Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Steve Herschbach

      Archives Closed - New Forums   10/16/2017

      The old archive system has been closed and the threads moved to new forums. See the full forum listing here. Detailed explanation here.

Clay Diggins

Members
  • Content count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Clay Diggins last won the day on November 7 2015

Clay Diggins had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

241 Excellent

About Clay Diggins

  • Rank
    Copper Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.minerdiggins.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    The Great Southwest

Recent Profile Visitors

1,107 profile views
  1. I know a lot of you are waiting for the new updated Land Matters Mining Claims Maps. That update should have been available on Monday but the BLM is having some technical difficulties with its Secure Transfer Server and we have been unable to update the active mining claims information on our maps. Our contact at the BLM says the problem has been identified and should be corrected tonight. We should be able to access the data in the morning. I know this is a critical map update for a lot of our users. I'll post here as soon as the maps are updated.
  2. 10 Million Acre Mineral Withdrawal

    Here's the map I made Mitchel. It originally had the withdrawn area (6 States) but the BLM took down the data stream when it got some attention on the Hill a few months ago. The claims that were affected are still on that map - Land Matters created that claims map by hand. There were 6,997 ACTIVE Mining Claims in the withdrawal area. Nevada was the most affected with 5,872 Mining Claims. I contacted the BLM when they proposed the withdrawal asking for the data files to create the map. More than two years later and I still haven't had a response. That's why we had to rely on their data stream to display the withdrawn area. We try to host all our map data on the Land Matters servers but the government isn't always good at sharing the things they are required by law to share. Go figure. Click on the Link at the top of the map to see the report Land Matters made on the effect on mining claims from the withdrawal.
  3. The 10 million acre Sagebrush chicken withdrawal is no more! The withdrawal has been withdrawn. BLM cancels 10 million acre Sagebrush Focal Area Withdrawal Proposal Read that and then go beeping. 10 million acres is gonna take you a few weekends to detect so get started early.
  4. Google Chrome is planning to roll out these changes the 17th of next month Steve. I imagine if there is going to be a problem you won't see it until the latter part of October. Since Chrome auto updates it probably won't take long for the changeover. Then again it seems most posters are using Firefox? On my servers about 40% the users are browsing with Google Chrome. Maybe prospectors are smarter than researchers?
  5. The problem is limited to the Google Chrome browser. Any other browser will not have the problem. The bonus of choosing another browser is you won't be giving Google all your browsing history. The drawback? You tell me. I use several browsers on several different operating systems and I only keep Chrome browser around for testing purposes. Chrome is the most invasive browser ever made. Your opinion may vary. Steve you don't have to pay for a Certificate. Lets Encrypt is a free self regenerating Certificate program. No need to pay $30 a year for a Certificate any more. Google Chrome is now going to be replacing content from outside your domain with security warnings. That means all the linked in pictures and documents on these forums will be replaced with warnings. Shades of the recent Photobucket FU. It's time to get a certificate or get rid of Chrome browser. As a site owner I'm left with little choice but if I were just a user I would choose to dump Chrome.
  6. 2.2 Lbs Of Gold Found In Man's Butt

    What would be the best coil for that kind of detecting? Besides the Garrett Carrot.
  7. Claim Validity Question

    A record of public notice (usually with the County Recorder) as well as an FLPMA filing with the BLM is required for every year you intend to hold a mining claim location. Fees paid do not change that requirement. Here is the text and a link to the Federal laws on mining claims. This applies to all Mining Claims on the public lands. "43 U.S.C. §1744. Recordation of mining claims Claim validity can only be determined by a court of law. Prospectors and subsequent locators have no right to independently determine the validity of a mining claim. Should you feel that a mining claim is invalid you have the right to make an adverse location, file and serve suit on the senior locator within 30 days and prove in a court of law that your adverse junior claim is valid. That's a tough row to hoe because courts are traditionally very lenient with the method and execution of public notice by a claim owner in possession. The process of attempting to prove an adverse claim based on paperwork alone is known as claim jumping. The courts hate claim jumping. An unsuccessful claim jumper may find themselves subject to charges of criminal mineral trespass. After all by publishing your mining claim location you are declaring you have discovered valuable minerals within the location. If your junior location proves to be invalid you have already admitted on the public record evidence of your trespass. Tricky business. So is the claim valid? There is only one way to find out ...
  8. Gold Tellurides

    Good points Jim. Steve, Bismuth Telluride is an entirely different beast. It's the favored semiconductor for high energy applications. Unlike the element tellurium it's an excellent electrical conductor. It's probably the best thermoelectric conductor available so it's used extensively in high energy high/low heat environments. When doped with tin it's conducting properties are excellent and I imagine gold could have a similar "doping" effect. The sample picture you linked to appears to be a gold nugget with some included tellurides rather than a true mineral composed of gold/bismuth/tellurium. The mineral that contains all those elements is the sulfide Buckhornite which is black in appearance. It is known to be associated with free native gold in the Buckhorn mine near Boulder Colorado so there is a possibility of a highly conductive detectable conglomerate occurring. It appears you have an example of that. Perhaps that's what your sample nugget is. It would be interesting to see a picture of the included bismuth/tellurium crystals. I imagine those are rather rare nuggets.
  9. Gold Tellurides

    Tellurium has about half the electrical conductivity of gold. Silver is the most conductive metal with gold having about 75% the conductivity of silver. Not sure how that translates to detecting ore.
  10. 2017 Annual Claims Filings

    If you haven't done your annual BLM FLPMA filing yet your time has run out. Yesterday was the last chance. The BLM shows September 1 as the final date but that is a trap for people who rely on the BLM information rather than following the law. The BLM has a special treat for those who follow their instructions. Just ask Art Anderson (PDF). In Art Anderson, 181 IBLA 270, GFS(MIN) 14(2011), the IBLA found that a placer mining claim was forfeited when the claimant attempted to file a small miner waiver certification on September 1, rather than on or before August 31. On September 1, 2010, plaintiff tried to file a small miner waiver certification with BLM for the 2011 assessment year. BLM rejected the waiver certification because it lacked the signature of one of the claim owners. Id. at 272-73. Plaintiff appealed and on appeal, the IBLA stated that had plaintiff submitted a timely certificate, BLM’s rejection of the waiver certificate would have been in error. BLM should have accepted the certificate, notified the claimant of the defect, and given the claimant 60 days’ notice to cure. Id. at 273. However, the IBLA determined that plaintiff did not timely submit the certificate. Prior to 2007, the assessment year began at 12:00 p.m. on September 1 of each year. In 2007, Congress amended the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 to make the annual assessment year commence at 12:01 a.m. of each year. . Id. at 274. Claimants are required to submit a claim maintenance fee or waiver certificate before the commencement of the assess- ment year. Id.; 30 U.S.C. § 28f(b). BLM has not yet amended its regulations to reflect the change in the 2007 legislation and 43 C.F.R. § 3834.11 (a)(2) still provides that the annual maintenance fee is due on or before September 1 of each year. Nevertheless, the IBLA held that the statute is self-operative and that failure to timely pay the maintenance fee or submit the waiver certificate causes the claim to forfeit by operation of law. 181 IBLA at 275. BLM still hasn't corrected their regulations, websites or information handouts to reflect the changes to the law in 2007. As Art Anderson found out that doesn't prevent the BLM from closing claims that haven't had an annual required informational filing before September 1.
  11. Congratulations Rios. It looks like your hard work and optimisim is paying off. Thanks for sharing your adventure!
  12. 2017 Annual Claims Filings

    It's a civil matter Steve. As I pointed out before the first Mining Act in 1865 took the government out of the business of adjudicating mining claim disputes. Whoever maintains possession of the claim has the right. If you dispute that possession you can sue and it becomes a civil matter for the first court of record at the local level. The federal courts have no jurisdiction in a civil matter. Courts can't act just because something seems wrong you have to sue another person over an unsettled controversy before a court can be formed to consider the issues. I've heard of these supposed civil claims. I have serious doubts they exist but I guess some people could be that stupid and cheap. Seems to me any mineral deposit worth working would be worth paying the $155 per year fee. Seems like the County Recorders fees over a year would add up to nearly that with gas and time added on... If you know of such a situation (in real life) it's pretty easy to defeat. Just make your own location the day before theirs expires at the County (90 days). Then the original claimant has the choice of paying the BLM their fees within 24 hours or they can suck eggs. If they do run down to the BLM within the 24 hours you are just out the time to stake and if they don't you can go ahead and record and file the new claim as usual. Either way their silly game is over. As always witnesses without a direct interest in the claim and photo documentation are important when staking. If this imaginary situation is in California all you need to do is erect a monument with the location notice to start a placer claim.
  13. 2017 Annual Claims Filings

    For Small Miners the Federal filing deadline was set by Congress as December 30. If you paid the maintenance fee timely your annual federal filing requirement has been satisfied but you still need to make your annual public record. Each State has the right to set shorter periods in which to record. In Arizona for example the State deadline for making your public record is December 30 just like the Federal requirement. California I believe is October 31. I'm pretty sure Montana is September 30. I may be wrong about any one of those dates so please look up your state's requirements. With so many different date requirements for public notice it would be misleading to announce any particular recording deadline in the flow chart. The BLM filing deadline is clearly indicated but recording deadlines are not indicated for this reason. That's why the flowchart and guidelines are general as to the State requirements and specifically only address filing not recording. This warning is also included on the flow chart. In the end it's up to each claimant to do their own due diligence regarding filing and recording requirements. The flow chart and general guidelines are designed to help claimants to understand the process of staying current on their federal filing requirements. There are several circumstances that are not even mentioned in these aids like how to file if you don't have physical access to your claim, you are on active duty overseas, you have a first half patent certificate or your claim case status is under review for wilderness/National Park etc.
  14. 2017 Annual Claims Filings

    When you encounter a "paper claim" you have the option of making a valid location over it and suing the paper filer in civil court to remove the cloud on your title. You are not guaranteed success because there is a long history of the courts allowing miners a large leeway in the legal process. Essentially it comes down to the senior claimant's intent when you are the junior claimant attempting to remove their title claim. Intent is a very hard thing to prove if the paper filer actually shows up in court. The BLM overstepped their bounds if they told you the claim was void due to a lack of a public record. The Federal government is specifically excluded from making determinations about the validity of the public record or acting, or even commenting, about the strength of one location over another. That's because the very first Mining Act that enabled mining of the public lands did so by declaring that the fact that the land was owned by the U.S. had no part in determining the validity of any claim. The entire mining claims system rests on the foundation of this one simple 1865 law. Here is the entire text of that first mining law: All BLM employees in the minerals and records divisions are instructed in this. (BLM Manual 3833.74) The fact that some weren't paying attention that day or decided Congress didn't mean them is just one more indication of the lax administration of some BLM offices. There is a catch 22 to the process of overfiling and suing. The courts hate claim jumping. Trying to use the courts to eject a senior claimant with paperwork is claim jumping. If you don't prove your case the question arises of your self admitted trespass on a known claim. You certified you made a valuable mineral discovery when you made your location. To make that discovery you had to prospect the senior claim. If you lose the overclaim you are on record admitting to mineral trespass. There can be court sanctions and/or a countersuit awaiting you should you fail in proving the senior claimants lack of intent. That's bad juju and can be very expensive. Think carefully before you attempt an overclaim.
  15. 2017 Annual Claims Filings

    I'm not sure I understand the question LipCa? I'll make an assumption and hope covering some of the facts will help clarify. The law requires either a "Notice of Intent to Hold" or a an "Affidavit of Assessment Work" be Recorded prior to December 31st of each year for every mining claim you intend to hold It is also required that a copy of that Public Record be filed with the State office of the BLM by the same date. Those dates may vary by State but the Federal date can not be exceeded. You will find that and more at 43 U.S. Code § 1744. Recordation of mining claims. This is in addition to any fee requirements. The BLM does not determine the validity of mining claims based on your public record. They do have the right to declare claims "abandoned" should the filing requirements not be met or "void" if the claim was filed on land not open to location. The Public Record you make as required by law is not something the BLM has the power to adjudicate. Only a court of law can do that. The distinction is not subtle. A Public Record (usually made at the County Recorder's office) has a chain of custody, can be Certified and is accepted as evidence without question by a Court of Law. A BLM filing has no chain of custody, can not be Certified and is only an unauthenticated copy of a transaction. As you can see it is entirely possible to have a valid claim that is considered abandoned by the BLM. It happens a lot each year. The BLM changes the status of a mining claim case file to "CLOSED", the decision is challenged, the claim is found to be administratively current and the BLM changes it's case file status back to "ACTIVE". Nothing changed with the actual public record of the claim, only the BLM case file status was affected. It's also possible to have an "ACTIVE" claims case file status with the BLM where no public record has ever been made or the public record is not complete. We see this quite a bit. There is a well known and frequently visited national club claim in California that has been ACTIVE status at the BLM for many years yet there is no public record of the claim. No location notice, no annuals nothing. It's certainly not the only one it just sticks out in my mind at the moment. Mining claim validity is a matter for a court of law - always. There is no federal administrative process that can adjudicate the actual validity of a mining claim. Administrative process can only determine the status with which a claim is to be treated within the administrative system. This two part system of claim validity and administrative status came about because of the BLM's insistence that they didn't have the resources to look up the Public Record for mining claims before making administrative decisions about the Public Lands. They got the right to be notified annually of the status of mining claims in the 1976 Federal Lands Public Management Act (FLPMA). For the 110 years prior to that they and their predecessor had to look in the public record like everyone else. The annual BLM filings are informational only but the BLM is allowed to treat a mining claim as if it doesn't exist if they don't receive the annual notice. It's strictly an administrative requirement but it can, and does, affect your claim's status if you don't comply. The annual Public Record still has to be made under the law. This is a separate matter from the required BLM filing. This isn't hidden - the law I linked to contains both requirements together in the same section. Lack of a public record can not directly be acted on by the BLM but a mining claim is not valid under the law if the annual recording requirement is not met. This may seem like a point with no purpose until you are sued by an adverse claimant, seek investors, claim a right to compensation in court or apply for a patent. At that point you will come to understand why a Certifiable, complete, current public record must still be maintained. I hope that helps?
×