Here's a thought...
Completely hypothetical, but worth considering what the 'rule of law' truly means.
There are any number of laws regarding how the government handles a private citizen or a private company when a law is broken. On many levels these laws were written to restore what was lost or stolen by the guilty person(s) and to create a punishment so that future violators may think twice before doing something which would incur the same penalty.
What happens when the government breaks the laws it created in order to assert power over its citizens, which in effect renders those citizens powerless and causes billions of dollars to be lost?
This is what happens when rogue regimes all around the world usurp power from the citizens and empower themselves with the assets of those citizens. In many ways this is what we saw with the previous 8 years of a regime which believed it was above the law at the expense of its citizens. This is exactly what we saw with the overreaching, heavy-handed, illegal steps taken against Pebble back in 2013. Have no doubt that "Environmentalism" is not about saving the environment, but rather is a euphemism for government control and empowerment.
It seems to me that not only should the EPA reverse its decision regarding Pebble, but should also be liable for breaking the law in such unprecedented ways. How many billions of dollars have been lost for an action which was completly outside the bounds of legal interpretation or precedent? If the citizens of a country must follow the law or be confronted by its government, what happens when the government breaks the law to the detriment of its citizens? (apparently they create a secret slush fund with taxpayer dollars).
The conclusion for me is that the only fair thing for the EPA to do is not only to reverse its illegal determination, but also to restore the Northern Dynasty shares to Anglo and Rio at the valuation they had before its illegal action took place. This would be a great precedent to set for future administrations to actually follow the rule of law and to be held accountable to its people, allowing companies to engage in business without fear that their efforts could be determined worthless by a rogue government. This action still would not guarantee permitting under the law, but would be an attempt to restore what was illegally rendered worthless by corrupt governement action. I don't believe this will happen on any level, but in all fairness it should, and what a statement it would be by the current administration!! Failure to obtain partnership could only be construed as fear by other companies that future administrations could once again take illegal action and render their efforts (shares) worthless.