads
15.11.16 12:42
#207
rumpelofen
Leute, glaubt es mir...wir haben den JACK-POT!
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Perciasepe:
We, the undersigned coalition of taxpayer groups and non-partisan policy organizations from across the country write in opposition to the proposal that the EPA take the unprecedented action of preemptively prohibiting the development of a copper mine in Southwest Alaska (AKA Pebble Mine) before the project has even had the chance to go through the permitting process. New studies show that development of Pebble Mine would result in significant job creation and would generate much needed revenue for state coffers, both in Alaska and the lower 48. President Obama has talked about the need to create high-paying jobs and grow the economy. Development of Pebble Mine would accomplish both. As such, it is imperative that this important project be given a fair hearing.
Over the past several years, environmental lobbying organizations have written to the EPA seeking action to study or to stop the development of Pebble Mine in Southwest Alaska, which would be located on state land designated for mining. In response to these requests, the EPA has undertaken a “watershed assessment” of the Bristol Bay region (the Bristol Bay Assessment). This unprecedented action, which is an “extra regulatory” process, is especially odd given that the Pebble Partnership has yet to formally apply for any permits to construct a mine or enter the NEPA process. Simply put, the EPA’s watershed assessment is an ecological risk analysis of a hypothetical mine that has no basis in reality.
The EPA’s risk assessment of a hypothetical mine – a mine that, as invented by the EPA could never be permitted today -- predicts negative consequences if the hypothetical mine is built. This whole exercise has been unnecessary and unhelpful. Pebble Partnership has invested over $150 million already in developing environmental baseline data and has stated that the project will not move forward if it cannot be built in a way that meets the most stringent environmental standards and protects the local fishery. The baseline data extensively compiled was virtually ignored by the EPA in creating its assessment.
Our practical concern with the EPA exercise now is the unfair manner in which the agency is conducting its most recent public comments and peer review. The public comment period and peer review of the latest draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment are being conducted concurrently. This means that the peer reviewers will not see the public comments before they give the Agency their assessment. In the last peer review process, where peer reviewers actually held a public comment session, significant flaws in the EPA’s science were found — science upon which they may base future decisions. This is not only unfair to parties currently involved in this issue, but also discourages future mining projects and prohibits the creation of jobs.
In addition, the EPA has admitted to cherry picking scientific studies that support its conclusions that the mine will cause environmental damage and sending those studies out for peer review. Many of these studies were produced by known and sometimes outspoken critics of mining (Kuipers, Earth Works, Woody, and others). As previously stated, special credence was given to these environmental groups and the environmental baseline data compiled by the Pebble Partnership was ignored. This is not science. It is bias and it is unacceptable in a report that is portrayed as a scientific document used for future decision-making.
Making matters worse, the actions undertaken by the EPA threaten the creation of thousands of well-paying, private sector jobs in an economic sector that is starved for gainful employment. In fact, studies have shown that the initial construction stages of the mine would create over 4,000 jobs. When completed, Pebble Mine would generate another 3,000 jobs paying an average of $80,000 per year. Not only will jobs be created in Alaska, Pebble Mine would support up to 11,000 jobs in the lower 48 states. The EPA’s present course of actions threatens to kill these jobs before they are even created, or create a false pretense to do so in the future.
Premature judgment and action by the EPA is cause for great concern, not just in Alaska, but across the country. Interested stakeholders should be able to gather information about the potential risks of a mining plan, the potential economic effects, and the true risks of mining development near their communities once an actual plan has been proposed.
Additionally, the agency should separate the public comment process from the peer review so that the peer reviewers have a chance to see the public comments before rendering its opinion to the Agency. Given that no permit application has been submitted, there should be no rush to complete this scientific inquiry.
We appreciate your consideration.
Signed:
Nathan Mehrens President, Americans for Limited Government
James Valvo Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
Nansen Malin State Director, AFP-Washington State
Grover Norquist President, Americans for Tax Reform
Jim Waters, President, Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy
Peter J. Nelson Director of Public Policy, Center of the American Experiment
Fred Smith President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Michael Quinn Sullivan, President, Empower Texans
Myron Ebell Executive Director, Freedom Action
Jonathan Bechtle CEO, Freedom Foundation
Benita Dodd Vice President, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Mike Needham Chief Executive Officer, Heritage Action for America
Wayne Hoffman Executive Director, Idaho Freedom Foundation
Daniel Simmons Director of Regulatory & State Affairs, Institute for Energy Research
Jon Sanders Director of Regulatory Studies, The John Lo
June 4, 2013
The Honorable Bob Perciasepe Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Perciasepe:
We, the undersigned coalition of taxpayer groups and non-partisan policy organizations from across the country write in opposition to the proposal that the EPA take the unprecedented action of preemptively prohibiting the development of a copper mine in Southwest Alaska (AKA Pebble Mine) before the project has even had the chance to go through the permitting process. New studies show that development of Pebble Mine would result in significant job creation and would generate much needed revenue for state coffers, both in Alaska and the lower 48. President Obama has talked about the need to create high-paying jobs and grow the economy. Development of Pebble Mine would accomplish both. As such, it is imperative that this important project be given a fair hearing.
Over the past several years, environmental lobbying organizations have written to the EPA seeking action to study or to stop the development of Pebble Mine in Southwest Alaska, which would be located on state land designated for mining. In response to these requests, the EPA has undertaken a “watershed assessment” of the Bristol Bay region (the Bristol Bay Assessment). This unprecedented action, which is an “extra regulatory” process, is especially odd given that the Pebble Partnership has yet to formally apply for any permits to construct a mine or enter the NEPA process. Simply put, the EPA’s watershed assessment is an ecological risk analysis of a hypothetical mine that has no basis in reality.
The EPA’s risk assessment of a hypothetical mine – a mine that, as invented by the EPA could never be permitted today -- predicts negative consequences if the hypothetical mine is built. This whole exercise has been unnecessary and unhelpful. Pebble Partnership has invested over $150 million already in developing environmental baseline data and has stated that the project will not move forward if it cannot be built in a way that meets the most stringent environmental standards and protects the local fishery. The baseline data extensively compiled was virtually ignored by the EPA in creating its assessment.
Our practical concern with the EPA exercise now is the unfair manner in which the agency is conducting its most recent public comments and peer review. The public comment period and peer review of the latest draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment are being conducted concurrently. This means that the peer reviewers will not see the public comments before they give the Agency their assessment. In the last peer review process, where peer reviewers actually held a public comment session, significant flaws in the EPA’s science were found — science upon which they may base future decisions. This is not only unfair to parties currently involved in this issue, but also discourages future mining projects and prohibits the creation of jobs.
In addition, the EPA has admitted to cherry picking scientific studies that support its conclusions that the mine will cause environmental damage and sending those studies out for peer review. Many of these studies were produced by known and sometimes outspoken critics of mining (Kuipers, Earth Works, Woody, and others). As previously stated, special credence was given to these environmental groups and the environmental baseline data compiled by the Pebble Partnership was ignored. This is not science. It is bias and it is unacceptable in a report that is portrayed as a scientific document used for future decision-making.
Making matters worse, the actions undertaken by the EPA threaten the creation of thousands of well-paying, private sector jobs in an economic sector that is starved for gainful employment. In fact, studies have shown that the initial construction stages of the mine would create over 4,000 jobs. When completed, Pebble Mine would generate another 3,000 jobs paying an average of $80,000 per year. Not only will jobs be created in Alaska, Pebble Mine would support up to 11,000 jobs in the lower 48 states. The EPA’s present course of actions threatens to kill these jobs before they are even created, or create a false pretense to do so in the future.
Premature judgment and action by the EPA is cause for great concern, not just in Alaska, but across the country. Interested stakeholders should be able to gather information about the potential risks of a mining plan, the potential economic effects, and the true risks of mining development near their communities once an actual plan has been proposed.
Additionally, the agency should separate the public comment process from the peer review so that the peer reviewers have a chance to see the public comments before rendering its opinion to the Agency. Given that no permit application has been submitted, there should be no rush to complete this scientific inquiry.
We appreciate your consideration.
Signed:
Nathan Mehrens President, Americans for Limited Government
James Valvo Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
Nansen Malin State Director, AFP-Washington State
Grover Norquist President, Americans for Tax Reform
Jim Waters, President, Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy
Peter J. Nelson Director of Public Policy, Center of the American Experiment
Fred Smith President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Michael Quinn Sullivan, President, Empower Texans
Myron Ebell Executive Director, Freedom Action
Jonathan Bechtle CEO, Freedom Foundation
Benita Dodd Vice President, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Mike Needham Chief Executive Officer, Heritage Action for America
Wayne Hoffman Executive Director, Idaho Freedom Foundation
Daniel Simmons Director of Regulatory & State Affairs, Institute for Energy Research
Jon Sanders Director of Regulatory Studies, The John Lo
15.11.16 12:59
#209
rumpelofen
Ich lass mir dann ein Tatoo auf den Arsch stechen.
mit Myron Ebell drauf und 3 Herzchen....lol
15.11.16 14:02
#211
LuckyLuck_
Mutig
Mutig. Leider sind die oberen beiden Berichte aus dem Jahr 2013 und diese Leute interessiert ihr Geschwätz von gestern nicht. Aber bei solchen Themen spielen da immer auch viel Emotionen mit rein und wenn Herr Ebell immernoch schlechte Erinnerungen die EPA von damals hat, dann kann es hier sehr schnell zu einer Buddelerlaubnis kommen.
15.11.16 14:13
#212
rumpelofen
Dickinson...der Dynasty CEO, hat
über die Börse, gestern Aktien gekauft!
Der Start-Schuss???
https://www.canadianinsider.com/...7C%20Northern%20Dynasty%20Minerals
Der Start-Schuss???
https://www.canadianinsider.com/...7C%20Northern%20Dynasty%20Minerals
15.11.16 14:24
#213
LuckyLuck_
Hm
aber ein bisschen mehr als 4725 € hätte ich jetzt schon erwartet...
15.11.16 17:17
#215
joe medo2
@Lucky..Hm
Schau mal nach Toronto. Heute bis jetzt schon schlappe 693.000!
15.11.16 17:19
#216
Klippenkuckuck
Hmm
Bei Tradegate schon 0.99 Euro. Eventuell verlassen wir diese Woche noch den Pennystock Bereich. Toronto liegt auch mit knapp 14% im Plus.
Stocke trotzdem erst wieder auf wenn die Personalien im Trump Kabinett wasserfest sind. Bei dem Tempo was hier abgeht muss ich bestimmt zu 3.50 im Januar nachlegen ;-)
Stocke trotzdem erst wieder auf wenn die Personalien im Trump Kabinett wasserfest sind. Bei dem Tempo was hier abgeht muss ich bestimmt zu 3.50 im Januar nachlegen ;-)
15.11.16 17:21
#217
LuckyLuck_
joe
ich habe mich auf #212 bezogen und meinte die aktien die der ceo gekauft hat. das war nur eine positition über umgerechnet 4725 €.
ja derzeit kennt die aktie kein halten mehr. 23% gerade NASDAQ
ja derzeit kennt die aktie kein halten mehr. 23% gerade NASDAQ
15.11.16 18:35
#220
Klippenkuckuck
Einfach nur heftig
Und das scheinbar ohne handfeste Nachrichten. Nur im Glauben daran das es Herr Ebell schon richten wird. Sollte das Ding hier wirklich auf 40 gehen wird nicht nur der Name Ebell per Tattoo verewigt, dann kommt Rumpelofen hinzu ;-)
15.11.16 19:04
#221
joe medo2
Tattoo
Wenn schon, dann bitte in Abwandlung des amerikanischen Slogans: vom Tellerwäscher zum Mllionär.......durch rumpelofen zum Millionär.
Die Beiträge von rumpelofen haben mich auch vor einiger Zeit bei meiner Entscheidung zum Halten bestärkt.
Die Beiträge von rumpelofen haben mich auch vor einiger Zeit bei meiner Entscheidung zum Halten bestärkt.
15.11.16 20:33
#223
ubsb55
Tja
da hab ich ein langes Gesicht gemacht, wegen dem Goldpreis. Jetzt hab ich Dynasty, Canadian Zeolite, Marapharm und seit Freitag MGX Minerals. Ich weiß , ist off Topic, aber den letzten Wert würde ich mal auf die Watch setzten.
http://rockstone-research.de/index.php/de/...in-Kuerze-betriebsbereit
http://rockstone-research.de/index.php/de/...in-Kuerze-betriebsbereit
15.11.16 22:01
#224
Klippenkuckuck
Gestört aber geil
+ 35% in Toronto und bei Tradegate fast 40. Haltet die Schlüppies fest und lasst euch von der Gier nicht überrollen. Der Kram hier kann auch beim Totalverlust enden anstatt im Haus am See.
15.11.16 22:40
#225
rumpelofen
Hab den Amis auf Investors hub mal bescheidgegeben
damit diese ahnungslosen USER auch mal wissen, was Sache ist...lol
hier herunterscrollen.....
hier herunterscrollen.....

