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

[EMac]

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.

Do you have source material for this as well? I'm curious what he was selling for $1300 a ton when hot rolled steel was selling for less than $1.60 per 100 pounds (quick math says that's less than $32 a ton). Wikipedia (granted, not exactly a perfect source) says that variety of iron ore was selling for $125/ton. Still a far cry from $1300, so my interest is piqued.


I haven't read them, so I'm also curious about the various suits filed against family. I'll poke around for those, but if you have links to them already, I thank you in advance!

This piece seems similar to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment...minus the quantum positioning stuff.
When Barringer presented the papers in 1906 and 1909, he thought there was a mass buried. In 1928 (19 years after his presentation), he still thought a mass was present, and he was gathering investors to mine what he still thought was millions of tons of iron. It wasn't until Moulton's estimates that the meteorite was much smaller (300k tons) and was likely vaporized, that he stopped mining operations. So for 25 years, the impression (at least from Barringer) was there was a massive deposit of iron to be mined. This, to me, renders the lack of clarity about in situ vs surficial interesting. From what I've read (and I'm hoping you have material to help refine this for me), the scientific community thought it was a volcano and meteorite pieces were coincidental. It would stand to reason then that the community assumed Barringer intended to mine a volcano which suggests to me the claim type should have been a lode claim when he filed placer claims. Interesting indeed.

Edited for grammar.

[Clay Diggins]

Do you have source material for this as well? I'm curious what he was selling for $1300 a ton when hot rolled steel was selling for less than $1.60 per 100 pounds (quick math says that's less than $32 a ton). Wikipedia (granted, not exactly a perfect source) says that variety of iron ore was selling for $125/ton. Still a far cry from $1300, so my interest is piqued.

Characterizing the Canyon Diablo meteorite deposits as having an iron value is akin to valuing a nice gold nugget as being valued by it's quartz content. Even classifying the meteorite material as nickeliferous would be an understatement.

While the best Nickel deposits in the world range as high as 1.2% Nickel in the iron mined the Canyon Diablo meteorites are 8% Nickel, 91 - 92 % iron with about 1/2 to 3/4 ounce platinum and iridium per ton of iron. This is truly extraordinary unoxidizable natural metal alloy. The fact that it's the largest deposit of metal of this quality found in modern times made it very desirable. This is Iron alloyed with Nickel and Platinum group metals. If you were to add carbon to the Canyon Diablo siderite material you would get a crumbling mess - not steel.

The deposit was certified as meteoric in June 1891 by Dr. A.E. Foote of Philidelphia. Dr. Foote was the most respected mineralogist of the time and he had a special interest in meteorites. When he heard of the Canyon Diablo material qualities from the smelter he asked for a raw sample. This was the period in which the Canyon Diablo material was being heavily mined and was reported to be selling for upwards of $1,300 a ton.

The siderite material from Canyon Diablo was well known and a hot subject well before Barringer's involvement. Here's another point of view from the period from Professor Fairchild.

The meteorite deposit was first discovered by English speaking Europeans in 1871. I suspect from my study that it was commonly known material well before then. Barringer did not discover the deposit. In fact he didn't even visit the area until after he bought the working mines there in 1903. Barringer was wealthy and well known both as the owner of the very rich Tombstone Pearce mine silver strike and as the United States' most respected mining lawyer. His book "The law of mines and mining in the United States" is by far the best seller in it's genre with constant reprints since it's introduction in 1901. You can buy a modern printing (2015) from Arkose press or you can download the entire book for free from several sources - it's out of copyright.

This piece seems similar to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment...minus the quantum positioning stuff.
When Barringer presented the papers in 1906 and 1909, he thought there was a mass buried. In 1928 (19 years after his presentation), he still thought a mass was present, and he was gathering investors to mine what he still thought was millions of tons of iron. It wasn't until Moulton's estimates that the meteorite was much smaller (300k tons) and was likely vaporized, that he stopped mining operations. So for 25 years, the impression (at least from Barringer) was there was a massive deposit of iron to be mined. This, to me, renders the lack of clarity about in situ vs surficial interesting. From what I've read (and I'm hoping you have material to help refine this for me), the scientific community thought it was a volcano and meteorite pieces were coincidental. It would stand to reason then that the community assumed Barringer intended to mine a volcano which suggests to me the claim type should have been a lode claim when he filed placer claims. Interesting indeed.

Edited for grammar.

There are some references to the possibility of gas explosions creating the crater. Volcano would be a big stretch of the facts though. The entire site area is composed of the fine bedded "Supai" formation limestone/sandstone composing the Central Arizona segment of the Colorado Plateau - there isn't any evidence of volcanics or any ore deposits for many miles. The Supai material is very uniform with no mineral inclusions of commercial value - it's sandstone. There are no other historical mines of any type for nearly a hundred miles.

A better view of what the scientific community thought of the crater in 1905 and it's relationship to meteorites can be found in the President's public release describing Barringer's presentation to the Academy of Natural Science in 1905:

Dixon S.G. (1905.) Coon Mountains and its Crater. President's statement. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia,
December, 5.

On December 5, 1905, at a session of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, USA, its president Mr. S. G. Dixon has announced that two members of the Academy, D. M. Barringer and B. C. Tilghman made a "...discovery that the crater of Coon Mountain or Coon Butte... is an impact crater and not a crater produced by a steam explosion, as has been supposed since the examination made of it by members of the United States Geological Survey. They have proved, " he continued, " that the large crater and elevation known as Coon Mountain is the result of a collision with the Earth of a very large meteorite or possibly of a small asteroid, fragments of which are well known to the scientific world by name of the Canyon Diablo siderites... Mr. Barringer and Mr. Tilghman have presented to the Academy for publication two comprehensive papers in which they set forth in full their reasons for the above statements "

Barringer himself knew that there were no siderites found in the crater. He was obviously fascinated by the possibilities but he knew there was no hard evidence for his theory. The fact that he poured most of his considerable fortune into investigating his theory tends to draw attention away from the siderites and their location distributed away from the rim of the crater. Here is a map of the location of the known meteorite material from 1908, notice that the crater is barren of meteorite material:



That map is probably the best visual demonstration of why it was a placer deposit you will find short of seeing the deposit yourself. There is still a lot of meteorite material on and in the near surface of the crater area. There was never any "source" rock in place or valuable deposit found at depth. Berringer himself believed his envisioned mass of material would not be found as deep as 300 feet. It was and is without a doubt a loose surface deposit.

Historically the Canyon Diablo siderites were never in question. They were early on recognized as high Nickel/Iron siderites. The controversy revolved around whether the crater was caused by the meteorite or the meteorite deposit was coincidental.

The mines and subsequent mineral patents were based on the commercial value of the meteorite deposit. Besides the Nickel/Iron/Pt there was a valuable trade in the Moissanite "diamonds" first discovered there as well as the collectable value of the siderites. No mining claim or patent could ever succeed based on a geographic shape - even one formed by an extraterrestrial object.

There is a lot published on this subject. You might find a copy of Coon Mountain Controversies, by W.G.Hoyt 1987, 442pp interesting. There is a free copy of his son's recollection of the prospecting operations. Daniel Moureau Barringer and His Crater Brandon Barringer 1964 published by the Meteoritical Society. Both of these writings as well as many more available from the period show that the nature of the meteorite material or it's composition and value were never in question. The only controversy was about the origins of the crater.