New Land Information Website

[Clay Diggins]

As many of you know Land Matters updates their free online mining claims maps twice a month.

Normally we get updates from the BLM servers in Denver on the 2nd and the 16th of each month. We just received word today that the BLM has been having difficulty with their database updates for the last month or two and now it's affecting their partner delivery system. Best estimate right now is we will see updates by end of day tomorrow January 6th.

If you were wondering when the claims map update is coming or when the Claims Advantage Member reports will be available now you know. We will bring those updates to you as soon as we have the information.

Barry

[jasong]

Hey Barry, have you had any luck getting mineral ownership data from the BLM? I've got a couple shapefiles from a few states like Colorado and New Mexico, but I can't seem to find anyone that has them for other states like AZ and NV. I know they have to have the data somewhere otherwise they couldn't make their mineral paper maps, but they just kept telling me they didn't have the data no matter who I spoke with until I just gave up trying.

Saw that you have them as a potential future map layer so was wondering if you had any more luck than I did and if so where a guy can get it. I'm also on that LR2000 bi-monthly distro so I have access to their servers where that data is hosted if it makes any difference, but its just LR2000 stuff in there from what I can tell.

[Azavsfan]

Really appreciate the site, thanks a bunch. It's too bad the BLM (govt in general) can't outsource things like this to people who know how (and want) to make it user friendly for all of us to use, or maybe that's the point.

[Clay Diggins]

Hey Barry, have you had any luck getting mineral ownership data from the BLM? I've got a couple shapefiles from a few states like Colorado and New Mexico, but I can't seem to find anyone that has them for other states like AZ and NV. I know they have to have the data somewhere otherwise they couldn't make their mineral paper maps, but they just kept telling me they didn't have the data no matter who I spoke with until I just gave up trying.

 

Saw that you have them as a potential future map layer so was wondering if you had any more luck than I did and if so where a guy can get it. I'm also on that LR2000 bi-monthly distro so I have access to their servers where that data is hosted if it makes any difference, but its just LR2000 stuff in there from what I can tell.

 

We haven't had much time to work on that map Jasong. We've determined that most of what the BLM has offered for subsurface estate is out of date, inaccurate and not going to be shared in a usable form. We do have a long term plan in place to derive that information  from public land and patent information. That's a very big project but it will accomplish several other goals in the process so we've determined that it's worth the effort.

 

The bi-monthly extraction has a lot more information than the LR2000 website does. The whole database download amounts to more than 1 gig each two weeks and the information is presented in the original segregated table form unlike the aggregated LR2000 reporting service. Besides the ability to parse more extensive data and make innovative joins that are not possible with the LR2000 keeping each full database download allows us to do time and volume based analysis that isn't possible with the static data found in the LR2000 or single issue downloads from the bi monthly extract.

 

If you have the drive space, a fully time and spatially enabled database system and some good processing power there are several analysis you can accomplish that go well beyond the LR2000 or BLM static reports available. The Land Matters Claims Advantage Special Reports are a good example with a lot more sophisticated reports still to come as the full database accumulates over time.

 

 

Really appreciate the site, thanks a bunch. It's too bad the BLM (govt in general) can't outsource things like this to people who know how (and want) to make it user friendly for all of us to use, or maybe that's the point.

 

You are welcome Azavsfan. It's encouraging to know that you have found it useful.

 

The BLM and most other agencies have outsourced these projects for years to ESRI. Virtually every effort by that huge corporation, including the geocommunicator, has been a spectacular multi billion dollar failure.

 

Our own frustration at this situation led us to create Land Matters. Despite the multi billion dollar ongoing budget for the geocommunicator Land Matters has accomplished more in a year with two unpaid part time volunteers working on 6 year old consumer computers than ESRI has done with approximately 4.7 billion dollars and all the resources of the Federal government in more than 15 years. Clearly public information is better presented by the public than by huge mismanaged government programs.

 

The BLM is the least cooperative of the agencies we deal with. That's probably due to the culture that has built up there since the joining of the two agencies into the BLM in 1948. They are the least effective agency we've dealt with when it comes to their primary record keeping function. I think their substandard training and flawed record keeping systems lead to a "who cares" attitude. Add in the armed cop culture that was introduced in 1988 and you've got a generally substandard agency with a bad attitude towards the public they are supposed to serve.

 

That being said there are good people that do a good job within the BLM. We deal with several of them on a regular basis. We've had quite a few of them contact us privately to thank us for what we do and for providing the tools they have come to rely on.  I'm sure you would be surprised at who some of our government fans are. I hope we can encourage those individuals since years of hand slapping and shaming by Congress have done nothing to help the situation. In fact the result of Congress' efforts is generally the opposite of what you would expect.

 

It's time to try something different and for us at least we've decided that difference is in encouraging the good ones and helping them succeed. The alternative is virtually unthinkable. The BLM in their Land Office function are the record keepers for the nation - they must succeed if we are to prosper.

 

The fact is that we are stuck with these government agencies and their fruitless outsourcing contracts for the time being. We can make a difference but that's going to come down to individual effort. Trying to drum out the rot in these agencies by complaining is pretty much useless. Not everyone can take the reins with a project like Land Matters. We can however make a better future by encouraging the good, hardworking, competent individuals who work within these agencies every day. They have a thankless low paying job but they mostly persevere. Many eventually leave in frustration but with a little help, recognition and encouragement enough of them may stay and eventually create a helpful responsive government agency culture.

 

All public land users can participate in communicating with the BLM personnel and thanking those who help. That's pretty simple and basic but the current standard of avoiding or making enemies of our public employees has obviously been counterproductive.

 

The choice is always ours. We can curse and complain or we can encourage and enable. We've opted for a get it done attitude rather than waiting for these agencies to come around on their own. We may fail but no one will be able to say we didn't try.

 

Barry

[jasong]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by tracing mineral ownership through public land and patent information? 

The only way I've found to trace current mineral ownership any more accurately than the ownership data the BLM has is to follow the chain of title, one individual deed at a time. Same way we do it in the oilfield. It's impossible on any sort of large scale. It can take days for just a single property and often has to be done in the office itself since a lot of counties don't have deeds online or if so only going back to like 1970, which is why title agencies charge for it and why the BLM database would be incredibly useful.

The BLM does have some kind of mineral ownership database it's just not entirely centralized and each state hq manages it differently is the impression I got. The response I got from the lead GIS guy in Denver (where my pursuit ended) was that O&G and Landmen pay millions of dollars a year for subscriptions to access that exact database which is parsed and a frontend provided by some 3rd party corporation which pays them some large sum of money for exclusive access to that data so they can resell it. And this is why they don't give the data to the public (despite it being public data, argh). The BLM guy flatout told me I should probably give up.

Anyways, are you saying the BLM did offer you access to their Arizona mineral ownership database and you viewed it and judged it innaccurate? If so, can you direct me to where I can download it (Nevada too)? I don't care if it isn't accurate, its better than nothing. For instance, the Colorado one quickly shows patterns that I can look deeper in at the county recorder if I decide to. Things like large areas where the railroads traded off their minerals, places where withdrawls took place, etc, I just need to see the pattern, I don't need it to be 100% accurate.

[sjmpainter]

Are there no state mapping systems in the lower states like the Alaska mapping system? Sorry if I am ignorant but I do not research outside of Alaska.

[Clay Diggins]

On 1/6/2016 at 9:35 PM, jasong said:

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by tracing mineral ownership through public land and patent information?

I was responding to your previous question Jasong:

On 1/6/2016 at 4:38 PM, jasong said:

Hey Barry, have you had any luck getting mineral ownership data from the BLM?

I wasn't offering to map private ownership of subsurface estate for free I was only speaking of mapping public ownership of subsurface estate. The BLM doesn't have any public record of private subsurface (mineral) ownership. If you are a Landman I'm sure you already understand that.

There are about 300 million acres of surface estate and about 700 million acres of subsurface estate under U.S. ownership in the lower 48. Essentially that means that only about 42% of all mineral lands are shown on current maps. The fact that the BLM doesn't actually know the total of subsurface acres should tell you something about the accuracy of what maps they do have.

I do care about accuracy. Putting out inaccurate information about mineral ownership to prospectors isn't something I'm willing to do. You might try something as simple as downloading the Master Title Plats and Supplements for your area of interest. Historical Indexes and Patents from the General Land Office should further clarify any specific questions you still have.

The status of the PUBLIC lands, including the subsurface, is public information that can be looked up by anyone. The fact that the BLM has botched the job of keeping track of those subsurface lands isn't an indication the information is unavailable. Mapping those lands is a huge but doable project.

Leasable minerals and O&G on private land is not a subject Land Matters will be addressing anytime in the next few years unless BIG grant money rolls in that's targeted at private lands status. As you already pointed out the status of the private lands in the U.S. is big business so I'm not holding my breath for anyone to pay to have that information available free to the public.

Barry

[Clay Diggins]

On 1/7/2016 at 6:21 PM, sjmpainter said:

Are there no state mapping systems in the lower states like the Alaska mapping system? Sorry if I am ignorant but I do not research outside of Alaska.

There aren't any publicly available systems like the Alaska State mining maps because the lower 48 weren't granted the minerals at Statehood. Alaska is virtually unique in that respect with the exception of Texas.

What little mineral lands that are owned by the western states are held in dedicated trusts and are generally leased by the section by non public means. The public claims mapping systems in Alaska, British Colombia and Australia are great examples of how things could be with a little effort and ingenuity. I'm not holding my breath for that sea change.

Barry

[Clay Diggins]

As they do twice each month the Land Matters Mining Claims Maps have been updated.

Not much change in California or Colorado this time - more on that later.

Arizona had some big closures in Mohave and La Paz Counties. Nearly 1,600 claims total.

New Mexico continues with the closing of a lot of claims in Sierra, Catron and Grant Counties.

Nevada topped this list again with more than 2,100 closed claims.

The most recent Claims Advantage Members Report is showing there have been 26,689 closed since last September 1 with at least 18,904 still to be determined. The bulk of those undetermined claims are in California, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming.

Percentage wise California is the big hold up - they have processed 46 claims in the last 4 1/2 months with at least 3,477 claims still to go. That's a little more than .01% of their job done after more than 1/3 of the mining year has passed.
 

[Lanny]

Thanks for your work in putting such a handy resource together Barry!

 

All the best,

 

Lanny