UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

[   ] REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year endedJanuary 31, 20082009

OR

[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

OR

[   ] SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number: 0-18701001-32929

POLYMET MINING CORP.
(Formerly Fleck Resources Ltd.)
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

British Columbia, Canada
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Suite 1003 – 1177 West Hastings St., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 2K3
(Address of principal executive offices)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Common Shares, without par value
(Title of Class)

Name of each exchange on which registered

New York Stock Exchange Amex
Toronto Stock Exchange

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act:None


Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer's classes of capital or common stock as of
the close of
the period covered by the annual report.136,991,075                137,303,875


Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the
Securities Act.
[   ] Yes    [X] No

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant
to
Section 13 of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [   ] Yes   [X] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past ninety days. [X] Yes    [   ] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.
See
definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one)

Large accelerated filer [   ]               Accelerated filer [X]                        Non-accelerated filer [   ]

Large accelerated filer [   ]Accelerated filer [X]Non-accelerated filer [   ]

Indicate by check mark which financial statement itembasis of accounting the registrant has electedused to follow: [X]  Item 17     [   ] Item 18prepare the financial
statements included in this filing:

U.S. GAAP [   ]International Financial Reporting Standards as issuedOther [X]
by the International Accounting Standards Board [ ]

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act) [   ] Yes   [X] No

2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I  
   
ITEM 1.IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORS1
ITEM 2.OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE1
ITEM 3.KEY INFORMATION2
ITEM 4.INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY9
ITEM 4A.UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS2324
ITEM 5.OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS24
ITEM 6.DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES3234
ITEM 7.MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS4039
ITEM 8.FINANCIAL INFORMATION43
ITEM 9.THE OFFER AND LISTING43
ITEM 10.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION45
ITEM 11.QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK5051
ITEM 12.DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN EQUITY SECURITIES5152
   
Part II  
   
ITEM 13.DEFAULT, DIVIDEND ARREARAGES AND DELINQUENCIES5152
ITEM 14.MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHT OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND USE OFPROCEEDS5152
ITEM 15.CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES52
ITEM 16A.AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT53
ITEM 16B.CODE OF ETHICS53
ITEM 16C.PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES5455
  
Part III 
  
ITEM 17.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS54
ITEM 18.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS5554
ITEM 19.EXHIBITS5558

Financial Statements:

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial StatementsF-1
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmF-2F-3
Consolidated Balance SheetF-5
Consolidated Statements of Loss, Other Comprehensive Loss and DeficitsDeficitF-6
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ EquityF-7
Consolidated Statements of Cash FlowsF-8
Consolidated Schedules of Pre-Feasibility CostsF-9
Notes to ConsolidatedConsolidates Financial StatementsF-10F-9

i


This Annual Report on Form 20-F contains statements that constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These statements appear in a number of different places in this Annual Report and can be identified by words such as "expects", “anticipates”, "believes", "intends", "estimates", “potential”, “possible”, "projects", "plans", and similar expressions, or statements that events, conditions or results “will”, “may”, “could”, or “should” occur or be achieved or their negatives or other comparable words. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements that may expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. The statements, including the statements contained in Item 3D “Risk Factors”, Item 4B “Business Overview”, Item 5 “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and Item 11 “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk”, are inherently subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or achievements to differ significantly. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding the outlook for our future operations, plans and timing for our exploration and development programs, statements about future market conditions, supply and demand conditions, forecasts of future costs and expenditures, the outcome of legal proceedings, and other expectations, intentions and plans that are not historical fact. You are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees and may involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements due to risks facing us or due to actual facts differing from the assumptions underlying our predictions. Some of these risks and assumptions include:

-general economic and business conditions, including changes in interest rates and exchange rates;
-prices of natural resources, costs associated with mineral exploration and development, and other economic conditions;
-natural phenomena;
-actions by government authorities, including changes in government regulation;
-uncertainties associated with legal proceedings;
-changes in the resources market;
-future decisions by management in response to changing conditions;
-our ability to execute prospective business plans, and
-misjudgments in the course of preparing forward-looking statements.

We advise you that these cautionary remarks expressly qualify in their entirety all forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf. We expressly disclaim any obligation to update publicly or otherwise these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise except to the extent required by law. You should carefully review the cautionary statements and risk factors contained in this and other documents that we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

ITEM 1. IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORS

Not required.

ITEM 2. OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not required.

1


ITEM 3. KEY INFORMATION

A.        Selected Financial Data

The following table presents selected financial information. Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); the application of which conforms in all material respects for the periods presented with United States (“US”) GAAP, except as disclosed in the footnotes to the financial statements. The selected financial data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and other information included elsewhere in the Annual Report.

Selected Financial Data
(US$ in 000’s, except loss per share and weighted average shares)

YearYear
EndedEnded
1/31/081/31/071/31/061/31/051/31/041/31/091/31/081/31/071/31/061/31/05
Revenue$ –$                  –
Income (loss) from Operations$ –$                  –
Net Loss$ (3,690)$ (17,893)$ (15,929)$ (4,416)$ (147)$         (4,536)$         (3,690)$      (17,893)$      (15,929)$         (4,416)
US GAAP Net Loss1$ (4,124)$ (18,126)$ (15,976)$ (4,416)$ (147)$         (4,979)$         (4,124)$      (18,126)$      (15,976)$         (4,416)
Loss Per Share$ (0.03)$ (0.16)$ (0.22)$ (0.09)$ –$           (0.03)$          (0.03)$          (0.16)$          (0.22)$          (0.09)
US GAAP Loss Per Share$ (0.03)$ (0.16)$ (0.22)$ (0.08)$ –$          (0.04)$          (0.03)$          (0.16)$          (0.22)$          (0.08)
Diluted Net Loss Per Share$ (0.03)$ (0.16)$ (0.22)$ (0.09)$ –$          (0.03)$          (0.16)$          (0.22)$          (0.09)
Dividends Per Share$ –$                  –
Weighted Average Shares133,697,572114,754,21373,484,49051,946,29032,452,000137,187,927133,697,572114,754,21373,484,49051,946,290
Working Capital$ 16,558$ 5,240$ 9,070$ 1,274$ 424$            3,582$         16,558$            5,240$            9,070$            1,274
Total Assets$ 89,199$ 48,731$ 26,034$ 2,350$ 1,025$        102,756$         89,199$         48,731$         26,034$            2,350
US GAAP Total Assets2$ 88,485$ 48,451$ 25,987$ 2,350$ 1,025
Long-Term Debt$ 10,834$ 11,853$ 1,420$ –
US GAAP Total Assets1$         101,599$         88,485$         48,451$         25,987$            2,350
Long-Term and Convertible$          24,006$         10,834$         11,853$            1,420$                  –
Debt 
US GAAP Long-Term and$          24,256$         10,834$         11,853$            1,420$                  –
Convertible Debt2 
Shareholders’ Equity$ 69,151$ 29,938$ 19,387$ 2,019$ 926$          71,492$         69,151$         29,938$         19,387$            2,019
US GAAP Shareholders’$ 68,437$ 29,658$ 19,340$ 2,019$ 926$          70,085$         68,437$         29,658$         19,340$            2,019
Equity1 
Equity1,2 
Capital Stock$ 104,615$ 72,923$ 46,009$ 19,027$ 15,232$        104,768$       104,615$         72,923$         46,009$          19,027
US GAAP Mineral Properties1$ 64,052$ 37,776$ 14,178$ –$          91,707$         64,052$         37,776$         14,178$                   –

1

Under Canadian GAAP, the Company capitalizes accretion relating to asset retirement obligations. Under US GAAP, this amount is expensed.

2

Under Canadian GAAP, the Company includes the fair value of the conversion ability as shareholders’ equity. Under US GAAP, this amount is included in convertible debt.

Unless otherwise indicated, all monetary amounts in this Annual Report are expressed in United States dollars, the Company’s reporting currency.

2


D.        Risk Factors

Factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report and other documents we file with the Securities andExchange Commission include the risks described below. You should also refer to the other information in this Annual Report, including the financial statements and accompanying notes thereto.

2


RISKS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS

We may experience delays, higher than expected costs, difficulties in obtaining environmental permits and other obstacles when implementing our capital expenditure projects.

We are investing heavily in various facets of our NorthMet Project. Our project is subject to a number of risks that may make it less successful than anticipated, including:

Our future activities could be subject to environmental laws and regulations which may have a materially adverse effect on our future operations, in which case our operations could be suspended or terminated.

We, like other development stage companies doing business in the United States and Canada, are subject to a variety of federal, provincial, state and local statutes, rules and regulations designed to, among other things:

We are required to obtain various governmental permits to conduct exploration, development, construction and mining activities at our properties. Obtaining the necessary governmental permits is often a complex and time-consuming process involving numerous U.S. or Canadian federal, provincial, state, and local agencies. The duration and success of each permitting effort is contingent upon many variables not within our control. In the context of obtaining permits or approvals, we must comply with known standards, existing laws, and regulations that may entail greater or lesser costs and delays depending on the nature of the activity to be permitted and the interpretation of the laws and regulations implemented by the permitting authority. The failure to obtain certain permits or the adoption of more stringent permitting requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, and properties and we may be unable to proceed with our exploration and development programs.

Federal legislation and implementing regulations adopted and administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mine Safety and Health Administration, and other federal agencies, and legislation such as the Federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, have a direct bearing on U.S. exploration, development and mining operations. Due to the uncertainties inherent in the permitting process, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain required approvals for proposed activities at any of our properties in a timely manner, or that our proposed activities will be allowed at all.

The process of obtaining federal and local regulatory approvals is increasingly cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, and the cost and uncertainty associated with the permitting process could have a material adverse effect on exploring, developing or mining our properties. Moreover, compliance with statutory environmental quality requirements described above may require significant capital outlays, significantly affect our earning power, or cause material changes in our intended activities. Environmental

3


standards imposed by federal, state, or local governments may be changed or become more stringent in the future, which could materially and adversely affect our proposed activities.

3


Because the price of metals fluctuate, if the prices of metals in our ore body decrease below a specified level, it may no longer be profitable to develop our NorthMet Project for those metals and we will cease operations.

Prices of metals are determined by some of the following factors:

The aggregate effect of these factors on metals prices is impossible for us to predict. In addition, the prices of metals are sometimes subject to rapid short-term and/or prolonged changes because of speculative activities. The current demand for and supply of various metals affect the prices of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium and gold, but not necessarily in the same manner as current supply and demand affect the prices of other commodities. The supply of these metals primarily consists of new production from mining. If the prices of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium and gold are, for a substantial period, below our foreseeable costs of production, we could cease operations.

We are dependent on our key personnel

Our success depends on key members of our management. The loss of the services of one or more of such key management personnel could have a material adverse effect us. Our ability to manage exploration and development activities, and hence our success, will depend in large part on the efforts of these individuals. We face intense competition for qualified personnel, and we cannot be certain that we will be able to attract and retain such personnel.

We may not be able to raise the funds necessary to develop our mineral properties. If we are unable to raise such additional funds, we will have to suspend or cease operations.

We will need to seek additional financing to complete our development and construction of the NorthMet Project. Sources of such external financing include future equity offerings, advance payments by potential customers to secure long-term supply contracts, grants and low-cost debt from certain state financial institutions, and commercial debt secured by the NorthMet Project. The failure to obtain such additional financing could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. We may not be able to secure the financing necessary to sustain exploration and development activities in the future. If we cannot raise the money necessary to continue to explore and develop our property, we will have to suspend or cease operations.

Our metals exploration and development efforts are highly speculative in nature and may be unsuccessful.

As a development stage company, our work is speculative and involves unique and greater risks than are generally associated with other businesses.

The development of mineral deposits involves uncertainties, which careful evaluation, experience, and knowledge cannot eliminate. Although the discovery of an ore body may result in substantial rewards, few properties explored are ultimately developed into producing mines. It is impossible to ensure that the current development program we have planned will result in a profitable commercial mining operation. Significant capital investment is required to achieve commercial production from successful exploration efforts.

4


We are subject to all of the risks inherent in the mining industry, including, without limitation, the following:

4


As a result of all of these factors, we may run out of money, in which case we will have to suspend or cease operations.

Our actual mineral reserves and mineral resources may not conform to our established estimates.

The figures for mineral reserves and mineral resources stated in this Annual Report are estimates and no assurances can be given that the anticipated tonnages and grades will be achieved or that the indicated level of recovery will be realized. Market fluctuations and the prices of metals may render reserves and mineral resources uneconomic. Moreover, short-term operating factors relating to the mineral deposits, such as the need for the orderly development of the deposits or the processing of new or different grades of ore, may cause a mining operation to be unprofitable in any particular accounting period.

There is no assurance that any of our mineral resources, not currently classified as mineral reserves, will ever be classified as mineral reserves under the disclosure standards of the SEC.

Item 4.D of this Annual Report discusses our mineral resources in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). Resources are classified as “measured resources”, “indicated resources” and “inferred resources” under NI 43-101. However, U.S. investors are cautioned that the SEC does not recognize these resource classifications. There is no assurance that any of our mineral resources, not currently classified as mineral reserves, will be converted into mineral reserves under the disclosure standards of the SEC.

5


We have had no production history and we do not know if we will generate revenues in the future.

While we were incorporated in 1981, we have no history of producing minerals. We have not developed or operated any mines, and we have no operating history upon which an evaluation of our future success or failure can be made. We currently have no mining operations of any kind. Our ability to achieve and maintain profitable mining operations is dependent upon a number of factors, including our ability to either attract a partner to operate, or to successfully build and operate mines, processing plants and related infrastructure ourselves.

5


We are subject to all the risks associated with establishing new mining. We may not successfully establish mining operations or profitably produce metals at any of our properties. As such, we do not know if we will ever generate revenues.

We have a history of losses which we expect will continue for the future. If we do not begin to generate revenues or find alternate sources of capital, we may either have to suspend or cease operations.

As a development stage company with no holdings in any producing mines, we continue to incur losses and expect to incur losses in the future. As of January 31, 2008,2009, we had an accumulated deficit of $56,289,000.$60,825,000. We may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability in the future. If we do not begin to generate revenues or find alternate sources of capital, we may either have to suspend or cease operations.

We may not have adequate, if any, insurance coverage for some business risks that could lead to economically harmful consequences to us.

Our businesses are generally subject to a number of risks and hazards, including:

These occurrences could result in damage to, or destruction of, mineral properties, production facilities, transportation facilities, or equipment. They could also result in personal injury or death, environmental damage, waste of resources or intermediate products, delays or interruption in mining, production or transportation activities, monetary losses and possible legal liability. The insurance we maintain against risks that are typical in our business may not provide adequate coverage. Insurance against some risks (including liabilities for environmental pollution or certain hazards or interruption of certain business activities) may not be available at a reasonable cost or at all. As a result, accidents or other negative developments involving our mining, production or transportation facilities could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

The mining industry is an intensely competitive industry, and we may have difficulty effectively competing with other mining companies in the future.

We face intense competition from other mining and producing companies. In recent years, the mining industry has experienced significant consolidation among some of our competitors, as a result these

6


companies may be more diversified than us. We cannot assure you that the result of current or further consolidation in the industry will not adversely affect us.

In addition, because mines have limited lives we must periodically seek to replace and expand our reserves by acquiring new properties. Significant competition exists to acquire properties producing or capable of producing copper, nickel and other metals.

If we are unable to successfully manage these risks, our growth prospects and profitability may suffer.

6


We may be subject to risks relating to the global economy.

Recent market events and conditions, including disruptions in the international credit markets and other financial systems and the deterioration of global economic conditions could impede our access to capital or increase the cost of capital. In 2007 and into 2008, the U.S. credit markets began to experience serious disruption due to, among other things, deterioration in residential property values, defaults and delinquencies in the residential mortgage market and a decline in the credit quality of mortgage backed securities. These problems led to a slow-down in residential housing market transactions, declining housing prices, delinquencies in non-mortgage consumer credit and a general decline in consumer confidence. These conditions worsened in 2008 and are continuing in 2009, causing a loss of confidence in the broader U.S. and global credit and financial markets and resulting in the collapse of, and government intervention in, major banks, financial institutions and insurers and creating a climate of greater volatility, less liquidity, widening of credit spreads, a lack of price transparency, increased credit losses and tighter credit conditions. Notwithstanding various actions by the U.S. and foreign governments, concerns about the general condition of the capital markets, financial instruments, banks, investment banks, insurers and other financial institutions caused the broader credit markets to further deteriorate and stock markets to decline substantially. In addition, general economic indicators have deteriorated, including declining consumer sentiment, increased unemployment and declining economic growth and uncertainty about corporate earnings.

These unprecedented disruptions in the current credit and financial markets have had a significant material adverse impact on a number of financial institutions and have limited access to capital and credit for many companies. These disruptions could, among other things, make it more difficult us to obtain, or increase its cost of obtaining capital and financing for its operations. Our access to additional capital may not be available on terms acceptable to it or at all.

We are also exposed to liquidity risks in meeting its operating and capital expenditure requirements in instances where cash positions are unable to be maintained or appropriate financing is unavailable. These factors may impact our ability to obtain loans and other credit facilities in the future and, if obtained, on terms favourable to us. If these increased levels of volatility and market turmoil continue, our operations could be adversely affected and the trading price of our shares could be adversely affected. As a result of current global financial conditions, numerous financial institutions have gone into bankruptcy or have been rescued by government authorities. As such, we are subject to the risk of loss of its deposits with financial institutions that hold our cash.

RISKS RELATED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF OUR STOCK

We may experience volatility in our stock price.

Our common shares are listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange and on the American Stock Exchange. Our shareholders may be unable to sell significant quantities of the common shares into the public trading markets without a significant reduction in the price of the shares, if at all. The market price of our common shares may be affected significantly by factors such as changes in our operating results, the availability of funds, fluctuations in the price of metals, the interest of investors, traders and others in development stage public companies such as us and general market conditions. In recent years the securities markets have experienced a high level of price and volume volatility, and the market price of securities of many companies, particularly small capitalization development companies similar to us, have experienced wide fluctuations, which have not necessarily been related to the operating performances, underlying asset values, or the future prospects of such companies. There can be no assurance that future fluctuations in the price of our shares will not occur.

A large number of shares will be eligible for future sale and may depress our stock price.

Our shares that are eligible for future sale may have an adverse effect on the price of our stock. As of January 31, 20082009 there were 136,991,075137,303,875 of our common shares outstanding. The average trading volume for the three months prior to January 31, 20082009 was approximately 85,000102,000 shares per day on the Toronto Stock Exchange and 212,000297,000 shares per day on the AmericanNew York Stock Exchange.Exchange Amex. Sales of substantial amounts of our common shares, or a perception that such sales could occur, and the existence of options or warrants to purchase common shares at prices that may be below the then current market price of our common shares, could adversely affect the market price of our common shares and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of our equity securities.

7


Your ownership interest, voting power and the market price of our common shares may decrease because we have issued, and may continue to issue, a substantial number of securities convertible or exercisable into our common shares.

We have issued common shares and options, and warrants to purchase our common shares to satisfy our obligations and fund our operations (see Item 5.A). Since we currently do not have a source of revenue, we will likely issue additional common shares, options, warrants, preferred stock or other securities exercisable for or convertible into our common shares to raise money for our continued operations or as non-cash incentives to our own and our subsidiaries' directors, officers, insiders, and key employees. If conversions of warrants and/or options into common shares or additional sales of equity occur, your ownership interest and voting power in us will be diluted and the market price of our common shares may decrease.

Under our 2007 Omnibus Share Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) which was adopted on May 25, 2007, and approved by our shareholders on June 27, 2007, the aggregate number of Common Shares that may be issuable pursuant to the Plan may not at any time exceed the greater of (i) 10% of our issued and outstanding common shares and (ii)18,592,888 common shares, representing 13.62% of our outstanding common shares at the time of the approval of the Plan, of which 5,940,000 common shares are reserved for issuance as awards other than options. As of January 31, 20082009 the aggregate number of Common

7


Shares issuable pursuant to the Plan was 13,655,88713,730,387 shares. Our bonus share incentive plan (the “Bonus Plan”) was established for our directors and key employees and was approved by the disinterested shareholders at the Company’s shareholders’ meeting held on May 28, 2004. Under the Bonus Plan we may issue an additional 4,940,000 shares upon achieving certain milestones.

Upon any issuances or exercise of options issued, the ownership interests and voting power of existing shareholders may be further diluted.

We have a Shareholders Rights Plan Agreement and certain employment and management contracts that contain provisions designed to discourage a change of control.

An updated Shareholders Rights Plan between us and shareholders effective as of June 27, 2007 and modified on June 17, 2008 and certain employment and management agreements contain provisions that could discourage an acquisition or change of control without our board of directors’ approval. Under the Shareholders’ Rights Plan, if a shareholder individually or in concert with other shareholders acquires 20% or more of our common shares outstanding without complying with the Shareholders’ Rights Plan or without the approval of our board of directors, all holders of record will have a right to one common share for each share owned. We have also entered into agreements with certain key employees and officers that contain severance provisions in the event of a take-over bid. The Shareholders’ Rights Plan and the preceding agreements may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us, even if such a change of control is more beneficial to shareholders.

Because we believe that we will be classified as a passive foreign investment company (a PFIC), U.S. holders of our common shares may be subject to United States federal income tax consequences that are worse than those that would apply if we were not a PFIC.

Because we believe that we will be classified as a passive foreign investment company (a PFIC), U.S. holders of our common shares may be subject to United States federal income tax consequences that are worse than those that would apply if we were not a PFIC, such as ordinary income treatment plus a charge in lieu of interest upon a sale or disposition of our common shares even if the shares were held as a capital asset. See “Certain United States Federal Income Tax Consequences”.

8


Conflicts of Interest

Certain of our directors, officers or promoters are directors, officers, significant shareholders or promoters of other U.S. and Canadian publicly traded companies. As a result, potential conflicts of interest may arise with respect to the exercise by such persons of their respective duties for us. In the event that such a conflict of interest arises at a meeting of our directors, a director who has such a conflict will abstain from voting for or against the approval of such participation or such terms. In the appropriate cases, we will establish a special committee of independent directors to review a matter in which several directors, or management, may have a conflict. Other than as indicated, we have no other procedures or mechanisms to deal with conflicts of interest. We are not aware of any conflicts of interest at the present time.

Absence of Dividends

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common shares and do not anticipate doing so in the foreseeable future. There can be no assurance that our board of directors will ever declare cash dividends, which action is exclusively within its discretion. Investors cannot expect to receive a dividend on our common shares in the foreseeable future, if at all.

Increased Costs and Compliance Risks as a Result of Being a Public Company

Legal, accounting and other expenses associated with public company reporting requirements have increased significantly in the past few years. We anticipate that general and administrative costs

8


associated with regulatory compliance will continue to increase with recently adopted governance requirements, including requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as new rules implemented by the SEC, Canadian Securities Administrators, the AMEXNew York Stock Exchange Amex and the TSX. We expect these rules and regulations to significantly increase its legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time consuming and costly. There can be no assurance that we will continue to effectively meet all of the requirements of these new regulations, including Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 and Canadian MultilateralNational Instrument 52-109 – Financial Disclosure (“MINI 52-109”). Any failure to effectively implement new or improved internal controls, or to resolve difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results, cause us to fail to meet reporting obligations or result in management being required to give a qualified assessment of our internal controls over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm providing an adverse opinion regarding management’s assessment. Any such result could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a material adverse effect on our stock price. We also expect these new rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and it may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified individuals to serve on our board of directors or as executive officers. If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, our ability to provide accurate financial statements and comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and/or MI 52-109 could be impaired, which could cause the our stock price to decrease.

ITEM 4. INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY

A.        History and Development of the Company

PolyMet Mining Corp. was incorporated under the British Columbia Companies Act and continued under theBusiness Corporations Act(British Columbia) in British Columbia, Canada on March 4, 1981, under the name Fleck Resources Ltd., which we changed to PolyMet Mining Corp. on June 10, 1998.

Our principal executive office is situated at Suite 1003 – 1177 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6E 2K3. Our phone number is (604) 669-4701. Our registered and records office is located at our legal counsel’s offices situated at 2500 – 700 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1B3, CANADA. Our operational headquarters are located at P.O. Box 475, 6500 County Road 666, Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota 55750-0475, United States.

9


We are a reporting issuer in the following Canadian provinces: Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario. Our common shares have been listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) since February 1, 2007 and, formerly, on the TSX Venture Exchange (TSX-V) (formerly the Vancouver Stock Exchange) from April 13, 1984 to January 31, 2007 under the symbol "POM" and since June 26, 2006 our common shares have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange Amex (formerly the American Stock Exchange (AMEX)Exchange) under the symbol “PLM”.

Our registrar and transfer agent is Computershare Investor Services Inc. of 9th Floor, 100 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2Y1, CANADA.

During the years ended January 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007 we spent $22.776 million, $21.161 million, $13.015 million and $12.130$13.015 million, respectively to acquire property, perform pre-feasibility work and perform work following completion of our Definitive Feasibility Study on our NorthMet Project located in Minnesota, USA. In addition, during the years ended January 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 20062007 we issued shares valued at $nil, $6.160 million$nil and $7.564$6.160 million, respectively, in optioning and purchasing a nearby crushing and grinding plant and associated infrastructure (the “Erie Plant”) and land.

All of these expenses were incurred at our NorthMet Project and were funded from the proceeds of equity and convertible debtfinancings. Until the completion of Definitive Feasibility Study in September 2006, these expenditures were expensed with the exception of the Erie Plant acquisition. Expenditures after October 1, 2006, the completion of the Definitive Feasibility Study, have been capitalized.

910


B.        Business Overview

We are a development stage company engaged in the exploration and development of natural resource properties. Currently our sole mineral property is the NorthMet Project, a polymetallic deposit located in northeastern Minnesota, USA.

In the years ended January 31, 2009, 2008 2007 and 2006,2007, we conducted exploration, development and acquisition activities only and did not conduct any operations that generated revenues. Thus, we rely principally on equity or debt convertible into equity financings to fund our projects and expenditures.

Since 2003, we have focused on commencing commercial production on our NorthMet Project. We have focused our efforts on four main areas:

Acquisition of the Erie Plant. The Erie Plant is a large processing facility and associated infrastructure located approximately six miles west of our NorthMet deposit. On November 15, 2005 and December 20, 2006 respectively we entered into twothree Contracts for Deed with Cliffs Erie LLC, a subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (formerly Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.) of Cleveland, Ohio (“Cliffs”), under which we now own a large processing facility, a tailings disposal facility, and extensive associated infrastructure located approximately six miles west of our NorthMet deposit. In combination, the Erie Plant includes a 100,000 ton-per-day crushing and milling facility, a railroad and railroad access rightrights connecting the Erie Plant to the NorthMet deposit, as well as 120 railcars, locomotive fueling and maintenance facilities, water rights and pipelines, large administrative offices on site and approximately 6,000 acres to the east and west of the Erie Plant, contiguous to the existing tailing facilities.

Environmental permitting.To commence commercial production at NorthMet, various regulatory approvals are needed. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (the “MDNR”), the United States Forest Service (the “USFS”) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “USACE”) agreed to cooperate in preparing a single Environmental Impact Statement (the “EIS”) under state guidelines issued by the MDNR.

The MDNR has taken longer than it originally expected to complete its review of the environmental testing and analysis that supports the EIS. Most recently, in February 2008 the MDNR informed us that, in order to make the draft EIS as thorough and complete as possible, extra time is being taken by the MDNR to validate and verify sampling, monitoring, and modeling data. The MDNR anticipates the validation and drafting of the draft EIS will be completed before the endan assessment of potential environmental, social and economic effects of the second quarter of 2008.

proposed project. Once the draft EIS is published, non-government organizations, government agencies and the public will have an opportunity to comment. The final EIS will incorporate analysis and appropriate responses to comments, a process that can take several months before thecomments. The issuance of a final EIS would allow the MDNR to issue environmental and operating permits. Prior to receipt of these permits, required beforethe Company intends to secure production debt financing that would be available upon receipt of key permits, with construction can commence.slated to start upon availability of construction finance.

Engineering and feasibility. We retained Bateman Engineering Pty. of Brisbane, Australia (“Bateman”) as the coordinating consultant to prepare a Definitive Feasibility Study (the “DFS”). On September 25, 2006 we reported that the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) prepared by Bateman confirmed the economic and technical viability of our NorthMet Project.

Bateman was responsible for completing the process design and detail engineering and cost estimates for the plant and infrastructure. This work was supported by other firms that provided geo-statistical reviews of the ore body, mine planning and scheduling of ore and waste, and assessment of the market for the metals and intermediate products planned to be produced.

Since September 2006 we have completed additional drilling, expanded the reserves, and more recently we have been updating the mine scheduling, approximately within the DFS pit design, and updating estimated capital and operating costs.

In addition,May 2008 we have been reviewingcompleted an internal update of the possibility of sellingDFS (the “DFS Update”) which contemplates an initial stage in which we would sell concentrate during completion of construction and commissioning of the hydrometallurgical plant that was contemplated in the DFS. This approach has the advantage of

10


staging capital costs so that the hydrometallurgical plant can be funded at least in part from cash flow from sales of concentrate, and it reduces our reliance on delivery of long lead-time equipment before we start commercial production.

11


Financing and corporate development. Since 2003 we have raised approximately $80 million from equity private placement financings. In October 2008, we entered into a strategic partnership with Glencore AG (“Glencore”) whereby Glencore will invest up to $50 million in PolyMet in the form of a loan exchangeable into our common shares, and Glencore agreed to purchase all of our production of concentrates, metal, or intermediate products on market terms at the time of delivery, for at least the first five years of production. We also appointed a senior technical representative of Glencore to join our Technical Steering Committee. We have also expanded and strengthened our management team. Since January 31,team and, in February 2008 we have relocated our operational headquarters to Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota.

C.        Organizational Structure

We have two wholly owned subsidiaries: (1) Fleck Minerals Inc., incorporated in Ontario, Canada, and (2) Poly Met Mining, Inc., incorporatedincorporate in Minnesota, USA.USA, is our only material wholly owned subsidiary.

We have also continued to strengthenstrengthened our management team at both the corporate level and at our facilities in Minnesota. During the periodfiscal year ended January 31, 2008,2009 we appointed Joseph Scipioni, as Chief Operating OfficerFrank Sims and Phillip Brodie-Hall as Executive Vice-President Project Development. SubsequentStephen Rowland to the fiscal year end we appointed Joseph Scipioni and Frank Sims to the Board, and we appointed William Murray as Executive Chairman and we promoted Joseph Scipioni to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer.

D.        Property, Plant and Equipment

Property - NorthMet Project, Minnesota, USA

Our primary mineral property is the NorthMet Project, a polymetallic project located in northeastern Minnesota, USA. Our Erie Plant facility is located approximately six miles west of the NorthMet ore body.

In the years ended January 31, 2009, 2008 2007 and 2006,2007, we conducted exploration, development and acquisition activities only and did not conduct any operations.

(a)        History

The NorthMet Project is located immediately south of the historic Mesabi Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota. Mining in the Iron Range dates back to the 1880’s when high grade iron ore known as hematite was first mined commercially. During the 1940s1940’s and 50s,1950’s, with reserves of hematite dwindling, the iron industry began to focus on taconite, a lower-grade iron ore. Eight large crushing, grinding, milling facilities were built by various iron and steel companies to process the taconite, including the Erie Plant that we acquired in November 2005.

In the 1940s, copper and nickel were discovered nearby, following which, in the 1960s, United States Steel Corporation (“US Steel”) drilled what is now our NorthMet property. US Steel investigated the deposit as a high-grade, underground copper-nickel resource, but considered it to be uneconomic based on its inability to produce separate, clean nickel and copper concentrates with the metallurgical processes available at that time. In addition, prior to the development of the autocatalyst market in the 1970s, there was little market for platinum group metals (PGMs) and there was no economic and reliable method to assay for low grades of these metals.

In 1987, the Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institute (“NRRI”) published data suggesting the possibility of a large resource of PGMs in the base of the Duluth Complex. In 1989, we acquired a 20-year renewable mining lease over the property from US Steel and commenced an investigation into the potential for mining and recovery of copper, nickel, and PGMs. We re-assayed pulps and rejects from the previous US Steel drilling to obtain data on the PGMs. Sequentially we entered into joint venture agreements with Nerco and Argosy Mining, which assisted in identifying and quantifying potential PGM

11


values. However, the challenge of producing separate concentrates of saleable copper and nickel remained.

12


In the mid-90’s, we began investigating the use of alternative metallurgical processes, including bio-leaching and pressure oxidation. In 1998 we focused on a hydrometallurgical technology that uses autoclaves, which are vessels operating at high temperature, high pressure, and in an oxygen-enriched environment, to oxidize the sulfidic ores and leach the metals therein. This technology has been used commercially in the copper, nickel, cobalt, and precious metals industries since the 1980s.

In July 2000, we entered into a joint venture arrangement with North Limited (“North”), a major Australian mining company, to advance the NorthMet Project to commercial production. Under the joint venture arrangement, North had the opportunity to earn an 87.5% interest in the NorthMet Project by producing a feasibility study and funding 100% of the total capital costs to develop the project.

In August 2000, Rio Tinto Limited (“Rio Tinto”) completed an on-market takeover ofacquired North. Subsequently, Rio Tinto decided not to proceed with the NorthMet Project and we exercised our 30-day pre-emptive right, under a “change of control” clause, to terminate the joint venture arrangement. As a result, we regained a 100% interest in the NorthMet Project.

Following completion of the metallurgical pilot plant work in November 2000, we commissioned a pre-feasibility study on the project that was completed in April 2001. The pre-feasibility study includedcontemplated a 50,000 metric tonne-per-day (55,000 short tpd) operation and anticipated the construction of a new, stand-alone processing plant to produce copper, nickel and cobalt metals on site. The study found the economics of the NorthMet Project were unacceptably low owing to the capital cost of building a new plant facility combined with low metal prices prevailing at that time. No further work was done until March 2003, when a new management team took over our company and commenced a detailed review of the project.

The new management team believed that acquisition of the Erie Plant had the potential to substantially reduce the capital cost and to simplify the permitting process which could improve the project economics.

By a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 5, 2003 and an option agreement dated February 14, 2004, we obtained an option (the “Cliffs Option”) to acquire certain property, plant, and equipment (“Cliffs Assets”) from Cliffs Erie LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs, located near our NorthMet Project. As consideration for the Cliffs Option, we paid $500,000 prior to January 31, 2004 and issued to Cliffs 1,000,000 shares of our common stock on March 30, 2004, valued at $229,320 to maintain our exclusive rights until June 30, 2006. On September 15, 2005 we reached an agreement with Cliffs on the terms for the early exercise of our option to acquire 100% ownership of large portions of the former LTV Steel Mining Company ore processing plant in northeastern Minnesota (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”). Under this agreement we agreed to pay Cliffs $1 million in cash, 6.2 million of our shares, and make quarterly payments of $250,000 starting on March 31, 2006 for a total of $2.4 million plus interest at 4% per annum on the outstanding balance. As of March 31, 2008 the remaining balanceThe final payment was $150,000.made on June 30, 2008.

On November 15, 2005, we consummated the Asset Purchase Agreement and completed the acquisition thereunder. The property, plant, and equipment assets we now own includes land, crushing and milling capacity, extensive spare parts, plant site buildings, real estate, tailings impoundments and workshops, as well as access to extensive mining infrastructure.

On September 14, 2006, we entered into an agreement through two separate contracts for deed with Cliffs whereby we would acquire property and associated rights (“Cliffs II.”) We closed the transaction on December 20, 2006. The transaction provides us with a railroad connection linking the mine development site and the Erie Plant as well as a 120-railcar fleet, locomotive fueling and maintenance facilities, water rights and pipelines, large administrative offices on site and approximately 6,000 acres to the east and west of and contiguous to our existing tailings facilities.

1213


The purchase price for this additional infrastructure consisted of 2 million of our common shares and US$15 million in cash to be issued and paid in four tranches:

PolyMet also assumed certain liabilities associated with the property.

As of January 31, 2008,2009, we have expended $65.0$93 million primarily on the acquisition of the Erie Plant and related infrastructure. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement we have paid $3.0$3.4 million plus interest and owe Cliffs $0.4 million.$nil. Under Cliffs II we have paid $2.25$4.25 million plus interest and owe $12.75$11.75 million.

During the three years ended January 31, 20082009 we expended an additional $20.0 million on feasibility work at the deposit and plant. Since inception, we have a cumulative deficit of $56.3$60.8 million, much of which has been incurred directly and indirectly in connection with our NorthMet Project. These expenditures supported drilling, sampling, assaying, environmental, metallurgical testing, and the pre-feasibility studies.

The following diagram illustrates the location of the NorthMet Project.

Figure No. 1
NorthMet Project Map


14


(b)        Location/Access/Location / Access / Climate

The PolyMet Project covers a total of 16,60016,700 acres or 25.9 square miles comprising two areas: the NorthMet mine site totaling 4,2004,300 acres or 6.5 square miles of leased mineral rights and the Erie plant site totaling 12,400 acres of freehold land located approximately six miles west of the mine site. The property is located in St. Louis County in the Mesabi Range District about 60 miles north of Duluth, Minnesota. The Project is easily accessible via state and county roads. The surfaced County Highway 666 links the plant to the town of Hoyt Lakes, itself approximately 25 miles east of Virginia, Minnesota which is located on State Highway 53. The mine site is accessible by an all-season gravel road from the plant site and a private railroad crosses the property immediately south of the deposit and runs to the plant site. The plant site is serviced by commercial railroad which connects into the US national and Trans-Canadian railroad systems, as well as a private railroad providing access to port facilities located on Lake Superior. Three high-voltage power lines supplied by Minnesota Power supply the plant site and there is ready access to industrial electric power at the mine site.

The northern Minnesota climate is continental, characterized by wide variations in temperature. The temperature in the nearby town of Babbit averages -14ºC (7ºF) in January and 19ºC (66ºF) in July. The average annual precipitation is 28 inches with approximately 30% during the months from November to April and 70% from May through October.

(c)        Claims and ownership

              (i)        NorthMet LeaseLeases

Pursuant to an agreement dated January 4, 1989, subsequently amended and assigned,two lease agreements, we lease certain lands covering 4,1624,282 acres or 6.5 square miles located in St. Louis County, Minnesota, known as the NorthMet Project,Project:

15


The Erie Plant

As set forth under the Asset Purchase Agreement, we have assumed certain ongoing site-related environmental and reclamation obligations of Cliffs in connection with the Erie Plant. Once we obtain our permit to mine and Cliffs is released from its obligations by certain state agencies, we will be directly obligated to comply with applicable environmental and reclamation obligations. Prior to Cliffs acquisition of the plant from LTV Steel and prior to our acquisition of the plant from Cliffs, both Cliffs and we undertook environmental assessments and concluded that there were no material liabilities other than the ultimate closure and reclamation of the site. Until operating permits are granted to us, Cliffs remains the named party of record for such obligations although, as part of the Asset Purchase Agreement, we have indemnified Cliffs for such costs. As of January 31, 20082009 we estimate that liability to be approximately $23.5 million and, based on the expected timing of such payments, our cost of capital, and anticipated inflation rates, we made a provision of $3.4$3.2 million in our financial statements at that date.

14


Under the terms of the agreement Cliffs has the right to participate pro-rata on its ownership of 6.7% of our outstanding common shares in future cash equity financings. We have a 20 business day right of first refusal to either buy or place some or all of our shares owned by Cliffs should Cliffs decide to sell.

The Erie Plant comprises a large crushing, grinding and milling facility that was built by a consortium of steel companies in the mid-1950s and processed low grade iron ore known as taconite that was transported to the facility by railroad from nearby mines. In the mid-1980’s, the consortium was consolidated into a single owner – LTV Steel. Pickands-Mather and its successor Cliffs operated the plant on behalf of the owners, processing approximately 100,000 tons per day of taconite ore. The plant was shut down in 2001 when LTV Steel filed for bankruptcy protection. Since then it has been maintained initially by Cliffs and, since November 15, 2005, by us. The plant did not operate during the period ended January 31, 2008.2009.

The plant is located approximately six miles west of our NorthMet ore body, about five miles north-northwest of the town of Hoyt Lakes, itself located about 25 miles west of Virginia, Minnesota. The plant site covers approximately 12,400 acres, or approximately 19.4 square miles, and is powered by electricity from local power lines.

The plant facilities include two rail dump pockets, two primary 60” gyratory crushers, four secondary seven-foot standard cone crushers, seven tertiary seven-foot standard cone crushers, 14 seven-foot short-head crushers, 30 mill circuits each comprising one 12’x 14' rod mill and one 12’x 14' ball mill, three 12'x 24' regrind mills, maintenance facilities and spare parts, extensive conveyors, feeders, bins, auxiliary facilities and offices, established infrastructure including a 225 MVA high voltage electrical substation, water supply, roads, tailings basins and rail facilities.

With the completion of Cliffs II, we also own a 120-railcar fleet, locomotive fueling and maintenance facilities, water rights and pipelines, and large administrative offices on site.

Until the plant was closed in 2001, Cliffs had undertaken numerous programs to update and modernize control systems. The plant is generally in good physical condition and was operating at or near full capacity prior to its closure. We are not yet utilizing the Erie Plant but we have examined the plant in detail and have restarted certain pieces of equipment and believe it to be serviceable.

We plan to use approximately one-third of the historic productive capacity to crush and grind material that we expect to mine from the NorthMet deposit. We intend to construct new facilities to recover copper metal, nickel and cobalt hydroxides, and precious metal precipitates. These new facilities replace the equivalent facilities used historically to recover iron from the taconite, which are not applicable to our anticipated metal products.

(d)        Permitting and Environmental

The environmental review process in the State of Minnesota is reasonably well-defined. An Environmental Impact Statement will be required and various permits from state and federal authorities will be necessary before we can commence construction.

16


On January 11, 2005, we submitted initial documentation to the MDNR, the USFS, and the USACE. These documents and data provided the information required for preparation of a Draft Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (the “EAW”).

On March 14, 2005, we reached an agreement with the MDNR, USFS and USACE to cooperate in preparing a EIS under state guidelines issued by the MDNR.

On October 25, 2005, the MDNR issued the Final Scoping EAW and related Final Scoping Decision after a period of public review and comment. These documents defined the scope of the EIS and were used to develop a request for proposal (the “RFP”) for third-party preparation of an EIS that will involve public

15


participation. On April 3, 2006 the Minnesota DNR selected the independent EIS contractor (the “EIS Contractor”) which is preparing the EIS.

In January 2007, we submitted a Detailed Project Description (“DPD”) to state and federal regulators. The MDNR has taken longerDPD lays out our development plans and proposed environmental safeguards. Since then we have submitted a supplemental DPD as well as more than it originally expected to complete its review100 supporting research studies.

The draft EIS will be an assessment of potential environmental, social and economic effects of the environmental testingproposed project, comprising 19 chapters and analysis that supports the EIS. Most recently, in Februarymajor subchapters. On December 22, 2008, the MDNR informed us that, in order to make the draft EIS as thorough and complete as possible, extra time is being taken by the MDNR to validate and verify sampling, monitoring, and modeling data. The MDNR anticipates the validation and draftingprovided a preliminary version of the draft EIS will beto us and various government agencies. These groups completed beforetheir reviews and submitted extensive comments to the endMDNR.

The MDNR is working with the EIS Contractor to incorporate comments and analysis to ensure that the draft EIS meets the MDNR's standard of the second quarterthoroughness and accuracy. Significant progress has been made, with final revisions completed on a number of 2008.chapters.

Once the draft EIS is published, non-government organizations, government agencies and the public will have an opportunity to comment. The final EIS will incorporate analysis and appropriate responses to comments, a process that can take several months. Once the EIS receives a declaration of “adequacy” the various permits required for construction can be issued. It should be noted that the government agencies that are preparing the EIS are the same agencies that will be responsible for preparing the permits that we will need before we can commence construction.

We commenced the permitting process in early 2004. As of January 31, 2008,2009, we had spent approximately $14.581$21.7 million on environmental and permitting activities and we anticipate spending an additional $4.0 million to complete this work.activities.

(e)        History of Exploration

Prospectors first discovered copper and nickel near Ely, Minnesota about 20 miles north of NorthMet in the 1940s. Subsequently, the Bear Creek Mining Company conducted a regional exploration program resulting in the discovery of the Babbitt deposit (northeast of NorthMet). US Steel began an exploration program in the Duluth Complex in the late 1960’s and over the next few years drilled 114 core holes into the NorthMet property (then called Dunka Road).

17



Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured, Indicated and InferredResources

This section uses the terms ”measured resources,” ”indicated resources,” and ”inferred resources.” We advise United States investors that while these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations (under National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI-43-101”)), the SEC does not recognize them.United States investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of the mineraldeposits in these categories will ever be converted to reserves.In addition, “inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian Rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of Feasibility or Pre-Feasibility Studies, or economic studies except for a Preliminary Assessment as defined under NI 43-101.United Statesinvestors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economicallyor legally mineable.

Important Notes and Assumptions Throughout.

1.The terms Mineral Resources and Reserves as used herein conform to the definitionscontained in NI 43-101.

2.Reserves are contained within the envelope of Measured & Indicated Mineral Resource.Mineral Resources are not Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

3.      Mineral Resources and Reserves have been calculated using the following metal prices:Copper - $1.25/lb, Nickel - $5.60 per pound, Cobalt - $15.25/lb, Palladium - $210 per ounce, Platinum -$800 per ounce and Gold - $400 per ounce.

16




4.        Base Case economics for the purpose of the Technical Report to NI 43-101standards are theweighted average of the three-year trailing (60%) and two-year forward (40%) market prices using July31, 2006 as a reference for the three-year trailing price and average forward prices during July 2006 forforward prices. Specifically, these prices are: Copper - $2.25/lb, Nickel - $7.80 per pound, Cobalt -$16.34/lb, Palladium - $274 per ounce, Platinum - $1,040 per ounce and Gold - $540 per ounce.

5.The copper equivalent grade is calculated by multiplying the grade of each metal by the metalprice (in the same units) used in reserve and resource modeling (see note 3) and dividing the productby the copper price.

6.        The Net Metal Value (NMV) is calculated by summing the product of the grade of each metal,the metal price (in the same units) used in reserve and resource modeling (see note 3), the expectedmetal recovery, and the expected payment terms.

From 1998 to present, we have conducted four drilling programs totaling 257 holes for approximately 151,000 feet of core and reverse circulation drilling. The latest campaign comprising 61 holes totaling 24,500 feet was completed during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2008 and, combined with earlier drilling by us and by US Steel, brings the total to 371405 diamond and reverse circulation holes aggregating to approximately 286,000307,000 feet. In addition, we have meticulously recompiled all prior work started by US Steel in 1969.

Mineral Resources and Reserves

Within the overall mineralized envelope defined by these exploration programs, the 2006 DFS defined measured and indicated mineral resources above the 500-foot elevation (approximately 1,120 feet below surface.) On August 9, 2007 we reported that measured and indicated mineral resources at the NorthMet Project had increased by 51% to 638 million short tons from the 422 million short tons reported in the DFS. The revised mineral resource estimates are based on the same cut-off grades used in the DFS – namely a Net Metal Value (“NMV”) of US$7.42 per ton, reflecting mine planning at a copper price of US$1.25 per pound and a nickel price of US$5.60 per pound – see notes to the following table.

The increase in mineral resources reflects two changes:

18


As a result, measured and indicated mineral resources have increased by 216 million short tons to 638 million short tons and inferred mineral resources have been expanded to 252 million short tons from 121 million short tons – all on the DFS cut-off grade. Details of the mineral resources are set out in the following table.

17


Updated Mineral Resources compared with DFS

 ShortCopperNickelCobaltPrecious Metals
 (million)(%)(%)(%)(oz/st)(g/mt)
Updated Mineral Resouce Estimate      
 Measured187.00.2870.084     0.0070.010   0.359
 Indicated451.10.2560.075     0.0070.009   0.325
 Measured & Indicated638.20.2650.078     0.0070.010   0.334
 Inferred251.60.2750.079     0.0060.011   0.385
DFS      
 Measured133.70.2980.087     0.0080.011   0.371
 Indicated288.40.2660.078     0.0070.010   0.330
 Measured & Indicated422.10.2760.081     0.0070.010   0.343
 Inferred120.60.2470.074     0.0070.009   0.315
Change in M&I from DFS to Current      
 Infill drilling149.3     
 Extension to 0' elevation from 500' elevation66.7     
 Total change216.1     

1.

Mineral resources have been calculated using the following metal prices: Copper - $1.25/lb, Nickel - $5.60 per pound, Cobalt - $15.25/lb, Palladium - $210 per ounce, Platinum - $800 per ounce and Gold - $400 per ounce.

  
2.

The NMV is calculated by summing the product of the grade of each metal, the metal price (in the same units) used in resource modeling, the expected metal recovery, and the expected payment terms as set out in the DFS.

The resourcereserve estimate update was completed by a team from the Toronto office of Wardrop Engineering working closely with PolyMet’s chief geologistour team of Don Hunter and Richard Patelke. A NI 43-101 compliant report describing this increase was issued in September 2007 and has been filed on PolyMet’s website (www.polymetmining.com) and on SEDAR atwww.sedar.com. Pierre DesautelsGordon Zurowski of Wardrop and Richard PatelkeDon Hunter of PolyMet arewere the Qualified Persons for this report.Persons.

On September 26, 2007 PolyMet reported that proven and probable mineable reserves at the NorthMet Project had increased by 51% to 275 million short tons from the 182 million short tons reported in the DFS.

These reserves are constrained to mineable blocks associated with material contained in the measured and indicated resource blocks in the DFS for which detailed mining cost estimates, infrastructure planning, and waste rock stockpile locations were prepared as part of a larger study supporting the DFS. It should be noted that the inferred resources were not included in the DFS or in this interim reserve update.

In conjunction with this increase in reserves, the strip (waste:ore) ratio for the revised mine plan declined to 1.46:1 from 1.66:1.

1819


Updated Reserves compared with DFS

 Short TonsCopperNickelCobaltPrecious Metals
 (millions)(%)(%)(%)(oz/st)(g/mt)
Updated Reserve Estimate      
   Proven118.10.300.090.0080.0110.368
   Probable156.50.270.080.0080.0100.327
   Proven and Probable274.70.280.080.0080.0100.337
   Waste401.2     
   Strip Ratio1.46     
       
DFS      
   Proven80.40.320.090.0080.0120.406
   Probable101.30.300.080.0070.0110.385
   Proven and Probable181.70.310.080.0080.0120.395
   Waste302.3     
   Strip Ratio1.66     

1.

The terms Mineral Resources and Reserves as used herein conform to the definitions contained in NI 43- 101.

  
2.

Mineral Resources and Reserves have been calculated using the following metal prices: Copper - $1.25/lb, Nickel - $5.60 per pound, Cobalt - $15.25/lb, Palladium - $210 per ounce, Platinum - $800 per ounce and Gold - $400 per ounce.

The reserve estimate update was completed by a team from the Toronto office of Wardrop Engineering working closely with our team of Don Hunter and Richard Patelke. Gordon Zurowski of Wardrop and Don Hunter of PolyMet arewere the Qualified Persons.

We are completing a detailed update of operating and capital costs reflecting the planned use of a more efficient mining fleet than contemplated in the DFS, the results of an assessment of the marketability of copper and nickel concentrates during the construction and commissioning of the hydrometallurgical plant, and other operating parameters.

f)        Geology and Mineralization

The geology of northeastern Minnesota is predominantly Precambrian in age. Approximately 1.1 billion years ago, mid-continent rifting resulted in mafic volcanism and associated intrusions along a portion of the Midcontinent Rift System, which extends from Ohio, through the Lake Superior region to Kansas. The Midcontinent Rift consists of three parts: thick lava flows, intrusive rock and overlying sedimentary rock. There are three major intrusive complexes: the Coldwell Complex of Ontario, the Mellen Complex along the south shore of Lake Superior and the Duluth Complex along the north shore.

The Duluth Complex hosts the NorthMet mineralization. The Complex extends in an arcuate belt from Duluth to the northeastern tip of Minnesota. Emplacement of the intrusion appears to have been along a system of northeast-trending normal faults that form half-grabens stepping down to the southeast. The magma was intruded as sheet-like bodies along the contact between the Early Proterozoic sedimentary rocks of the Animikie Group and the mafic lava flows of the North Shore Volcanic Group.

The Duluth Complex is represented by the Partridge River intrusion which overlays the Biwabik Iron Formation – the Partridge River intrusion is locally sub-divided into seven troctolitic units:

1920



Unit 4 – homogeneous augite troctolite and troctolite, with a less persistent ultramafic horizon. The contact between Unit 4 and Unit 5 is difficult to establish and the two units may actually be a single unit.

Unit 3 – the most easily recognized unit because of its mottled appearance due to olivine oikocrysts. It is fine grained troctolitic anorthosite to anorthositic troctolite. Average thickness is 250 ft. but locally can be up to 500 ft.

Unit 2 – homogeneous troctolite with abundant ultramafic units and a generally persistent basal ultramafic. This unit shows the most variation in thickness and may be locally absent. Units 2 & 3 are modeled as a single package for resource estimation.

Unit 1 – the most heterogeneous unit, both texturally and compositionally. Grain size is generally coarser at the top of the unit and fines downward. The unit contains abundant inclusions of the footwall rock and is noritic towards the base. This is the main sulfide mineral bearing unit. Two internal ultramafic layers are generally present. Unit 1 is probably the result of multiple pulses of magma injection. Average thickness is about 450 ft.

The general trend of the sedimentary rocks at the base of the NorthMet deposit is striking east-northeast and to dipping to the southeast about 15-25°, and the Partridge River intrusion appears to follow this general trend.

The majority of the rock at NorthMet is unaltered, with a minor alteration found along fractures and micro-fractures, consisting of serpentine, chlorite and magnetite replacing olivine, uralite and biotite replacing pyroxene, and sausserite and sericite replacing plagioclase. Sulfide mineralization does not appear to be directly related to the alteration.

The metals of interest at NorthMet are copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, gold and lesser amounts of rhodium and ruthenium. In general, the metals are positively correlated with copper mineralization, cobalt being the main exception. Unit 1 mineralization is found throughout the deposit. A less extensive mineralizatedmineralized zone is found in Units 4, 5, and 6 in the western part of the deposit, it is copper-rich relative to sulfur, and moderately enriched in PGMs.

Sulfide mineralization consists of chalcopyrite, cubanite, pyrrhotite and pentlandite with minor bornite, violarite, pyrite, sphalerite, galena, talnakhite, mackinawite and valleriite. Sulfide minerals occur mainly as blebs interstitial with plagioclase, olivine and augite grains, but also occur within plagioclase and augite grains, as intergrowths with silicates, or as fine veinlets. The percentage of sulfides varies from trace to about 5%. Palladium, platinum and gold are associated with the sulfides.

The NorthMet deposit has been identified over a length of approximately 2.5 miles and has been found to a depth of more than 2,600 feet. It is covered by a thin layer of glacial till but otherwise reaches to the subsurface at the northern edge.

(g)        Development Plans

Our development plans were set out in our Definitive Feasibility Study prepared by Bateman Engineering Pty. in September 2006. This contemplated the development of a new open pit mine at our NorthMet ore body, using rail infrastructure we acquired as part of Cliffs II to transport approximately 32,000 tons of ore per day from the mine site to our Erie Plant, where we would use our existing facilities to crush and mill the rock. The finely ground material would then pass to a new flotation circuit with waste material sent to existing waste tailings facilities and the concentrate being passed to a new hydrometallurgical plant that we plan to build at the Erie Plant site.

20


We believe that we have completed exploration work required for the initial phases of production at NorthMet, however, we may need to conduct further in-fill drilling during the anticipated life of the project. Since publication of the DFS, we have recognized the commercial potential to sell concentrates during the construction and commissioning of the new hydrometallurgical facilities. We believe that we may be able to reduce

DFS Update

On May 20, 2008 PolyMet reported revised plans and cost estimates for construction and operating costs. The revised plans include:

21


Saleable Products
The DFS describes three products from NorthMet. During construction and commissioning of the hydrometallurgical plant, we anticipate that we will sell either a bulk concentrate containing the full suite of metals and sulfur, or separate copper and nickel concentrates. Once the hydrometallurgical plant is operational, our long term products will comprise:

The copper metal will be electrowon from a copper sulfate solution from the hydrometallurgical plant. Electrowinning is a well established, low-cost and low-energy process that eliminates the need for traditional smelting of sulfidic concentrates. Other metals will be shipped off site for final processing.

21


Part of our plan has been to establish a long-term marketing or offtakeoff-take agreement for our hydroxides, precipitates and as appropriate, concentrates. RecognitionOn 4 September 2008 we announced that we had reached an agreement with Glencore whereby Glencore would purchase our production of concentrates, metals, or intermediate products at prevailing market terms at the time of delivery for at least the first 5 years of production. We executed the agreement on 31 October 2008 as part of a strategic alliance between us and Glencore.

Capital Costs
Our May 2008 DFS Update set out that, on a like-for-like basis, the total capital cost had increased to $516.8 million. This increase reflects both cost inflation and design scope changes since the DFS, including facilities needed to ship concentrate during the construction and commissioning of the possibilitynew hydrometallurgical plant. This staged approach shortens the initial construction period, makes the project less sensitive to the delivery schedule for long lead time equipment such as autoclave vessels, and means that we can commence operations of initial salesthe mine, the existing crushing and milling plant, the existing tailings disposal facilities, and the new flotation circuit, before starting the new hydrometallurgical plant.

In addition to these scope changes and the effect of concentrate has prompted usinflation, we anticipate spending an additional $85.1 million on measures to revisitprotect the possible customers with whom we could partner. We are nowenvironment, over and above the measures contemplated in the advance stages of negotiating agreements and anticipateDFS. $76.6 million for mining equipment that we willwas assumed to be able to announce marketing/offtake agreements that will include funding for our Company.

Key Data and Economic Analysis
The economics reportedprovided by a mining contract in the DFS reflecthas been incorporated as an operating lease in updated operating costs.

22


Capital Costs
(US dollars, millions)

  ChangeInitial Concentrate
 Full Projectfrom DFSSales
    
Definitive Feasibility Study379.8 138.7
Escalation and other scope changes137.036%108.9
     Total516.8 247.6
Environmental measures85.1 64.7
     Total change222.158%173.6
     TOTAL601.9 312.3

Operating Plans and Costs
The overall mining and operating plan remains the initialsame as that defined in the DFS and which forms the basis of the plan being analyzed in the environmental impact statement. We intend to mine plan which in turn is based on the permit application for a processing rate32,000 tons of 32,000 tonsore per day for an initial periodoperating life of 20 years.twenty years, processing a total of 224 million tons of ore. The mine plan continues to be based on the following metal prices: copper - $1.25/lb, nickel - $5.60 per pound, cobalt - $15.25/lb, palladium - $210 per ounce, platinum - $800 per ounce, and gold - $400 per ounce.

Operating costs per ton of ore processed have increased to $13.33 from $11.02 in the DFS reflecting higher fuel, mine equipment, and other consumable costs, as well as general inflation. The cost of mining and delivering ore to the plant is now estimated at $4.31 per ton compared with $3.80 per ton in the DFS. The increase in mining costs has been partially offset by the lower strip ratio, larger mining equipment, and owner versus contractor operation.

Since completing the DFS Update in May 2008, key components of both capital and operating costs, such as diesel and steel, have declined in price quite significantly. We plan to further update the DFS during the course of our current fiscal year ahead of seeking to secure senior construction finance commitments.

The tableeconomic analysis is based on SEC-reserve standards, namely the three-year trailing average, which we calculated at April 30, 2008 (the end of our first fiscal quarter). This price deck is: copper - $2.90/lb, nickel - $12.20/lb, cobalt - $23.50/lb, palladium - $320/oz, platinum - $1,230/oz, and gold - $635/oz. While these prices are somewhat higher than those used on the economic analysis in the DFS, the price are slightly below sets out Base Case metal price assumptionsthe three-year average at the end of our fiscal 2009 year, namely: copper - $3.13/lb, nickel - $12.45/lb, cobalt - $27.34/lb, palladium - $342/oz, platinum - $1,343/oz, and process recovery and key operating data for the average of the first five years of full-scale production. This data comprises metal content of the three products described above, the contribution to net revenue after third-party processing costs, estimates ofgold - $733/oz.

The DFS Update prices translate into copper cash costs for each metalof $1.05 per pound using a co-product basis whereby totalto calculate costs, are allocated to each metal according to that metal’s contribution tocompared with the net revenue, cash costs on a by-product basis wherebyDFS estimate of $0.81 per pound. Taking revenues from the other metals are offsetas a deduction against total costs, and those costs divided by production – this analysis is included for copper and for nickel. The final columns show the increase or decreaseco-product basis shows a cost of $(0.28) per pound compared with $0.06 per pound in the EBITDA with a change in the price of each metal.DFS.

DFS Base Case PriceEconomic Summary
Key economic metrics include earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and Operating Assumptions and Key Production Numbers

Note: Costs are for Low Case metal price assumptions.

The final table sets out key financial statistics – the internal rate of returnamortization (EBITDA) which is projected to increase to $217.3 million on the future capital investment and the present value of the future cash flow (including capital costs) using a 5% and 7.5% discount rate on both a pre-tax and an after-tax basis. The bottom section of the table shows the average over the first five years of full-scale production for gross revenue (before royaltiesoperations from $175.3 million estimated in the DFS. The net present value of future cash flow (after tax) discounted at 7.5% is estimated to be $649.4 million compared with $595.4 million in the DFS, and third-party processing fees), net revenues (after those costs) and EBITDA.

the after tax internal rate of return is now estimated at 30.6% compared with 26.7% in the DFS. The price assumptions include July 2006 average prices, our Base Case described previously, and a Low Case that is comparable to but slightly more conservative thantable below also sets out the SEC-standard for reserve calculation, namely the three-year trailing average to the end of July 2006. Finally, the table shows a sensitivity analysisaffect on EBITDA of a ± 10% change in the Base Caseeach metal price assumptions.price.

2223


DFSKey Economic Projections on a Range of Metal Price AssumptionsHighlights

    Price Assumptions 
  Average    
  July 2006Main CasesSensitivity
       
   Base CaseLow Case  
   3-year trailing plus   
   2-year forward Base -10%Base +10%
       
Metal Prices      
 Copper$/lb3.502.251.502.032.48
 Nickel$/lb12.067.806.507.028.58
 Cobalt$/lb14.5216.3415.2514.7117.97
 Palladium$/oz322274225247301
 Platinum$/oz1,2411,0409009361,144
 Gold$/oz634540450486594
Financial Summary      
Pre-tax      
 IRR%n/a34.2%17.4%28.2%40.9%
 PV discounted at 5%$'000n/a1,210,792450,643908,8421,522,091
 PV discounted at 7.5%$'000n/a910,978298,807668,9401,162,218
Post-tax      
 IRR%n/a26.7%13.4%21.9%31.9%
 PV discounted at 5%$'000n/a873,022295,515644,2201,109,633
 PV discounted at 7.5%$'000n/a595,358161,924424,674773,362
First 5 years:      
 Average gross revenue$'000504,438341,417259,111307,275375,559
 Average net revenue$'000440,257303,147228,067273,310332,908
 Average EBITDA$'000312,382175,273100,193145,435205,033

We believe that we have completed exploration work required for the initial phases of production at NorthMet, however, we may need to conduct further in-fill drilling during the anticipated life of the project.


(h)        Regulations and Government Rules

The mining industry has been subject to increasing government controls and regulations in recent years. We have obtained all necessary permits for exploration work performed to date and anticipate no material problems obtaining the necessary permits to proceed with further development.

ITEM 4A. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

In a letter dated April 9, 2008 the SEC Staff requested that we amend our Form 20-F filing for the period ended January 31, 2007 to include a narrative discussion of the material terms of verbal agreements between us and Messrs. Dreisinger and Swearingen, two of our directors who have provided consulting services beyond their responsibilities as members of our Board. We have incorporated our response to that request in this Form 20-F and will file an Amendment No. 1 to our Form 20-F for the period ended January 31, 2007 (the “Form 20-F/A) when we receive notice from the SEC that our proposed amendment, as further amended if necessary, satisfactorily addresses the SEC’s comments.None.

23


ITEM 5. OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS

(a)        Operating Results

This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements. Our functional currency is the United States dollar and our financial statements are prepared in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); however, the only material difference between U.S. GAAP and Canadian GAAP with regard to our financial statements relates to the capitalizing of accretion related to asset retirement obligations under Canadian GAAP while US GAAP requires these amounts to expensed (see Item 3: Key Information – A. Selected Financial Data for the impact of this difference). All amounts in this discussion and in the consolidated financial statements are expressed in United States dollars, unless identified otherwise.

24


Summary of Events During the Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 20082009

During the year ended January 31, 2008,2009, and through the date of the filing of this Annual Information Form / Annual Report on Form 20-F, the Company continued to advance its NorthMet Project including the activities noted below.

On 5 February 1,2008, PolyMet announced that it has re-allocated responsibilities amongst its senior management team and was relocating its headquarters to Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota. William Murray, formerly President and CEO, was appointed Executive Chairman, and Joseph Scipioni assumed Mr. Murray's former role as President and CEO. Ian Forrest, the former Chairman, continues to serve as an independent director and as Chairman of the Audit Committee.

On 19 February 2008, PolyMet announced that Frank Sims and Joseph Scipioni had joined its board of directors.

On May 20, 2008 PolyMet reported revised plans and cost estimates for construction and operating costs. The revised plans include:

On 12 June 2008, PolyMet announced the hiring of Paul Brunfelt as division manager responsible for concentrating and crushing activities.

On 10 October 2008, the Company announced that it had received the consent from the TSX Venture Exchange toholders of more than two-thirds of the TSX and commenced trading on8,020,000 warrants issued as part of the TSX under the symbol POM.

On March 8,April 2007 we announced that William D. Corneliuson had agreed to join its Board of Directors.

On April 17, 2007, we announced that we had closed a private placement financingto exchange those warrants into:

On 31 October 2008, subjectthe Company announced that it had completed the strategic partnership with Glencore AG (“Glencore”) announced on 4 September 2008.

Glencore will purchase PolyMet’s production of concentrates, metals or intermediate products at prevailing market terms for at least the first 5 years of production.

An aggregate of US$50 million floating rate secured debentures due on September 30, 2011 (the "Debentures") are to an early triggerbe issued by the Company's wholly-owned Minnesota subsidiary, Poly Met Mining, Inc. (“PolyMet US”), and guaranteed by the Company. The Debentures bear interest at 12-month US dollar LIBOR plus 4%. Interest is payable in cash or by increasing the principal amount of the Debentures, at PolyMet’s option, for payments on or before September 30, 2009, and at Glencore’s option thereafter. The Debentures are secured by all of the assets of PolyMet and PolyMet US, including a pledge of PolyMet’s 100% shareholding in PolyMet US.

25


The Debentures are exchangeable into common shares of PolyMet at US$4.00 per share. The Issuer can, at its option, prepay the Debentures if thePolyMet’s shares trade at a 20-day volume weighted average price equal to or exceeding US$6.00, at which time, and at Glencore’s option, Glencore could exchange the Debentures for common shares of PolyMet within 30 days in lieu of payment. Repayment between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010 would be at 105% of the then outstanding principal of the Debentures, repayment between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 would be at 102.5% of the outstanding principal.

An initial US$7.5 million of the Debentures were issued on 31 October 2008 and an additional US$7.5 million of the Debentures were issued on 22 December, 2008. US$10.0 million of the Debentures will be issued in two tranches subject to expenditures being in material compliance with budget, other customary conditions and agreement between Glencore and Cliffs on terms and conditions whereby Cliffs will provide its consent to Glencore as mortgagee of the Erie Plant. These funds will be used to complete critical engineering work and the final Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) for PolyMet’s NorthMet Project.

The final US$25 million of the Debentures, to be used primarily for detailed engineering and procurement, are to be issued upon publication of the Final EIS in the State of Minnesota’s Environmental Quality Board Monitor, receipt by the Company of a bona fide term sheet for construction financing and are subject to expenditures being in material compliance with budget and other customary conditions.

On 31 October 2008, PolyMet issued to Glencore warrants to purchase 6.25 million common shares isof PolyMet at US$5.00 if exercised before the NorthMet Project has produced a total of 20,000 metric tonnes of concentrate, or US$6.00 thereafter. The warrants expire on September 30, 2011. If the volume-weighted 20-day average price of PolyMet’s common shares trade at a 50% premium to the then applicable exercise price, Glencore must exercise the warrants within 30 days or more. After paying cash finders’ fees totaling US$1.43 million, the financing raised $39.82 million.warrants will expire.

On May, 7, 2007, we31 October 2008, PolyMet also announced that Warren Hudelson, formerly Executive Vice-PresidentStephen Rowland had joined its board of our U.S. subsidiary Poly Met Mining, Inc. had retired. Separately, we reporteddirectors. Mr. Rowland has been an executive with Glencore since 1988, having begun his career in mining and metals trading with Cargill, Incorporated in Minnesota.

On 18 March 2009, PolyMet announced that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had approved an electric service agreement ("ESA") between PolyMet and Minnesota Power, a divisionDepartment of ALLETE, Inc. (NYSE:ALE) under which Minnesota Power will provide all of NorthMet's electric service needs through 2018.

On May 16, 2007 we reported that the MDNR had announced that the draft EIS was anticipatedNatural Resources continues to be available by early November 2007. We also reported that in continuing to optimize our business plan we were considering the initial sale of concentrates, an interim product in our flow sheet, which could commence before completion of the entire project, thus shortening the timeline to first revenues and reducing the pre-revenue capital expenditure.

On July 10, 2007 we announced that our drill program had confirmed expansion of the shallow "Magenta" Zone and demonstrated continuity of ore zones at our NorthMet property.

On August 9, 2007 we reported a 51% increase in measured and indicated mineral resources.

On August 21, 2007 we reported that we had hired three new employees, expanding our management team. The new hires comprised LaTisha Gietzen, Vice-President of Public, Government, and Environmental Affairs; James (Jim) E. Tieberg, Division Manager of Mining; and David (Dave) L. Draves, Site Controller.

On September 4, 2007 we announced that we had signed a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) with 15 construction trade unions in Northeastern Minnesota governing an estimated 1 million man-hours of construction labor. The PLA secures a supply of construction labor for NorthMet and defines the ground

24


rules for working conditions, schedules, overtime and safety. The agreement also encourages apprenticeships and includes "no strike" provisions.

On September 26, 2007 we reported a 51% increase in proven and probable reserves at our NorthMet property.

On November 7, 2007 we reported that we expected that the MDNR and the US Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) would complete their evaluation of our operating plans in January 2008 leading toprogress toward publication of the draft EIS around the end of 1st quarter of 2008.

On February 5, 2008 we announced that we were relocating our operational headquartersEnvironmental Impact Statement, which is expected to Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota and appointed William Murray as our Executive Chairman and Joe Scipioni as our President and Chief Executive Officer.

On February 15, 2008 we reported that the MDNR had advised us that it would not complete the draft EIS by the end of the first quarter 2008 because,be ready for public review in order to make the draft EIS as thorough and complete as possible, the MDNR wanted to validate and verify sampling, monitoring, and modeling data. The MDNR anticipated the validation and drafting of the draft EIS would be completed before the end of the second quarter of 2008.2009.

On February 19, 2008 we appointed Frank Sims and Joseph (Joe) Scipioni to our Board26


Summary of Operating Results

As of January 31, 2008,2009, we operated in one segment, the exploration and development of the base and precious metals at our NorthMet Project in Minnesota, United States. Head office comprises general and administrative costs, stock based compensation expense, financing expenses, foreign exchange interest income, assets, purchase of property, plant and equipment and amortization reported by the Canadian head office.

 NorthMet  Head Office     NorthMet  Head Office  Consolidated 
 Project  (US$000’s) (US$000’s)
2009 (US$000’s)      
         
Segment operating loss$ 117 $ 4,419 $ 4,536 
         
Mineral property, plant and equipment$ 92,989 $ 78 $ 93,067 
         
Other assets$ 2,546 $ 7,143 $ 9,689 
         
Identifiable assets$ 95,535 $ 7,221 $ 102,756 
 Project in                
2008 U.S.     Consolidated          
                  
Segment operating loss$ 403 $ 3,287 $ 3,690 $ 403 $ 3,287 $ 3,690 
                  
Mineral property, plant and equipment$ 64,914 $ 105 $ 65,019 $ 64,914 $ 105 $ 65,019 
                  
Other assets$ 3,926 $ 20,254 $ 24,180 $ 3,926 $ 20,254 $ 24,180 
                  
Identifiable assets$ 68,840 $ 20,359 $ 89,199 $ 68,840 $ 20,359 $ 89,199 
                  
2007                  
                  
Segment operating loss$ 9,069 $ 8,824 $ 17,893 $ 9,069 $ 8,824 $ 17,893 
                  
Mineral property, plant and equipment$ 38,056 $ 110 $ 38,166 $ 38,056 $ 110 $ 38,166 
                  
Other assets$ 2,177 $ 8,388 $ 10,565 $ 2,177 $ 8,388 $ 10,565 
                  
Identifiable assets$ 40,233 $ 8,498 $ 48,731 $ 40,233 $ 8,498 $ 48,731 
         
2006         

25Year ended January 31, 2009 compared with the year ended January 31, 2008

Overall. Our focus for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 was to provide the state input into the environmental impact statement and permitting work at the NorthMet Project, obtain additional financing and to continue to develop the Project including updating the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimates and preparing for construction.

Loss for the year. During the year ended 31 January 2009, we incurred a loss of $4.536 million ($0.03 loss per share) compared to a loss of $3.690 million ($0.03 loss per share) in 2008. The increase in the net loss for the period was primarily attributable to:

27



          
Segment operating loss$ 11,406 $ 4,523 $ 15,929 
          
Mineral property, plant and equipment$ 14,225 $ 22 $ 14,247 
          
Other assets$ 156 $ 11,631 $ 11,787 
          
Identifiable assets$ 14,381 $ 11,653 $ 26,034 

The above was partially offset by $215,000 (prior year period - $25,000) of income from rental of property and services to third parties.

General and Administrative expense in the year ended 31 January 2009 excluding non-cash stock based compensation expenses was $2,897,000 compared with $3,764,000 for the prior year period with the decrease due to lower legal costs, lower investor relations costs and lower office and corporate wage expenses as a result of no bonuses paid out the current year as compared with the prior year period. Stock-based compensation in the current period was $487,000 (prior year period - $635,000).

Year ended January 31, 2008 compared with the year ended January 31, 2007

Overall. Our focus for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2008 was to provide the state input into the environmental impact statement and permitting work at the NorthMet Project and to continue to develop the Project including updating the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimates and preparing for construction.

Loss for the year. During the year ended January 31, 2008 we incurred a loss of $3.690 million ($0.03 loss per share) compared to a loss of $17.893 million ($0.16 loss per share) in fiscal 2007. The decrease in the net loss for the period was primarily attributable to:

The above was partially offset by the recording of an “other than temporary impairment” loss of $1.050 million on an investment made by the Company during the year ended 31 January 31, 2008.

General and Administrative expense in the year ended January 31, 2008, excluding non-cash stock based compensation related to incentive stock options, was $3.764 million compared with $4.251 million for the prior year. The decrease was due to the impact of the bonus shares in the prior year being greater than the increased corporate activities and higher office and corporate wage expenses in the current periodyear ended 31 January 2008 as a result of additional personnel and cash bonuses.

During the year ended January 31, 2008 we expended $nil million in exploration, pre-feasibility and lease payments compared to $8.844 million in fiscal 2007. The decrease in fiscal 2008 was a result of the completion of the DFS during the third quarter of fiscal 2007 and the subsequent capitalizing of site costs.

Foreign exchange translation gains were $566,000 for the year ended January 31, 2008 (prior year – loss of $536,000) due to the increasing strength of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar.

2628


Year ended January 31, 2007 compared with the year ended January 31, 2006

Overall.Our focus for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007 was to complete the Definitive Feasibility Study, complete our drill program and pilot plant testing and further advance the environmental and permitting process at the NorthMet Project. We continued to expand our operations in Minnesota by retaining more key consultants to assist in the environmental impact statement and permitting work as well as plan for the development of the project.

Loss for the year. We recorded a loss in the year ended January 31, 2007 of $17.893 million ($0.16 loss per share) compared to a loss of $15.929 million ($0.22 loss per share) in fiscal 2006. The increase in the net loss for the year was primarily attributable to: the increased level of work; and an increase in general and administrative costs including non-cash stock compensation expense of $4.723 million (2006 - $3.523 million) and non-cash consulting fees expense of $1.289 million (2006 - $Nil). This was partially offset by lower pre-feasibility costs as the DFS was completed effective October 1, 2006 and site costs from that date were capitalized.

During the period ended January 31, 2007 we expended $8.844 million in exploration, pre-feasibility and lease payments compared to $11.120 million in fiscal 2006. The decrease in fiscal 2007 was a result of the completion of the DFS during the third quarter and the subsequent capitalizing of site costs.

General and Administrative expense for the year ended January 31, 2007 excluding non-cash stock based compensation expenses was $4.251 million compared with $1.655 million for the year ended January 31, 2006. We reported an increase in expenditures for:

Net interest income during the year ended January 31, 2007 was $428,000 compared with $148,000 in the year ended January 31, 2006. This increase was the result of higher cash balances on deposit and higher interest rates. Foreign exchange translation losses were $536,000 for the year ended 31 January 2007 (2006 – gain of $221,000). This increase was the result of changes in exposure and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.

(b)        Liquidity And Capital Resources

Financing Activities

On October 31, 2008, the Company entered into a financing with Glencore for an aggregate of US$50 million floating rate secured debentures due on September 30, 2011 are to be issued by PolyMet US, and guaranteed by the Company. The Debentures bear interest at 12-month US dollar LIBOR plus 4%. Interest is payable in cash or by increasing the principal amount of the Debentures, at PolyMet’s option, for payments on or before September 30, 2009, and at Glencore’s option thereafter. The Debentures are secured by the assets of PolyMet and PolyMet US, including PolyMet’s 100% shareholding in PolyMet US.

The Debentures are exchangeable into common shares of PolyMet at Glencore’s option at US$4.00 per share. The Issuer can, at its option, prepay the Debentures if PolyMet’s shares trade at a 20-day volume weighted average price equal to or exceeding US$6.00, at which time, and at Glencore’s option, Glencore could exchange the Debentures for common shares of PolyMet within 30 days in lieu of payment. Repayment between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010 would be at 105% of the then outstanding principal of the Debentures, repayment between October 1, 2010 and September 30, 2011 would be at 102.5% of the outstanding principal.

US$7.5 million of the Debentures were issued on 31 October 2008 and another US$7.5 million were issued on December 22, 2008. US$10 million of the Debentures will be issued in two tranches subject to expenditures being in material compliance with budget, other customary conditions and agreement between Glencore and Cliffs on terms and conditions whereby Cliffs will provide its consent to Glencore as mortgagee of the Erie Plant.

The final US$25 million of the Debentures are to be issued upon publication of the Final EIS in the State of Minnesota’s Environmental Quality Board Monitor, receipt by the Company of a bona fide term sheet for construction financing and are subject to expenditures being in material compliance with budget and other customary conditions.

On 31 October 2008, PolyMet issued to Glencore warrants to purchase 6.25 million common shares of PolyMet at US$5.00 if exercised before the NorthMet Project has produced a total of 20,000 metric tonnes of concentrate, or US$6.00 thereafter. The warrants expire on September 30, 2011. If the volume-weighted 20-day average price of PolyMet’s common shares trade at a 50% premium to the then applicable exercise price, Glencore must exercise the warrants within 30 days or the warrants will expire.

During the year ended 31 January 2009 the Company issued 312,800 shares (prior year period – 462,200) upon exercise of options for proceeds of $452,000 (prior year period - $303,000).

During the year ended January 31, 2008 we issued 15 million units at US$2.75 per unit, with each unit comprising one common share and one-half of one common share purchase warrant (for accounting purposes, the value of the units was bifurcated between the common shares and the warrants). Each whole warrant iswas exercisable into a common share at a price of US$4.00 at any time until October 13, 2008 (see amendment below), subject to an early trigger if the 20-day volume weighted average price of the common shares is US$6.00 or more. In connection with the private placement, the Company paid finders’ fees totaling US$1.43 million in cash, 150,000 shares and 520,000 broker warrants having the same terms as the warrants described above. During the period the Company also issued 462,199462,200 shares upon exercise of options for proceeds of $303,000.

29


During the year ended January 31, 2007 the Company issued:

27


During the year ended January 31, 2006,On 10 October 2008, the Company completed: