American Resources Policy Network
Promoting the development of American mineral resources.
  • Dan McGroarty discusses looming EPA power-grab for Forbes

    Pebble Mine site

    In a new piece for Forbes, American Resources Policy Network principal Daniel McGroarty discusses the EPA’s apparent readiness to unilaterally expand its powers under the Clean Water Act to pre-emptively veto a promising mining project in Alaska – the Pebble Mine.

    As McGroarty argues, if the EPA were to issue a veto based on its Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment – a study conducted before any permit requests were filed or plans were submitted, and based entirely on hypotheticals – the agency would set a dangerous precedent with the potential to impact investment projects throughout the United States and across many sectors. It would furthermore undermine existing environmental law, which has helped strike the balance between economic and environmental concerns for more than forty years – the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    Says McGroarty:

    “On very rare occasions, EPA has vetoed projects at some point during or after this process – never before. Such a move would fundamentally change the way companies assess the risks of even conducting preliminary research on a potential project. Important ideas that can create jobs, drive innovation, and produce value for the economy may never make it off of the drawing board, as EPA’s Sword of Damocles dangles precariously overhead.

    Environmental law was never meant to be a project killer. The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act was to strike a balance between economy and environment, to ensure that the forward march of progress didn’t trample nature along the way. An EPA power grab of this magnitude would throw that equation far out of balance.”

    McGroarty goes on to point out the hypocrisy of some – not all – environmentalist organizations who have long championed “the balance of power afforded by the National Environmental Policy Act,” but adamantly call for a pre-emptive EPA veto in this particular case.

    His conclusion:

    “Our nation’s mine permitting process is not perfect – it can take up to a decade to navigate the maze of local, state and Federal red tape and get a mine online, which ties us for last place among mining nations with the much poorer, much more hazard-prone Papua New Guinea. But it is the product of a long-established law, carefully designed with checks and balances to ensure a healthy marriage of economy and environment in America. If EPA gives itself the power to veto ideas, you can bet it will be a messy divorce.”

    To read the full piece click here.

  • EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment: A Factual Review of a Hypothetical Scenario

    Testimony presented by Daniel McGroarty – Oversight Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology Subcommittee, August 1, 2013

    Chairman Broun, Ranking Member Maffei, Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Daniel McGroarty, and I am president of the American Resources Policy Network, an experts-led organization dedicated to exploring and informing the American public and American policy-makers of the importance of U.S. resource development – and the dangers of unnecessary foreign resource dependence.

    The Pebble deposit, the subject of the EPA assessment, is the largest potential copper mine in the United States. America’s lack of this critical metal has most notably been acknowledged in a recent Defense Department report as causing “a significant weapon system production delay for DoD.” Pebble is also potentially a multi-metal mine, with prospects beyond copper for the recovery of Molybdenum — used in alloy form in gun-barrels of many types, Rhenium — used in high-performance jet fighters, and Selenium and Tellurium, both of which are used in photovoltaic solar panels that could not only lead the Green Revolution – but provide a portable power source for U.S. troops in the field.

    As a matter of sound public policy, Pebble should be treated no differently than any other potential mineral resources project under the well-established environmental permitting process. But even before the permitting process has begun, Pebble has been subject to inconsistent and unprecedented treatment by the EPA — creating a troubling trend in public policy that has strategic implications. Given these factors, this Committee is right to examine the EPA’s actions in greater detail.

    American permitting needs to be predictable — not as to outcome, but in terms of process — in order to encourage investment in American resources. The hallmark of that process – in terms of environmental permitting and public participation — is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    Yet, the very act of EPA conducting the Bristol Bay Watershed Study (hereinafter, the “Watershed Study”) — prior to Pebble submitting a mine plan or seeking a single permit — creates a chilling effect on investment in U.S. resource extraction. The likelihood that mine opponents are gearing up to use the Watershed Study as a reason to trigger a pre-emptive permit denial (before NEPA even begins) could deprive the U.S. of reliable sources of critical metals, responsibly extracted under American regulations.

    Every issue raised to justify the Watershed Study could easily and amply be raised and reviewed within the existing permitting process, with input from experts and the community. Put another way, there is no issue I see that requires the construction of a wholly new “pre-permitting process,” with the power to prevent a proposed project from even having the opportunity to be judged within the NEPA process.

    An unprecedented watershed assessment of a hypothetical mine — and even the minor contemplation of a preemptive permit veto — warrants an extremely high bar for the scientific method, the validity of source material, and the impartiality that must be met by this study.

    On all those counts, Mr. Chairman, we believe this assessment fails and falls short.

    At this point, two caveats: I am a policy analyst, not a scientist. The substantive points I will raise are detailed by experts, but should give all non-scientists reason for pause.

    So far, the most substantive review of one of the key studies in the Watershed Assessment – the EARTHWORKS-funded study, “Kuipers Maest, 2006, “Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines” led by Dr. Ann Maest (hereinafter, the “Kuipers Maest 2006 report”) — is an analysis conducted by global water and environmental management firm Schlumberger, on behalf of the Northwest Mining Association, and submitted to the EPA as part of NWMA’s Watershed Study comments. As the Schlumberger reports says, one of the fundamental tenets of scientific research is that its findings can be replicated by others, provided they have access to the data set. Schlumberger states that it cannot replicate the hydrological data presented in the Kuipers Maest 2006 report relied on by EPA.

    Second, Schlumberger finds what I have elsewhere noted as “backward bias” inherent in any hypothetical construct. Schlumberger notes that the Kuipers Maest 2006 report draws on a “preponderance” of case studies taken from mines that operated before the modern regulatory era.

    If the “data set” consists of a preponderance of mines permitted and operated before the modern era of regulatory limits – is it any surprise that these mines fell short of the modern limits?

    What does the failure of past mines have to do with a proposed mine –using current and perhaps even cutting-edge processes – and whether it will meet modern requirements?

    And how does it constitute “sound science” to argue against a proposed mine based on what happened at other mines operated to other standards 20, 30 or 40 years ago?

    Would we use such a backwards-biased yardstick to judge the safety of a new airplane? A new car? A new medicine?

    Is it “sound science” to say that poor performance in the past proves that we cannot achieve superior performance now and in the future?
    Now I will turn from the substance to sourcing — serious questions concerning the impartiality of experts relied upon by the EPA.

    My organization expressed these concerns in a letter sent to members of the House, Senate and administrators at EPA, which I include in my written testimony but will summarize here.

    Once again, the subject of concern is work done by Dr. Ann Maest and Stratus Consulting.

    Many of us saw the coverage of the Chevron environmental case in Ecuador, where plaintiffs were awarded an $18 billion dollar judgment against the oil company. This judgment has been the subject of extensive federal litigation in U.S. courts, where, among other charges, Chevron brought racketeering claims against members of the plaintiff’s team – including against Dr. Maest and Stratus. At the heart of these suits were claims that the plaintiff’s litigation team manipulated data to show contamination where no data existed and created a report written by the plaintiff’s team, including Maest and Stratus, that was then passed off as being written by a court-appointed independent consultant.

    How do we know this? For what must have been public relations reasons, the plaintiff’s team actually invited a film crew to document the behind-the-scenes events in a major environmental lawsuit for a favorable documentary. This documentary also generated hours of tape on the cutting-room floor that was uncovered during Chevron’s discovery process.

    Here is one such clip:


    “Facts do not exist. Facts are created.” That’s the lawyer who directed the supposedly independent research. The woman chuckling in the seat next to him is Dr. Ann Maest: the scientist who conducted the Ecuador study, and later disavowed its findings…

    …The very same scientist whose work is cited multiple times in the Bristol Bay Watershed Study.

    And while the Chevron litigation is still ongoing, Maest and Stratus settled claims against them by submitting sworn statements that “renounced all of the scientific findings” in their report.

    Stratus and Maest have numerous contracts with EPA and Maest’s work is cited 11 times in the Watershed Study – seven of those in reference to the Stratus consulting firm.

    EPA — apparently understanding the controversy surrounding this work — ordered a quasi-peer review of the Kuipers Maest 2006 report as part of addendum to the second draft of the Watershed Study. I call it a “quasi-peer review” because EPA’s last-minute effort falls seriously short of basic peer review standards.

    Case in point: the review relied on one scientist who was a former colleague at the Stratus firm who had coauthored studies with Dr. Maest. The Committee can consider for itself whether this constitutes the kind of independent assessment that defines peer review.

    So, to sum up: in the Ecuador incident, the scientist has disavowed her work.

    Her firm has cut its ties to her.

    And yet EPA builds its Watershed Study on her work.

    I want to be clear on this point: I do not know whether the work used in the Watershed Study will prove to show issues similar to the Ecuador studies that the author disavowed. My point is that this question needs to be examined – impartially, independently – and that absent that, EPA’s reliance on work done by this scientist or her firm in the Watershed Study puts the entire study under a cloud.

    In closing, there’s a quote I’d like to share with the Committee:
    “NEPA is democratic at its core. In many cases, NEPA gives citizens their only opportunity to voice concerns about a project’s impact on their community… And because informed public engagement often produces ideas, information, and even solutions that the government might otherwise overlook, NEPA leads to better decisions — and better outcomes — for everyone. The NEPA process has saved money, time, lives, historical sites, endangered species, and public lands while encouraging compromise and cultivating better projects with more public support.
    …because of NEPA — …we are guaranteed a voice.”

    That quote is from the website of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). They love NEPA — just not this time, for this project.

    That’s a dangerous departure from the law. This time, the mine is Pebble and the metal is copper. But if we allow this precedent, there will be many mines and projects that don’t get built – and many metals we’ll be forced to import, many times from nations that wish us harm.

    We have a process in place to determine whether a mine should or shouldn’t be built. We should follow that process – to lead us to a policy based on science, and projects made better by the even-handed scrutiny they receive.

    Thank you.

    # # #

  • Congressional hearing on Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment underscores importance of due process

    The debate over the EPA’s controversial Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment entered another stage this week, with the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space & Technology, Subcommittee on Oversight holding a hearing on its merits. Invited to testify before the committee, American Resources Principal Daniel McGroarty outlined the flaws and challenges associated with this [...]
  • Senate hearing puts price tag on EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment

    The Daily Caller Foundation’s Michael Bastasch, who has consistently offered thorough coverage of some of the most pressing mineral- and mining-related issues, last week took a closer look at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s spending on the agency’s controversial Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. According to Bastasch, during a recent U.S. Senate hearing, “Ken Kopocis, President [...]
  • Motley Fool zeroes in on Copper

    In a three-part series, Nick Slepko, a member of the The Motley Fool Blog Network, zeroes in on the importance of Copper. Considering the current controversy over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s actions regarding what could conceivably be the largest deposit of critical minerals in U.S. history – the Pebble Deposit in Alaska – the [...]
  • Left-of-center group calls for due process on domestic mining project

    As we’re approaching the end of the EPA’s (extended) public comment period for its revised Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, the surprises keep piling up. Only a few short days ago, the Washington Post – which is, as we’ve pointed out, not known to be a mouthpiece of the mining industry – came out against a [...]
  • Washington Post takes common sense stance on metals mining

    Two days before President Obama is set to unveil his overhauled climate change agenda, the editorial board of the Washington Post has offered its take on what one of the paper’s own headlines has called: “one of the most important environmental decisions the president faces in his second term” – the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. [...]
  • Public Comment Period on Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment Extended

    Washington Post calls issue “the biggest environmental decision…you’ve never heard of…” 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) [...]
  • Former EPA Chief joins Apple, a key user of critical minerals

    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 [...]
  • Comment on the EPA’s Flawed Watershed Assessment

    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 [...]