ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

New rules for hunting meteorites
Woody
post Oct 15 2012, 08:16 AM
Post #1


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 637
Joined: 5-April 11
From: All of Colorado
Member No.: 15,615




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


--------------------
Proud CP Lifetime Member
(currently working hard in the procurement department)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
EMac
post Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM
Post #2


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 875
Joined: 25-July 14
From: Westminster, CO
Member No.: 117,949



QUOTE
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.


--------------------
Lifetime Member
opera non verba

"All courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it's impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively. Make mistakes of ambition and not mistakes of sloth. Develop the strength to do bold things, not the strength to suffer." ~Niccolò Machiavelli

Ref Code:

EM448
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Woody   New rules for hunting meteorites   Oct 15 2012, 08:16 AM
- - ColoradoProspector   Thanks for posting up that article Woody, that...   Oct 16 2012, 08:43 AM
- - russau   Dan just to clarify what you commented on, there i...   Oct 17 2012, 05:41 AM
- - ASTROBLEME   Everyone, This matter concerns me greatly, so I...   Oct 23 2012, 11:36 AM
- - swizz   Great letter Johnny. The response however seems to...   Oct 25 2012, 08:40 AM
- - EMac   Keep in mind this lady was a paleontologist who wa...   Aug 16 2016, 10:37 AM
|- - Gene Kooper   QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 16 2016, 11:37 AM) Keep...   Aug 16 2016, 09:50 PM
- - Gene Kooper   I must admit that I am baffled at some of the 2012...   Aug 16 2016, 05:53 PM
|- - Clay Diggins   QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Aug 16 2016, 05:53 P...   Aug 17 2016, 11:33 PM
|- - EMac   QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Aug 16 2016, 06:53 P...   Sep 7 2016, 10:40 AM
- - EMac   I'm still reading through the previous literat...   Aug 16 2016, 10:56 PM
- - Gene Kooper   QUOTE The federal law governing locatable minerals...   Aug 17 2016, 12:10 PM
|- - EMac   Gene - I have a knee-jerk opinion, but I'm s...   Aug 17 2016, 01:44 PM
- - Clay Diggins   That non-binding BLM policy Instruction Memorandum...   Aug 17 2016, 01:33 PM
- - EMac   QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 02:33 ...   Aug 17 2016, 03:25 PM
|- - Clay Diggins   QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 17 2016, 03:25 PM) Good...   Aug 17 2016, 05:18 PM
- - Gene Kooper   QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 02:33 ...   Aug 17 2016, 04:07 PM
- - Gene Kooper   EMac, Thanks for the links to the court cases. I...   Aug 17 2016, 04:24 PM
- - Clay Diggins   It is a simple fact that the mining law only makes...   Aug 17 2016, 05:32 PM
- - Gene Kooper   IMO your view that there is a simple distinction b...   Aug 17 2016, 07:12 PM
|- - Clay Diggins   QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Aug 17 2016, 07:12 P...   Aug 17 2016, 08:18 PM
|- - Gene Kooper   QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 17 2016, 09:18 ...   Aug 18 2016, 05:09 PM
- - EMac   QUOTE You seem to imply that Barringer met resista...   Aug 18 2016, 10:26 AM
- - EMac   QUOTE I think you must have missed the point about...   Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM
|- - Clay Diggins   QUOTE (EMac @ Aug 18 2016, 11:05 AM) Do y...   Sep 26 2016, 11:53 PM
- - Gene Kooper   QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Aug 18 2016, 12:33 ...   Aug 18 2016, 04:57 PM
- - EMac   Where are you seeing the $1300 per ton figure...   Sep 27 2016, 11:00 AM
|- - Clay Diggins   QUOTE (EMac @ Sep 27 2016, 11:00 AM) Wher...   Sep 27 2016, 08:51 PM
- - Gene Kooper   Clay, I don't know the basis for your declara...   Oct 1 2016, 09:24 PM
|- - Clay Diggins   QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ Oct 1 2016, 09:24 PM...   Oct 2 2016, 12:21 PM
|- - Gene Kooper   QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Oct 2 2016, 01:21 P...   Oct 6 2016, 10:48 PM
|- - Clay Diggins   Thanks for sharing your opinion Gene. I see it a...   Oct 7 2016, 02:34 AM
- - EMac   Clay - I'm trying to follow the comments and l...   Oct 7 2016, 10:10 AM
- - Gene Kooper   Clay, I must say that I am surprised by your unwi...   Oct 22 2016, 12:22 AM
- - Clay Diggins   I've let this lie here in hopes that eventuall...   Feb 4 2018, 01:33 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic
7 User(s) are reading this topic (7 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 01:04 PM