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]

That non-binding BLM policy Instruction Memorandum about meteorite collecting expired in September 2013. There are no regulations or court decisions about the ownership of meteorites on public land. There is however a rather large body of law on the recovery of valuable minerals left by meteorites - we call that mining.

Good catch...I didn't see the expiration date on it.

I'm not just speculating here. One of the foremost mining engineers and mining lawyers in American history proved, claimed, mined and received mineral patents totaling 640 acres to a meteorite deposit. Daniel Moureau Barringer mined tons of nickle rich iron as well as very rare Moissanite from his placer claims on Coon Butte. Today the official name is Berringer Crater but it's better known as simply Meteor Crater.

I'm not certain you're comparing apples to apples here. The patent issued to Standard Iron Company was in 1903. In 1906 and again in 1909 Barringer and Tilghman presented their arguments to the Academy of Natural Sciences (link), but the theory wasn't accepted until the 1960s when Shoemaker demonstrated the crater was similar in structure to nuclear weapons tests craters (presence of coesite: link). Barringer estimated he could turn his $500k investment into a $250M profit by mining what he estimated to be 10M tons of iron from the meteorite. It would be hard to argue the patent was issued for meteorite specimens when it took the scientific community another 4 decades to accept the theory.

One writer said of Barringer’s 1909 address to the National Academy of Sciences at Princeton: “[S]ome persons could scarcely conceal their derisive thoughts. Nevertheless… Barringer ploughed through his paper, painful though it must have been for him, until he completed it.”

(Source)

I can't find any comparable, modern meteorite cases, much less one where someone is looking to mine a meteorite impact for the intrinsic value of the meteorite material (i.e. smelt it down to sell as iron as Barringer intended) vs as a collectible specimen. I would argue, just like Barringer experienced, that anyone seeking to mine a meteorite impact for intrinsic material value would be even more hard pressed to pass the prudent man test much less the valuable mineral test. It's not until we consider the collector value of the meteorite samples that we start to broach that crossover you mention. This is what I interpret to be the crux of Gene's challenge: are collectors' specimens locatable minerals? It's an interesting question to ponder, particularly in the economic light in which Gene presents the question. For instance just a few weeks ago at an outing we were discussing the value of the goethite specimen Colin found, and the figures lobbed out had an $18k range.

My desire seems to be aligned with yours: that any future legal challenges as to whether meteorites constitute locatable minerals go the way of the claiming miner(s). I think solid arguments can be made, but I lack your confidence absent suitable case law. Similar arguments can be made for dinosaur bones, for instance...

There is some case law on meteorites (Old Woman Meteorite, Goddard v Winchell), but these don't deal with mining claims.

Obviously it is possible to claim, mine and receive patent to land where sufficient concentrated meteorite metal deposits are found. Simple collecting of scattered meteorite material does not amount to a valuable mineral deposit under the law so it is regulated just like rock or specimen collecting.

Securing a patent in today's age won't happen until they lift the moratorium on land patents; if they do, submitting the application will likely reopen the discussion. My opinion is that it's a very grey area, even without land patents, just waiting for some brave, unfortunate soul to take up the mantle in court (I also suspect not by choice).

Edit: fixed grammar and readability

[Clay Diggins]

Good catch...I didn't see the expiration date on it.<br />

<br />

I'm not certain you're comparing apples to apples here. The <a href="http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=AZAZAA%20022947&amp;docClass=SER&amp;sid=ivtwl1ik.uus" target="_blank">patent issued to Standard Iron Company</a> was in 1903. In 1906 and again in 1909 Barringer and Tilghman presented their arguments to the Academy of Natural Sciences (<a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php" target="_blank">link</a>), but the theory wasn't accepted until the 1960s when Shoemaker demonstrated the crater was similar in structure to nuclear weapons tests craters (presence of coesite: <a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_6.php" target="_blank">link</a>). Barringer was estimating he could turn his $500k investment into a $250M profit by mining what he estimated to be 10M tons of iron from the meteorite. It would be hard to argue the patent was issued for meteorite specimens when it took the scientific community another 4 decades to accept the theory.

<a href="http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_4.php" target="_blank">Source</a>

I can't find any comparable, modern meteorite cases, much less one where someone is looking to mine a meteorite impact for the intrinsic value of the meteorite material (i.e. smelt it down to sell as iron as Barringer intended) vs as a collectible specimen. I would argue, just like Barringer experienced, that anyone seeking to mine a meteorite impact for intrinsic material value would be even more hard pressed to pass the prudent man test much less the valuable mineral test. It's not until we consider the collector value of the meteorite samples that we start to broach that crossover you mention. This is what I interpret to be the crux of Gene's challenge: are collectors' specimens locatable minerals? It's an interesting question to ponder, particularly in the economic light in which Gene presents the question. For instance just a few weeks ago at an outing we were discussing the value of the goethite specimen Colin found, and the figures lobbed out had an $18k range.

You seem to imply that Barringer met resistance to his patent application because of the nature of the identity of the meteorite material? I've never read such an implication before, it certainly isn't to be found in your link.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the reaction to Barringer's presentation to the Academy of Natural Sciences. Barringer theorized that the meteor buried it's bulk deep below the crater surface and that the already commonly recognized ,meteorite materials around the site were just debris from the injection of this mass into the earth. His presentation was about the crater being caused by a meteorite and the coincident burial of a large meteorite mass. There was a lot of skepticism of his theory at the time and we know today that his theory about the creation of the crater was correct and his presumption of a consequent buried mass was indeed wrong.

What that has to do with the long before verified meteorite metals found at the site and their many years of mining and sale at high prices long before Barringer bought the deposit and patented it has been mischaracterized by those who don't understand that it wasn't the meteoric origin of the metal that was challenged it was the crater theory. Meteorites and their metallic compositions have been recognized and studied by mainstream science since 1805, a century before Barringer made his presentation in 1906.

The meteoric nature and source of the mined metal wasn't in question when Barringer received his mineral patents but the crater theory was. Lucky for Barringer he didn't apply to a patent for a crater or a meteorite but for the mineral value of his meteorite metals. I'm guessing that's because he was the most respected mining law expert of his time and he didn't confuse craters or meteorites with his right to claim the valuable minerals the meteorite was composed of. The fact that the country rock that surrounds the meteoric metals deposit is barren of any related minerals or mineralization of any kind was not hidden or unrecognized by the scientific or mining community. The identity and source of the deposit was not in question before the patent was issued, in fact it was the subject of many scientific papers of the time and had been extensively investigated by the Geological Society (USGS) and others.

It's interesting to note that Berringer's mineral patents have been challenged in several courts on just the basis you propose. The Barringer family have spent many years defending their mineral patents. The most recent was by an agency of the Federal Government. The famous meteorite collector Harvey Nininger also spent considerable time (decades) and a lot of OP money trying to invalidate the claims too. In every case the patents have been upheld by the courts despite challengers claims that meteorite deposits can not be issued patents. Clearly the issue has been adjudicated long after there was any question about the meteoric origin and nature of the discovered minerals. As far as the courts are concerned this theory that meteorite deposits can't be claimed under the mining acts is a losing argument.

<br />

My desire seems to be aligned with yours: that any future legal challenges as to whether meteorites constitute locatable minerals go the way of the claiming miner(s). I think solid arguments can be made, but I lack your confidence absent suitable case law. Similar arguments can be made for dinosaur bones, for instance...<br />

<br />

There is some case law on meteorites (<a href="https://casetext.com/case/people-of-st-of-cal-ex-rel-younger-v-mead" target="_blank">Old Woman Meteorite</a>, <a href="http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-cribbet/finding/goddard-v-winchell/" target="_blank">Goddard v Winchell</a>), but these don't deal with mining claims. <br />

I'm not sure what dinosaur bones or any other animal residues might have with locatable minerals?

Neither one of those cases you cite had anything to do with the subject of minerals discovered on public lands.

The Old Woman case was about the right of the Secretary of the Interior to bypass normal established administrative process in awarding study materials under the Antiquities Act. No issue was raised and no decision was made regarding meteorites, meteorite ownership, public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. The Supreme Court simply was carrying out their duty to review a challenge to an administrative decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. Although the decision was judicial it was strictly the final decision on a single administrative action and did not interpret or define anything in regards to meteorites, minerals or mining law.

The Antiquities Act which is most often cited in these meteorite discussions, including the Old Woman case, deals only with human artifacts:

Sec. 470bb. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) The term "archaeological resource" means any material
remains of past human life or activities which are of
archaeological interest

Rocks and minerals are not only outside of the purview of the Antiquities Act but they are specifically excluded from regulation in the Antiquities Act Savings clause.

Goddard v Winchell was a case about ownership of natural objects, including meteorites, found on private land. Once again not a case about meteorites found on public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. This decision (and many others) made it clear that meteorite ownership was to be treated just like any other natural object found on private land.

From the decision:

The Court found favor with the ancient rule "that whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil. The meteorite was deposited on the Plaintiff's land through natural causes, and became a fixed part of the earth at the time it was so deposited.

So meteorites found on the land are a part of the land. With no contrary decisions relating to public lands it would be a difficult argument that different rules apply there.