A Two-Decade Fight
The Pebble Project has been trying to become a mine for more than 20 years, and it still has not broken ground. The deposit itself, a gold, copper, and molybdenum porphyry in southwest Alaska, is one of the largest undeveloped mineral deposits on earth. The metal is not in dispute. What has kept Pebble undeveloped is a permitting fight that has outlasted multiple administrations, and that fight is now concentrated in a single lawsuit.
Jim Rickards frames this as a story about to end in the company’s favor, which is the hook of his “Trump’s Secret $2 Gold Mine” presentation. The reality is more patient. The project’s history is a series of regulatory setbacks punctuated by court battles, and the next chapter is a legal ruling, not a ribbon-cutting.
The Timeline That Matters
The key dates form a clear pattern. In January 2023 the EPA issued a Clean Water Act veto under the Clean Water Act, a rarely used authority that effectively blocked the project by barring the discharge of dredged or fill material into the watershed. In 2024 the Army Corps of Engineers rejected a permit the project needed to proceed. Northern Dynasty, the company that owns Pebble, and the state of Alaska then sued to reverse the EPA veto, and the Department of Justice has continued to defend it.
The lawsuit is where the promo’s countdown points. Rickards’s presentation runs a timer toward November 3, and the real event behind that date is the expected summary-judgment ruling in the challenge to the EPA veto. Briefs were filed in mid-April, oral arguments ran through the summer, and a decision could land in the fall. That ruling will not approve the mine. It will determine whether the EPA’s veto stands.
Why the Stakes Are So High
What makes Pebble different from most mining disputes is the fishery. The deposit sits near Bristol Bay, which supports the most valuable wild salmon fishery in the world. The environmental risk a large open-pit mine poses to that watershed is the reason the project has faced this level of opposition for this long. Both of Alaska’s U.S. senators oppose the mine, which is unusual in a pro-mining state and signals how deeply the politics cut.
The opposition is not purely environmental. Donald Trump Jr. publicly advocated blocking Pebble in 2020, which cuts against the promo’s suggestion that the mine is an obvious administration priority. The politics around Pebble have been messy from the start, and they have not resolved in a clean, predictable direction.
The Math and the Reality
The promo’s headline number, up to $2.7 trillion in in-ground value, comes from multiplying a large gold resource by the current price. That is gross value, not profit. It ignores the billions needed to build the mine, the operating costs, the tailings and water design, and the permit that still does not exist. The company behind the project trades as NAK at a market value near $900 million, which is the market’s honest discount for all of that risk. For the deposit itself, see our piece on the Pebble mine, and for the company, our look at Northern Dynasty Minerals.
The Pebble Project is a world-class deposit wrapped in a two-decade permitting fight. The next ruling matters, but it is one step in a process that has repeatedly reminded investors that geology and approval are very different things.
How the EPA Veto Actually Works
The Clean Water Act veto the EPA used against Pebble is a rarely deployed power, and understanding it helps explain why the lawsuit matters. The veto blocks the discharge of dredged or fill material into certain waters, which in practice can stop a project even after other permits are in place. It is the strongest tool the federal government has short of an outright ban, and the fact that the EPA reached for it signals how seriously the salmon fishery risk was taken.
The lawsuit challenges whether the EPA had the authority to issue the veto in the first place, which is a real legal question rather than a political one. That is why the state of Alaska joined Northern Dynasty as a co-plaintiff: the state’s interest is in the scope of federal power over land use, not just in one mine. The expected summary-judgment ruling on that question is the real November 3 event behind the promo’s countdown.
What a Ruling Would and Would Not Do
A ruling in the company’s favor would remove the EPA veto, which is a meaningful step. It would not build the mine. The 2024 Army Corps permit rejection would still stand, and the project would still need to work through the remaining federal and state reviews, the opposition of the Alaska delegation, and the unresolved questions about tailings and water management near Bristol Bay. A win in court is a milestone, not a mine, and the distinction is the whole story.
NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.