American Resources Policy Network
Promoting the development of American mineral resources.
  • Blog Archives

  • HOMEPAGE >> BLOG >> Author archive: ARPN Team
  • Anti-Mine Lobbyists’ Hypocrisy Exposed in the Arizona Copper Debate

    ARPN readers know the vehemence of anti-mining activists in the U.S., including groups like Earthworks, whose director admitted during Congressional testimony earlier this year that the group couldn’t identify a single mine that had ever met with its approval.

    But the cynical tactics on display in the debate taking place around a U.S. House bill to allow development of an Arizona copper mine have reached new heights.

    The Daily Caller reports that the lobbying firm retained by an Arizona tribe to fight the Resolution Copper project – Washington-based Mapetsi Policy Group – is sending emails to House lawmakers alleging that the mine would destroy a “sacred site”, in spite of the fact that, according to the Daily Caller, “the U.S. Forest Service… reviewed the proposed mining area in 2010 and found that it did not conflict with any of the sacred tribal lands in the area.”

    But this is more than a case of a lobby group spinning for its client. The Daily Caller reports that the same firm “has been involved in this issue before. That time, the firm’s client was the one building on sacred lands.”

    Writes the Daily Caller Foundation’s Michael Bastasch:

    Last year, the Muscogee Creek Nation filed a lawsuit to prevent the Poarch Band of Creek Indians from building a casino on Muscogee ceremonial burial grounds. According to the lawsuit, the Poarch Band even moved about 57 sets of human burials last April to build a $246 million casino in the area known as Hickory Ground.

    Indian Country Today Media Network reports that: “Hickory Ground was the last capitol of the National Council of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The sacred place includes a ceremonial ground, a tribal burial ground and individual graves. The current day Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s ancestors lived and were buried there before the tribe was forced from its Alabama homeland on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. The sacred site is now held in trust by the Interior Department for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.”

    The Poarch Band is one of Mapetsi’s biggest clients, spending $570,000 on lobbying throughout 2012, according to Influence Explorer.

    The Poarch Band acquired the land in 1984 with help from the state of Alabama and a grant the U.S. Interior Department. However, the Poarch tribe promised that “Acquisition will prevent development on the property” in applying for the federal grant. Just a few years after the land was taken into trust, the Poarch unveiled plans to build a casino there.

    But a few years after Hickory Ground was taken into trust, the Poarch Band unveiled plans to develop a gaming facility there.

    The Mapetsi group did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment about the Poarch Band’s sacred ground troubles.

    And little wonder. What can be said to explain why it is fine to destroy a sacred site in order to build a casino, but not to build a mine – and how the same group can take both positions at once? The question mark only gets bigger in the Arizona instance when the federal agency overseeing the mining proposal has found no sacred site to be at risk.

    Like any tribe near a mining project, the Arizona tribe in this case deserves to have its views heard. But tribal leaders may want to do better due diligence when shopping with scarce dollars for high-priced lobbying help. Hiring a firm on both sides of the sacred sites issue is probably not the best way to encourage dialogue and inspire confidence.

    The protection of sacred sites is a serious policy issue. It shouldn’t be dragged into the debate when it doesn’t exist – especially when those raising the matter have cynically treated sacred sites as expendable elsewhere.

    Whatever happens in the House today, let’s debate new mining projects on the basis of facts, not false claims. Resource development in the U.S. is too critical to do otherwise.

  • Testimony before U.S. House questions EPA’s latest action on supply of critical materials

    The following post was originally published on InvestorIntel.com on August 16, 2013. It is reprinted with permission below.


    August 16, 2013 — Tracy Weslosky, Publisher of InvestorIntel interviews Daniel (Dan) McGroarty, Founder and President of Carmot Strategic Consultants in Washington, DC, and Founder and President of the American Resources Policy Network; an expert-led organization focused on U.S. domestic development of resources and the dangers of foreign dependency. Dan is the foremost leader in the rare earths and critical materials industry for testifying and advising the U.S. government; informing federal leaders and lawmakers on what rare earths and critical materials are and the pressing need for U.S. self-sustainability (for National Security and manufacturing). Dan discusses his recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology with Tracy and, more specifically, the actions the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is advancing with regards to a proposed copper mine in Alaska. But, as Dan explains, the real issue doesn’t end with a proposed copper mine in Alaska…

    Dan starts: “We were looking at the actions the EPA may be taking to slow down, or even stop, a copper mine in Alaska. The question is whether the EPA is taking unto itself new, unilateral powers that will make our permitting process in the U.S. even longer than it is already. The EPA is being encouraged by some outside groups — anti-mining pressure groups — to use its (Section) 404 (Veto) Authority under the Clean Water Act and interpret that as allowing the EPA to stop a mining project before it even enters the permitting process. Without a mine plan even being presented, the EPA can decide a proposed mine is not suitable to go into the permitting process, which averages 7 to 10 years. That means the EPA would be making the decision without an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), without the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) process, which, typically, the environmental groups support and push for. This is very different and very dramatic and we’ll have to see if this is something that mining companies are going to have to put on the screen and reckon with. It may be a copper mine in Alaska this time, but the EPA is an authority that if it uses this (veto power) once, they’re going to come back to it again and again.”

    “Regarding rare earths and other critical metals, it’s going to require a constant dialogue to make it clear to the other U.S. government agencies and work with directly with them so those agencies understand the criticality of these metals. The Department of Energy understands this. The Department of Defense is ‘understanding’ this… and yet there’s another government agency, which may be impeding these mines from going through the development stage. The U.S. government is all over the place right now. It is a very, very unsettled situation for companies trying to make it through. We have to sort that out. There has to be a clean path forward.”

    Finally Dan discusses his think tank, American Resource Policy Network (Tracy Weslosky is a participating expert in the American Resource Policy Network); the need for resource security in the United States; and to, “publicize both America’s dependence on foreign sources for critical materials and the path to reducing that dependence, if we rationally develop mining projects.”

    Aside from writing regularly for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Politico, Dan has presented at numerous metals conferences in the U.S., Canada and China on rare earths, and critical and strategic metals, and served as President and Director on the board of U.S. Rare Earths. Dan is a Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and has served as a Special Assistant to the President of the United States and as a presidential appointee to two Secretaries of Defense.

    Read the original article here.

  • Should we really be speeding up new regulations?

    The following post was originally published here on June 25, 2013 by Ken Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobile Corporation. It has been reprinted with permission below. Howard Shelanski, the president’s choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), recently testified at his Senate confirmation hearing. He [...]
  • American Resources Policy Network welcomes new addition to panel of experts

    We’re thrilled to announce the latest addition to the American Resources panel of experts. G. Randy Keller is not only Professor and Edward Lamb McCollough Chair in Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma, he is also the Director of the Oklahoma Geological Survey. During his extensive academic career, he has published over 270 scientific papers [...]
  • Congressional Committee Investigates EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment

    ARPN President Testifies on Use of Questionable Research and Calls for Review of Data WASHINGTON, D.C. – Daniel McGroarty, American Resources Policy Network President, provided testimony today on Capitol Hill concerning the EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, a major environmental study in Alaska. “The problem with the Assessment has always been that EPA is preempting [...]
  • Dan McGroarty featured (again) on the Glen Biegel Show

    American Resources President Dan McGroarty made his second appearance on the Glen Biegel Show in Anchorage, AK on Monday to discuss the U.S. mining permitting process and the proposed Pebble mine. Listen below.    
  • 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 [...]
  • Expert on energy metals joins American Resources panel

    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 [...]
  • American Resources Policy Network Invited to Take Part in National Defense Stockpile Report

    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 [...]
  • Dan McGroarty featured on the Glen Biegel Show

      American Resources Principal Dan McGroarty appeared on the Glen Biegel Show on Tuesday to discuss domestic mineral development and what the United States can do to take advantage of its critical metals, particularly in the resource-rich state of Alaska. Listen below.