Search Results

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 preemptive EPA veto of what could be the largest Copper deposit in U.S. history, the so-called Pebble Deposit in Southwest Alaska.

Now we’re learning that the Center for American Progress (CAP), a left-of-center think tank, is joining the Washington Post in their reasonable position. An article on CAP’s website calls for allowing due process to take its course through the established permitting and review process.

Of course, that does not mean CAP supports the project – in fact, they have made their opposition to the mine quite clear – but their support for the established and rigorous environmental permitting process is a commendable stance for a group that must certainly have faced serious pressure from its usual allies. As American Resources President Daniel McGroarty has pointed out:

“Other groups like the National Resources Defense Council have been shrill and unyielding in their demand for a pre-emptive EPA veto. It must have been tough for the Center for American Progress to sit at the table with them and refuse to support that course of action.”

Calling the National Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) push “shrill” is by no means an exaggeration. Consider this little gem from NRDC Western Director Joel Reynolds, as quoted in “Environment & Energy Daily” (subscription required):

“We view this [the Pebble Mine] as one of the worst projects anywhere in the world today.”

Really? Anywhere in the world? That is quite a statement when considering the dismal conditions at copper mines in Pakistan, Russia, Iran, Angola, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where child labor or work without proper protective gear are common practice. Reynolds would likely be jailed — or worse — for raising even a peep of protest against major mining projects in any of these countries. Says McGroarty:

“It’s much easier to make these statements from a cushy office on the Santa Monica waterfront. Reynolds would be jailed or worse for raising a peep of protest against major mining projects in any of these countries. This emotional hyperbole has no place in a rational, scientific discussion about the costs and benefits of what could be the largest copper resource in America’s history and a huge boon to the U.S. economy.”

There are still a few days left before the comment period draws to a close, so if you haven’t done so yet, please consider weighing in on this important issue and submit a comment to the EPA via their website.

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

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.

At the heart of the issue is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) preemptive effort to derail the development of what could be one of the largest domestic deposits of key strategic minerals (Copper, Molybdenum, Gold, Silver and Rhenium) – the so-called Pebble Deposit in Southwestern Alaska.

In spite of the fact that no permit application had been filed or specific plans been submitted, the EPA released a controversial cursory review of the Bristol Bay Watershed in the spring of 2012. The cursory review was followed by a (arguably no less controversial) peer-review consultation, and the release of a revised draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment in 2013.

While sympathetic to conservationists’ concerns regarding the suspected environmental impact of the proposed Pebble Mine, the Post’s editors take a position American Resources Policy Network supporters should be familiar with:

Asking for due process – for a “fair and thorough evaluation” of involved mining companies’ claims – “is reasonable.”

Says the editorial:

“If complete federal reviews find that the companies can’t protect the fishery, regulators can reject the project. But, given the potential economic value of the mine, they should hear the companies out.”

In an appeal that should settle this argument once and for all, the Washington Post cuts through the smoke and mirrors and fear-mongering rhetoric employed by environmentalists. As the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was established to ensure adequate environmental protections for wildlife and habitat, there is simply no adequate reason to preemptively issue a veto and prevent a full and fair review.

Seeing a leading national publication like the Washington Post – certainly not known to be a mouthpiece of the mining industry – call for fair and thorough review only days before the public comment period on the revised EPA assessment is coming to an end is encouraging, as the issue does command national attention.

Indeed, the – responsible – development of the Pebble deposit could create tens of thousands of much-needed jobs and billions in economic development. However, far more is at stake, as not allowing for due process to take its course would open the floodgates for further regulatory overreach.

A preemptive permit veto prior to the NEPA process – which is what opponents of the Pebble project are calling for – has never been issued. If the EPA continues down this road and is allowed to set this precedent, no less than our economic and national security future is at risk, as every exploratory domestic resource project may be in jeopardy of getting preemptively shut down.

While the President is yet to unveil the details of his climate change agenda tomorrow, the Administration’s goal of making the transition to a “clean” energy future is clear. Herein lies the irony often overlooked by zealous mining opponents:

Consider that the Copper content of a single wind turbine ranges anywhere between three and four and a half tons, for example. Copper is also a “gateway metal” for Selenium, which, along with Gallium and Indium is a key component for the manufacture of next-gen CIGS solar panels. An Administration that is serious about pursuing alternative energy projects to prevent climate change cannot preemptively veto mining projects that provide the metals necessary to make the clean energy transition.

Here’s to hoping the Obama Administration, which has paid lip service to the importance of critical minerals, realizes this and allows the proven process to work.

***

With the comment period closing at the end of this week, 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.

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) [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

The Daily Caller reports that the EPA’s preemptive assessment of the Pebble copper and gold mine in Alaska could cost the U.S. $220 billion in investment. The agency’s report, based on an evaluation of a hypothetical mine, expresses concern over the site’s potential environmental impact and could lead to Pebble’s rejection before it has a [...]

Sounding the alarm on the possible impact of hypothetical mining — in spite of the fact that no permit application or specific plans have been submitted — the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a cursory review of the Bristol Bay Watershed in Alaska. The EPA’s unprecedented early action is part of the agency’s effort [...]

American Resources Principal Dan McGroarty appeared on the Lars Larson show and Charles Payne’s PayneNation to discuss the EPA’s latest bid to stop the prospective Pebble Mine in Alaska before the project has a chance to be reviewed. Check out the interviews below.