The issue of the White House blocking several Department of Energy regulations was raised at a recent Congressional hearing, the New York Times reports. The rules in question would require greater energy efficiency for appliances, as well as building and lighting.

Critics argue that in spite of a 1993 executive order requiring the White House to act on proposed regulations within 90 days, the Administration has been dragging its feet on this issue for two years. During the hearing, the President’s nominee to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs vowed to speed up the agency’s review process times if confirmed.

Yet even as environmentalists call on the Administration to move forward with these energy efficiency regulations, they also work to block mineral resource development projects that would allow U.S. manufacturers to implement these policies.

Herein lies an often-overlooked irony; the renewable energy sources environmentalists prefer rely heavily on critical minerals, the domestic development of which they oppose.

An excerpt from the Department of Energy’s website providing information on the recently created Critical Materials Hub underscores the importance of critical minerals for so-called “clean energy” projects:

“Critical materials, including some rare earth elements that possess unique magnetic, catalytic, and luminescent properties, are key resources needed to manufacture products for the clean energy economy. These materials are so critical to the technologies that enable wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, and energy-efficient lighting that The Department’s 2010 and 2011 Critical Materials Strategy reported that supply challenges for five rare earth metals—dysprosium, neodymium, terbium, europium, and yttrium—could affect clean energy technology deployment in the coming years.”

Copper – currently in the crosshairs of environmentalists in Alaska, is a case in point. Consider that Copper content of a single wind turbine ranges anywhere between three and four and a half tons. As we have outlined in our report entitled “Gateway Metals and the Foundations of American Technology,” Copper is also the source for Selenium, which, along with Gallium and Indium (also derivatives of what we have termed “Gateway Metals”) is a key component for the manufacture of next-gen CIGS solar panels.

The fact of the matter is that we can’t have our cake, and eat it, too. If we want to make the transition to a green-tech and clean energy future, we will continue to rely on critical minerals, and we would be well advised to explore and develop the resources we’re blessed to have beneath our own soil.

The “not in my backyard” crowd may be quick to point to potential environmental damage associated with domestic mining, but they fail to acknowledge that in order to meet domestic manufacturing needs, we otherwise have to rely on foreign imports with all strings attached – and, as we have pointed out, that all too often means less stringent environmental standards or human rights abuses in supplier nations.

The post Environmentalists push energy efficiency but block development of mineral resources required for clean energy transition appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Slowing down the permitting process is a common practice used by environmentalists to derail mining and construction projects, so one can’t help but notice the irony of a slow permitting process that complicates environmental cleanup. However, this is what is currently happening in California.

As we have previously pointed out, the Golden State is in danger of losing much of its shine thanks to its onerous permitting process and California Environmental Quality Act regulations that don’t appear to be reforming anytime soon. And when it comes to regulations, Californians think of themselves as leaders when it comes to protecting the environment. However, it has been recently made public that there has been a significant increase in hazardous waste being exported out of the state and around the state’s more strict regulations. As California has some of the strictest environmental laws, certain categories of Californian “hazardous waste” do not meet that definition in states to which this waste is shipped, and consequently may not receive the same level of treatment there. In fact, according to the Sacramento Bee, the percent of hazardous waste being exported from the state has increased over 300 percent since 2006.

A look at the numbers reveals that more than 540,000 tons of hazardous waste have been sent out-of-state, with five states accounting for taking in 93 percent of Californian waste exports.

The rub is that a slow permitting process, largely courtesy of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), is in fact preventing toxic waste cleanup because facilities with the capability to properly store and/or dispose of the waste are not given permission to do so.

This means that California’s existing (and effective) waste disposal facilities are being disregarded in favor of those in other states, making a mockery of the state’s own environmental protection regulations and the concept of “environmental justice.” It’s time for a cleanup – and the permitting process might be a good place to start.

The post Exporting California’s hazardous waste makes mockery of “environmental justice” concept appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has officially extended the public comment period for its draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment – a review released in April 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 project in Alaska.

The Washington Post notes the issue’s importance, which has so far flown largely under the national media’s radar, as potentially “one of the most important environmental decisions the president faces in his second term.”

The situation does indeed deserve greater attention. The Pebble deposit is quite possibly the largest copper resource in American history, and responsible development of it could create tens of thousands of much-needed jobs and billions in economic development. Far more is at stake, though, as a preemptive permit veto prior to the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process has never been done. As we have previously pointed out, if this precedent is set, every exploratory domestic resource project in the United States will be at risk, jeopardizing our economic and national security future.

With the comment period extended, please consider weighing in on this important issue and submit a comment to the EPA via their website, if you haven’t done so already.

For your convenience, here are some key facts and links for further information, as well as a sample message.

The post Public Comment Period on Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment Extended appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

A few weeks ago, American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty had the honor of participating in a fantastic event put on by our friends at ProEdgeWire.

The 2nd Annual Technology Metals Summit, Renewable Energy — the next industrial revolution, hosted in Toronto in April, brought together a formidable crowd of strategic mineral experts, industry representatives, accredited investors and senior government officials to discuss the complex challenges faced by the sector.

For those interested, ProEdgeWire Editor and American Resources expert Tracy Weslosky has put together a post-conference wrap-up post which features links to many of the presentations offered by speakers during the event.

The post 2nd Annual Technology Metals Summit – Presentations and PowerPoints appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

According to news reports, former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson will be joining Apple Inc. as vice president of environmental initiatives. As part of her new position, Jackson will coordinate many of the company’s environmental practices.

Jackson hailed Apple’s environmental record stating that “Apple has shown how innovation can drive real progress by removing toxics from its products, incorporating renewable energy in its data center plans, and continually raising the bar for energy efficiency in the electronics industry.”

Interestingly, Jackson will now for the first time have to represent the interests of a company which heavily relies on critical minerals for the manufacturing of its hi-tech products, an area where Apple emphasizes its commitment to “supplier responsibility.”

Jackson may not be known as a strong proponent of domestic resource development to date, but one thing is clear: in order to reconcile the company’s mineral resource needs and responsible sourcing goals as well as environmental policies, an emphasis on sustainable domestic resource development is crucial.

As American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty has previously pointed out:

Mining projects developed here in the U.S. are, on balance, likely to be conducted with higher standards of safety, against stronger environmental strictures, with better benefits to the surrounding communities than projects in many parts of the world.

With her background as a close ally of President Obama’s during her tenure at EPA, there is an opportunity for Jackson to use her clout and experience to help push forward President Obama’s Material Genome Initiative – a collaboration between government, private-sector, and academia “to discover and deploy new cutting-edge materials faster and cheaper than ever before,” born from the realization that many critical minerals which characterize “the industrial cutting-edge are not as naturally abundant or easy to access as their predecessors.”

At a time when manufacturing could use a boost, an increased focus on domestic resource development would be just what the doctor ordered. Or in other words:

If we’re serious about reviving American manufacturing, if we’re serious about restoring American jobs, if we’re serious about making sure the high-tech and green-tech dreams of the future are Made In America, if we’re serious about safeguarding our national security – we need a new resource development strategy. And we need it now.

The post Former EPA Chief joins Apple, a key user of critical minerals appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Our friends at MetalMiner – also the authors of a white paper on building responsible manufacturing supply chains in the context of conflict minerals — held an event on May 6 in Chicago aimed at clearing up much of the confusion, which was another reason we thought May would be a good month to feature the “Three T’s” on our blog.

Post conference coverage is already available at www.agmetalminer.com and and Metal Miner’s partner site www.spendmatters.com, including discussion of Lawrence Heim’s (Director of The Elm Consulting Group International) presentation offering some practical strategies and approaches for conflict minerals compliance.

Friends of American Resources won’t be surprised to hear us suggest one possible alternative to the difficulties of conflict metals compliance: Development of at least tantalum and tungsten deposits in the U.S. would be a terrific way to help manufacturing companies go “conflict-free.”

The post Three Ts and related issues at MetalMiner’s Chicago conference earlier this month appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

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

The post Comment on the EPA’s Flawed Watershed Assessment appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

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.

The post Foreign mineral dependencies cause “serious gaps in our armor” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The event is part of a series of sessions American Resources has been asked to organize in the context of the 2015 National Defense Stockpile (NDS) Requirements Report process, the goal of which is to assess potential shortfalls in strategic and critical metals.

Coincidentally, the first session took place only days after a new research report directs attention to the “gaps in our armor” stemming from the United States’ over-reliance on foreign minerals to meet our nation’s defense industrial base’s needs.

We’re thrilled to be part of a conversation the importance of which cannot be stressed enough. In our 2012 report “Reviewing Risk: Critical Metals & National Security” we outlined the extent of the United States’ overreliance on foreign supplies of critical minerals, and found that for 87% of these metals and minerals, domestic resources do exist.

Meanwhile, Behre Dolbear, the renowned mining investment advisory firm, once again had the United States tied for last place with Papua New Guinea for permitting delays in their annual political assessment of the mining industry. Far from being just another statistic, the ranking is indicative of a problem which carries a high price tag, as it places America at a disadvantage in the global race for critical resources and costs jobs – as the recent layoff announcements at a U.S. mining equipment plant owned by Caterpillar show.

It’s an issue that warrants attention, as both our defense industrial and overall manufacturing base — and consequently our national security and economy — would benefit from a policy overhaul that maximizes our vast domestic mineral potential.

The post American Resources Policy Network participates in Department of Defense’s 2015 National Defense Stockpile Report process appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

A life-long interest in geopolitics and the financial issues that emerge from these relationships sparked Mr. Berry’s interest in how economies grow at an early age. This curiosity led to the study of commodities and the role they play in enhancing a society’s standard of living. He is a firm believer in the emerging Quality of Life Cycle coming from Asia and believes it will have profound effects across the globe in the coming years. He currently devotes much of his time to “energy metals” – those metals or minerals used in the generation or storage of energy.

To learn more about Mr. Berry’s work and our other panelists, visit our experts page. Stay tuned for further announcements of new experts over the next few days.

The post Expert on energy metals joins American Resources panel appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.