New rules for hunting meteorites Options

[Woody]

Looks like the Feds are stepping up and placing restrictions on collecting meteorites. I recognize the interest and benefit science might have but the way I interpret this means more regulations placed on our public lands and activities. This might be a bit of a rant on my part but I hate all these rules and regulations on our public lands. I am reminded about the last time I was in the California N.F. I wanted to spend a couple of days in the back country camping. I found out that I needed a permit in order to even have a campfire. Here is another extreme, I was in Germany a few years ago and got an annual fishing license. It cost about 100$. However, if you actually wanted to use it you had to go down to the county court house before the last business day, and pay an additional cost for each and every day you planned on fishing. It was about 10$ extra per day.

This kind of suggest the same thing, you can’t go out hunting meteorites unless you buy a permit.



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/15/...intcmp=features

[Gene Kooper]

The federal law governing locatable minerals is the General Mining Law of 1872 (May 10, 1872), which declared all valuable mineral deposits belonging to the United States ... to be free and open to citizens of the United States to explore for, discover, and purchase.

Mineral deposits subject to acquisition in this manner are generally referred to as “locatable minerals.” Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.), nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form and gemstones) and certain uncommon variety minerals. It is very difficult to prepare a complete list of locatable minerals because the history of the law has resulted in a definition of minerals that includes economics.

EMac,

My impression is based on economics. The 1872 Mining Law states that one can make a claim to, "all valuable mineral deposits" on the Public Lands open to mineral entry. I previously posted a reference by Don Sherwood entitled, "Mineral Discovery: Is the Prudent Man Test Dead". I am not able to provide a copy of his article that was published by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation in 1998 because it is copyrighted. The old standard was the prudent man test; that being, would a prudent man expend the time, effort and money to develop the mineral deposit.

Today the BLM uses a pure economic test to evaluate whether a valid discovery has been made. Among other things this is subject to the price of the mineral at the time of the BLM's evaluation. Fluctuating metals prices could mean that the discovery of valuable mineral occulates between valid and invalid depending on when the evaluation was made. Other considerations would be if the land is more valuable as agricultural land, timber, etc.

I believe it would be very difficult to show the BLM that a valuable mineral deposit had been found based solely on the value of the mineral as a collectible specimen. I am excluding from my definition of mineral specimens those that also have value as gemstones (includes lapiadary). In other words, the monetary value of the mineral specimen is based only on its collectable value.

The collectible value of mineral specimens is mostly based on the unique qualities (such as the crystal habit, twinning, mineral assemblages, color and aesthetics) and condition of the specimen. You may have a very rare and unique mineral, but collecting it as large plates without damaging the crystals can be very difficult. Assessing market value to mineral specimens before extraction is a slippery slope. One that the BLM may not be willing to take.

BTW....this is only my impression. Since there is a moratorium on patents for mineral lands, the BLM won't likely be evaluating the economics of your mineral specimen mining claim. The only time that I've noticed that the BLM will make such an evaluation is when the land is being considered for removal from the Public Lands open to mineral entry. They often will conduct evaluations of unpatented mining claims to see if the claimant has met all of the requirements under the mining laws and regulation and that a valid discovery of a valuable mineral deposit has been met. Who knows though. The popularity of the TV show "Prospectors" might trigger enough folks to go out and make thorough messes searching for crystals that the BLM decides to take action.

I don't see the BLM creating a new policy that disqualifies mineral specimens from the definition of valuable mineral deposit. I'm just saying that my interpretation suggests that non-gemstone mineral specimens are not a locatable mineral under the current mining laws and regulations. Others interpretation of the law will differ from mine. I also don't think that mineral specimens would be regarded as "certain uncommon variety minerals" because the only situations that I've seen this applied to heavily weighs economic considerations. A few years ago patents were issued for some placer claims that contained a sandstone with unique qualities. Ordinarily building stone is not a locatable mineral, but in this instance the porosity of the sandstone made it uniquely valuable. It is crushed and used as a subbase for golf courses because its high moisture retention reduces the amount of irrigation water.

[EMac]

Gene -

I have a knee-jerk opinion, but I'm seeking to refine it through study. My opinion is that rejection/voiding of claims based on the types minerals folks here are mining doesn't appear to be an issue today, but it's certainly something to be aware of. Perhaps if someone was holding claims as a blocking maneuver, and not working them, they might have more cause for concern.

I'm reviewing this precedent setting case now: US vs Coleman. I'm focused on some facts of the case and what the intent is with the decision. My summary (meaning I could have misinterpreted some aspects): Coleman's patent application to mine quartzite as a building material on 720 acres outside Los Angeles was rejected by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI). At some point he built a home on the 720 acres, and the government filed suit in District Court to have him ejected when he wouldn't leave. Coleman countered with a suit seeking issuance of the patent that was previously rejected. The District court supported the SOI's decision, and it was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court then took up the case and sided with the District Court and SOI, overturning the Appeals Court decision.

My opinion is this was a clear-cut case of abusing the intent of the law to gain personal property with no intention of conducting mining activities. I derive this opinion quoting the Supreme Court opinion:

The obvious intent was to reward and encourage the discovery of minerals that are valuable in an economic sense. Minerals which no prudent man will extract because there is no demand for them at a price higher than the cost of extraction and transportation are hardly economically valuable. Thus, profitability is an important consideration in applying the prudent-man test, and the [390 U.S. 599, 603] marketability test which the Secretary has used here merely recognizes this fact.

The marketability test also has the advantage of throwing light on a claimant's intention, a matter which is inextricably bound together with valuableness. For evidence that a mineral deposit is not of economic value and cannot in all likelihood be operated at a profit may well suggest that a claimant seeks the land for other purposes. Indeed, as the Government points out, the facts of this case - the thousands of dollars and hours spent building a home on 720 acres in a highly scenic national forest located two hours from Los Angeles, the lack of an economically feasible market for the stone, and the immense quantities of identical stone found in the area outside the claims - might well be thought to raise a substantial question as to respondent Coleman's real intention.

I don't disagree with your points, and can envision scenarios where the case isn't so clearly defined as with Coleman. This is where additional case law would be helpful to see if they've refined the economic tests further since Coleman. The cases I've found so far deal with patents.

Osborne vs Hammit is similar in character to the Coleman case.

I found Clear Gravel Enterprises vs Keil, which is markedly different than Coleman in that the decision appears to be based off the number of sand/gravel claims already approved in conjunction with the limited market:

While the marketability of the mineral could have been demonstrated by the Appellant by a showing of its accessibility, its proximity to the market, the demand for it and by the Appellant's bona fide efforts to develop the claims and compete in the market with the product extracted from those claims, nonetheless, the record demonstrates that Appellant's evidence fell far short of the required showing. Instead, the evidence indicates that although Appellant had between 1952 and no later than 1956 leased all sixteen claims to the second largest sand and gravel-producing company in the area, that company had mined but one of those claims, and the one being mined was neither of the two claims here involved.

Of particular significance is the obvious fact appearing from the record that the quantity of Appellant's other sand and gravel holdings in the area, when combined with the state of the market, were such as to deter the Appellant from expending money and effort to extract and market the sand and gravel from the claims in question from the time of location in 1946 until approximately 1963. In fact, the lack of development of the claims were such that as of July 23, 1955, the Appellant had not even constructed a road to them.