Search Results

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.

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.

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 [...]

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 [...]

In her latest piece for ProEdgeWire, Robin Bromby suggests that Tellurium may well be the newest critical metal. Citing two “throwaway lines” from recent reports and media reporting which indicate increased demand for the metal, Bromby goes on to give reasons why Tellurium should be placed on observers’ critical metals watch lists: “Tellurium is vital [...]

With the public commenting period for the EPA’s revised Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment now closed, Environment and Energy Publishing’s Manuel Quinones zeroes in on the comments submitted to the agency in his latest piece for E&E Daily (subscription required). According to the article, the battle lines are drawn on the push by environmentalist groups for [...]

The following op-ed by American Resources Principal Dan McGroarty was published in the Wall Street Journal on July 5, 2013. The original text can be found here. A Potential Copper Bonanza Runs Afoul of the EPA The metal is essential for wind turbines, but a proposed mine in Alaska has set off Keystone-like alarms. By Daniel [...]

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 [...]

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. [...]

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 [...]