Mining claims location or patented, Placer, Lode, Mill site Options

[CP]

Mining claims are real property and can be sold, traded, or leased as with any real property.
There are several types of claims which should be discussed to teach the differences in not only ownership, but also how research varies because of status and what that means to you in the field as a prospector.

First there are patented (private land with deed) or location claims.
Again these are both real property but differ in the fact that a patented claim (filed as location originally), has since been perfected and patented giving the owner actual permanent deed with 100% ownership in the land.

Location claims are also private property in every sense, but the claim owner owns (has claimed) the minerals within that claim and has not perfected the claim to patent for a deed yet.

Within either of those catagories, there would have been originally for patented, or would be now for location claims, one of three different types of claims possibly filed originally. Lode, Placer or Mill site.

Lode claim - For hard rock mining ore bodies drifting or shaft type mining. Orientated with the deposit or dyke formation's direction and centered upon it. 600' x 1500' size (20 acres) and were in depths of 2000' each for some areas historically.

Placer claim - For aluvial glacial till areas and their related drainages/deposits where "placer" material (not in host postition) would have been re-deposited in favorable conditions by water, erosion, gravity, and or other geologic evolution. 20 acre limit each. Normal operations would be benches or pit operations in addition to water processes where locations favor.

Mill site claim - For use with either lode or placer claims to process material from that mine and or store equipment and supplies. Mill sites claims do not claim minerals under them but do contain mineral rights when patented.
5 acre limit each and can be non-adjacent to the claim being mined.

All three (Lode, Placer, or Mill site) could have been patented and are now deeded private land, or could currently be location claims within NF or BLM lands.

Research varies between patented/private land and location claims within national lands.
For private patented lands you'll need to check the county assesors office as each private land owner pays property tax each year and those records are kept there.
For location claims though, you'll need to check the clerk and recorders office as this will be where those records are filed.

You can also find claim information from the BLM's LR2000 database, but with time guideline laws written as they are for new claim filings, you'll find the most upto date information through the county offices on location claims. When you're finalizing your research for your own claim to stake and file, this timeline could make a difference if someone else had recently staked/filed in that area.

We thought this might make a good read/topic for those interested. There are many many more details involved with properly researching, staking, filing, and then working your own mining claim which we all can add in for the future discussion as time goes.

Having a good understanding of what to do in the field starts with the proper knowledge base, which reflects on your field operations and success. DIG IN!!

For those interested in learning more about the mining laws and regulations that uphold them, check out our Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc. section of the forum too.

[EMac]

I'm not sure I'd call a tunnel site a claim based off what I'm reading, and even the BLM says "A Tunnel Site can be regarded more as a right-a-way, than a mining claim."

Filing is the same as a lode claim, and any discoveries therein require filing a separate lode claim (43 CFR 3832.44(a) and 43 CFR 3832.45).

Sources:
43 CFR 3832 (Subpart D are the Tunnel Sites)

and 43 CFR 3843

My takeaway is they're used to gain access to a lode claim or are used for underground prospecting, and are likely beyond the resources of most the folks seeking information on this site. Red herring?

[Clay Diggins]

I'm not sure I'd call a tunnel site a claim based off what I'm reading, and even the BLM says "A Tunnel Site can be regarded more as a right-a-way, than a mining claim."

Filing is the same as a lode claim, and any discoveries therein require filing a separate lode claim (43 CFR 3832.44(a) and 43 CFR 3832.45).

Sources:
43 CFR 3832 (Subpart D are the Tunnel Sites)

and 43 CFR 3843

My takeaway is they're used to gain access to a lode claim or are used for underground prospecting, and are likely beyond the resources of most the folks seeking information on this site. Red herring?

You may be right about being beyond the resources of most here, you would know better than I. After all there are only 17 Tunnel Site claims in Colorado. The reason I know there are 17 in Colorado is because the BLM puts them in the Tunnel Site claim designation rather than as a lode, placer or millsite claim.

Then again that limited number of Tunnel Site claims may be due to other similar misunderstandings of the 1872 Tunnel Site grant. Tunnels are useful for much more than a waste adit or drainage. The law specifically calls out mineral exploration as one of the valid uses for Tunnel Sites. It's not all about servicing an existing lode claim. The same law addresses the mineral rights attendant to the Tunnel Site claim - as they do with the other three types of claims in the law.

Certainly this is not open to any personal opinions about the validity of Tunnel Claims. It's an established fact.

I've already given you the Congressional Act enabling the making of Tunnel Site claims. It does grant "right of possession of all veins or lodes within three thousand feet from the face of such tunnel on the line thereof not previously known to exist; discovered in such tunnel, to the same extent as if discovered from the surface". The 3,000 feet granted clearly exceeds the 1,500 foot maximum allotted to lode claims so there shouldn't be any confusion leading one to believe they are lode claims.

If you had any doubt about your interpretation of the wording in that Act you need look no further than the Supreme Court's overuling of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision about the nature of Tunnel Site claims. GLACIER MOUNTAIN SILVER MIN. CO. v. WILLIS 1888.

I've got lots more Supreme Court opinions through the years supporting the Tunnel Sites enabled in the 1872 Mining Act but I think one Supreme Court opinion is enough for an internet forum.

Then again there are the Colorado State Revised Statutes that specifically recognize Tunnel Site claims.

Tunnel Sites 34-43-113, CRS 1973
If any person locates a tunnel claim for the purpose of discovery, he shall record
the same, specifying the place of commencement and termination thereof, with the
names of the parties interested therein.
A tunnel site gives the owner of a tunnel which is run in good faith the possessory
right to fifteen hundred (1500) feet of any blind lodes cut, discovered, or intersected by
such tunnel, which were not previously known to exist within three thousand (3000)
feet from the face or point of commencement of such tunnel. Face of tunnel is construed
to mean the point at which the tunnel actually enters cover.

The Congressional Act, the Supreme Court, the State of Colorado and the CFR all consider the location of a Tunnel Site to be valid possessory right to the minerals discovered. The procedure specified to make such a location is clearly separate and distinct from the location requirements of the three other types of claims - both in Federal and State law. The Supreme Court has consistently referred to Tunnel Site locations to be mineral claims with equal rights to other types of mineral locations.

You are entitled to your take but it is clearly in opposition to long established law and rights.

Trivial - perhaps - unless you wish to cut a tunnel.

Red Herring - really?

Heavy Pans and a happy Thanksgiving to all of you.