Blog

Dear Reader,

We are writing to warn you of a federal action that could dramatically impact America’s domestic supplies of natural resources.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment last month in response to calls from anti-mining groups for the EPA to issue a preemptive permit veto under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act of the Pebble mine outside of the prescribed permitting process.

A preemptive permit veto prior to the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process has never been done. If this precedent is set, every exploratory domestic resource project in the United States will be at risk.

To lay the groundwork for the 404(c) denial, the EPA conducted the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment based on the potential impacts of a hypothetical mine in southwestern Alaska. The study is of a hypothetical mine because the company has not even developed a mine plan yet.

The public comment period on the revised assessment is open until May 31, 2013. In an effort to ensure a balanced debate – as environmentalists will undoubtedly make ample use of their opportunity to voice their opposition to the project and an expansion of EPA authority via the EPA’s solicitation of public comment – we ask that you consider weighing in on this important issue and submit a comment to the EPA via their website.

Here are some key facts and links for further information. For your convenience, a sample message is pasted below.
 
Facts:

• In May of 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in response to call for a 404C Clean Water Act permit denial, released a cursory review of the Bristol Bay Watershed in Alaska – in spite of the fact that no permit application or specific plans had been submitted.
• The EPA’s unprecedented early action was part of efforts to derail the development of one of the largest domestic deposits of key strategic mineral resources (Copper, Molybdenum, Gold, Silver and Rhenium) in the so-called Pebble Deposit in Southwestern Alaska.
• Even scientists serving on the peer-review panel instituted by EPA to validate their study have criticized the purely hypothetical mine scenario used by EPA, and even used the term “hogwash” to characterize the approach.
• In April 2013, the EPA released its revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. Not only does the assessment continue to focus on a hypothetical scenario, it also continues to rely on research paid for by an anti-mining group called Earthworks and conducted by a scientist who recently admitted to developing and submitting a tainted research report to win a $19 billion environmental tort judgment.
• While the U.S. is the world’s third-largest Copper producer, the related risk exposure to possible supply disruption is disproportionately greater than it is for any other mineral. On the national security front, the Pentagon has already reported a “significant delay” to a major weapons program due to inadequate copper supply.
• The unilateral expansion of EPA powers under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act would effectively give the agency ultimate authority to derail any project in the United States that touches on water — with potential impact for projects in every sector of the US economy, from mining to farming, manufacturing, building, energy, and water treatment.

 
Links

• EPA’s revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment
• Instructions on how to submit public comments
• American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty’s reaction to the revised assessment
• Previous related coverage by the American Resources Policy Network

 
Sample Message:

Dear Mr. Perciasepe,

I write to express my concerns regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which is flawed on several levels.

Not only does the assessment focus on a purely hypothetical scenario relating to the Pebble deposit, as no official permit requests or plans have been submitted, the assessment continues to rely on research from avowed biased anti mining groups such as Earthworks that have stated there is no large mine in the Unites States or the World that they support.

The Pebble deposit could be the largest copper resource in American history. Responsible development of it could create tens of thousands of much-needed jobs and billions in economic development.

At a time when America is struggling to expand its economy and compete with nations like China for raw resources, it is bad public policy that the Environmental Protection Agency would press ahead with a efforts to prevent a mining outside of the prescribed NEPA permitting process, as it would have devastating impacts on America’s natural resource development, exploration, investment, and development.

Sincerely,

xxxx

In a recent opinion piece for Politico, Brigadier General John Adams (U.S. Army, ret.) author of “Remaking American Security” and President of Guardian Six Consulting, and Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, zero in on the national security implications of our mineral dependencies.

Citing Hellfire missiles and night vision goggles as examples, as well as high-tech magnets required for the manufacture of military-grade vehicles, aircrafts or naval vessels, as examples, the authors point out that we have “serious gaps in our armor,” as the United States’ “security and our ability to develop future battlefield capabilities are dependent on potentially unreliable supplier nations who might not have our best interests at heart in a crisis situation.”

Adams and Paul lament that “we’ve allowed our nation’s defense industrial base – the private companies that make all of our weapons, vehicles, and essential military hardware—to weaken in lockstep with the wider manufacturing sector.” Concluding, they outline some steps they feel should be taken to alleviate the problem, including stockpiling, enforcing and reviewing DoD’s sourcing preferences, strengthening cooperation between government agencies and the private sector, and investing in high-tech industries.

The authors’ conclusion that “we must address the vulnerabilities in our military supply chain and fill in our defensive gaps,” because “nothing less than our national security is at stake, is consistent with our findings from our 2012 study “Reviewing Risk – Critical Metals and National Security,” in which we outlined the extent of the United States’ overreliance on foreign supplies of critical minerals.

Considering that for 87% of the metals and minerals on our American Resources Risk Pyramid in our report, domestic resources exist – maximizing our mineral resource potential by developing these mineral riches should be a part of any solution to this problem.

Last week, the American Resources Policy Network had the honor of organizing and participating in a confidential, invitation-only session on strategic and critical materials identified by the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency/Strategic Materials (DLA/SM) and the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). The event is part of a series of sessions American Resources has been asked to (…) more

It’s spring – and everything is growing, including the group of formidable people lending their expertise to the American Resources Policy Network. We’re thrilled to announce that Chris Berry of House Mountain Partners, LLC has joined the American Resources panel of experts. A life-long interest in geopolitics and the financial issues that emerge from these (…) more

U.S. Defense Agencies Look to ARPN Experts for Critical Input on Metals and National Security The American Resources Policy Network has been invited by the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency/Strategic Materials (DLA/SM) and the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to take part in the 2015 National Defense Stockpile (NDS) Requirements Report process, assessing potential shortfalls in (…) more

There has been much hype surrounding what has been described as the world’s wonder material – graphene. It is (theoretically) stronger than steel, more conductive than copper and incredibly flexible. Graphene is a one atom layer of carbon, a truly two-dimensional material. One mining company described it as “graphite, unfolded”. On the face of it (…) more

After a few-month-long hiatus, it is time to bring back our Metals of the Month feature on the blog. In its context, we have been highlighting the breadth of our mineral needs and potential by showcasing the utilities of metals and minerals for which the United States is largely import-dependent, as well as associated challenges. (…) more

Pulling a classic Friday afternoon document drop, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment on Friday afternoon – only two days after tamping down media expectations that the release was imminent. As American Resources President Daniel McGroarty pointed out in an email to journalists on Friday, the flawed assessment (…) more

The EPA just released its revised Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, outlining the potential impacts of a hypothetical mine in the Pebble region of southwestern Alaska. Unfortunately, the EPA’s study relies on research conducted by the U.S. firm Stratus Consulting and its Managing Scientist, Ann Maest, both of whom just a few short days ago publicly (…) more

Our friends at MetalMiner recently went over import and export trends for Tantalum against the backdrop of the August 22, 2012 SEC conflict minerals rule and they enlisted Chris Grove, director of communications at Commerce Resources, a junior Tantalum mining firm, to comment on the numbers. MetalMiner found that in spite of new rules being (…) more