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]

IMO your view that there is a simple distinction between placer and lode is myopic. There are several examples that don't fit conveniently in those two bins. For example, the Act of August 4, 1892 included building stone as a locatable mineral under the, "provisions governing placer mining claims". The same goes for the Act of February 11, 1897 for petroleum and other mineral oils. However, uranium in the form of roll-front deposits in sandstone was always staked as lode claims.

I don't know if you are familiar with Harvey Gardner's book, "Mining Among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. He discusses three iterations of staking claims on Mt. Bross, where lead-silver carbonate ore occurs in large pods within the Leadville Limestone formation. The upward movement of acidic hydrothermal fluids was stopped by the Lincoln Porphyry sill above the Leadville. Miners originally staked the area as lode claims, but the Land Office balked because the pods of carbonate ore were NOT veins. The miners hurriedly restaked the claims as placers (an example placer plat is in the thread on placer mining laws). Two placer claims were patented and then the Land Office spit the third placer patent application back and rescinded the patents for the first 2 placer claims. The reasoning, you cannot have a placer claim at 13,000 feet. The miners then restaked the area again as lode claims and patents were issued.

I say this because it is not clear to me whether the nickel-rich iron deposits within the crater should be treated as in situ lode deposits or surficial deposits. The ejecta outside the crater seem best staked as placers. I don't believe that anyone would argue that the mineral deposits of the Sudbury area in Canada would most likely have been staked as lode claims if the deposit was in the western US. Anyway, just a little omphaloskeptic musing on my part. The fact remains, they were staked and patented as placer deposits and successfully defended in court.

ETA: Here's a link to the Wiki article on the Sudbury Basin

The Sudbury Basin, also known as Sudbury Structure or the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive, is a major geological structure in Ontario, Canada. It is the second-largest known impact crater or astrobleme on Earth, as well as one of the oldest.[1]

Back to another topic I asked about, what are your thoughts in regard to mineral specimens being or not being locatable minerals under the current laws and regulations, Clay Diggins?

[Clay Diggins]

IMO your view that there is a simple distinction between placer and lode is myopic. There are several examples that don't fit conveniently in those two bins. For example, the Act of August 4, 1892 included building stone as a locatable mineral under the, "provisions governing placer mining claims". The same goes for the Act of February 11, 1897 for petroleum and other mineral oils. However, uranium in the form of roll-front deposits in sandstone was always staked as lode claims.

I don't know if you are familiar with Harvey Gardner's book, "Mining Among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. He discusses three iterations of staking claims on Mt. Bross, where lead-silver carbonate ore occurs in large pods within the Leadville Limestone formation. The upward movement of acidic hydrothermal fluids was stopped by the Lincoln Porphyry sill above the Leadville. Miners originally staked the area as lode claims, but the Land Office balked because the pods of carbonate ore were NOT veins. The miners hurriedly restaked the claims as placers (an example placer plat is in the thread on placer mining laws). Two placer claims were patented and then the Land Office spit the third placer patent application back and rescinded the patents for the first 2 placer claims. The reasoning, you cannot have a placer claim at 13,000 feet. The miners then restaked the area again as lode claims and patents were issued.

I say this because it is not clear to me whether the nickel-rich iron deposits within the crater should be treated as in situ lode deposits or surficial deposits. The ejecta outside the crater seem best staked as placers. I don't believe that anyone would argue that the mineral deposits of the Sudbury area in Canada would most likely have been staked as lode claims if the deposit was in the western US. Anyway, just a little omphaloskeptic musing on my part. The fact remains, they were staked and patented as placer deposits and successfully defended in court.

ETA: Here's a link to the Wiki article on the Sudbury Basin


Back to another topic I asked about, what are your thoughts in regard to mineral specimens being or not being locatable minerals under the current laws and regulations, Clay Diggins?

The Land Office and IBLA often display split personalities in their opinions. Typically it's pretty easy to get the IBLA to reverse itself several times in a row but it's often an exercise in patience. It's a perverse side of the industry, as you know. I'm sure we could swap many stories. Nevertheless the law still only considers two types of deposits locatable. There is no law governing the validity of the source of the original mineable metals in relation to their locatability under the mining laws regardless as to whether they are claimed as placer or lode. There is no precedent to exclude meteorite metal deposits if they prove to be valuable mineral discoveries under the mining laws.

I think you must have missed the point about Berringer's presentation - there was no buried meteorite mass. Berringer, a very wealthy man, nearly bankrupted in his efforts to prove there was a buried metal mass below the crater. That was after he obtained patent based on his surface discoveries that were selling for $1,300 a ton at the time of his purchase. I have inspected the property by invitation and have a few of the found meteorite masses from there. All those masses were either found exposed on the surface near the crater (as large as 25 tons) or are found within a few inches of the surface. The slightly buried pieces are easily spotted by eye due to surface alteration rings immediate to the meteorite fragment. There is nothing of value there associated with the mineralogy of the country rock.

There are several exceptions in the mining laws to metallic deposits. Ball clay, cinders, bentonite and certain pumice deposits come to mind. There are quite a few more. Curiously the most commonly mined valuable metal, calcium, is not considered locatable in it's common form but perlite is. Go figure.

I have never seen a reasonable specimen deposit that would qualify as a mining claim under the mining acts nor can I imagine how such a deposit would qualify. I've been surprised before so feel free to educate me.

Even with gem crystal deposits proving a discovery under the prudent man regime would be difficult. Size, quality and extent of the deposit would be tough to establish without extensive work and potentially a lot of damage to the deposit. Just establishing a market value would be an adventure and so variable as to endanger any long term price reliability. I'm sure there are claims that do qualify as I have some experience with jade mining but I would hesitate to invest too much time or money on such a slim and mercurial market.