NAK risk vs reward play

NAK risk vs reward play

by aahepp -
Number of replies: 1

Currently NAK is waiting to see if the USCofE is going to allow them to go with their Pebble Creek Project.  This project has been on hold for a few years now.  They have done the cost analysis of the potential outlay in the ground.  So was looking for a cheap way to play this "gamble".  This is a gamble as if that project is not approved then would say it bankrupts the company.  But here is the play and the way to make it a no cost play I will be using options.

Sell to Open November 19 2021 $.50 Put collect .11
But to Open January 21 2022 $.50 Call pay .11
Total Cash Outlay: $0.00
Max Loss: $50
Max Profit: unlimited

One could just buy the January $.50 call and the max loss would be the .11 they pay for the option and have no down side risk.  But since this has been going on for awhile I am not sure when the USCofE will come back with an approve / deny.  So that is the reason I am using the no cash outlay option currently.  If under .50 on the November 19 expiry then you can either roll that to December and collect more premium.  Same as with the December expiry.  If over .50 then you can "call away" the shares @ .50 and have a position already in profit.  Below is the risk chart out to the $2 level.

In reply to aahepp

Re: NAK risk vs reward play

by aahepp -
NAK news this morning trying to get the court to set a deadline on the ruling.

VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESSWIRE / October 13, 2021 / Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (TSX:NDM)(NYSE American:NAK) ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") advises that its 100%-owned, U.S. -based Pebble Limited Partnership (" Pebble Partnership ") has filed a motion which requests the Court set a schedule requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA ") to make a prompt decision to either withdraw or finalize a decision on the 2014 Proposed Determination.
"Recall that the 2014 Proposed Determination by the EPA was pending for five years before finally being withdrawn in 2019, and now, two years later, the Proposed Determination is being resurrected," said Ronald Thiessen , President and CEO of Northern Dynasty. "As the State of Alaska noted in its motion, ‘The EPA should not be allowed to remand the Proposed Determination into administrative no-mans-land for indefinite proceedings for an indefinite time…' We, too, believe the imposition of a schedule by the Court is necessary to ensure that the EPA does not let the Proposed Determination languish, and therefore attempt to regulate by inaction."

"If they decide to proceed with their Proposed Determination, then we will again pursue a legal challenge, and with the strong administrative record of the overwhelmingly positive Final Environmental Impact Statement of 2020, and the Proposed Determination which is not supported by an adequate record, we believe we will win. If they decide to abandon this unheralded abuse of power and instead apply a science and fact-based process, free from political interference, then they should uphold the EPA withdrawal. Either way, they must decide in a timely basis, because we believe that a prompt decision is required by due process," Mr. Thiessen added.
On this issue the State of Alaska responded to the Federal Court in Alaska similarly, agreeing to the remand only on the basis that the EPA agree to a court-imposed schedule for either vacating the 2014 Proposed Determination or finalizing it.