Clay Diggins

A review

Anyone who uses the BLM LR2000 search function knows it can be a challenge to get meaningful results. Often the service is down but you aren't notified of a problem with the system until you go through the whole complex search process to discover there was an "error". Frustrating at times.

Well it appears the BLM decided it was time to change the look and feel of the LR2000 search function. They notified users months ago that they were working on an improved version but they caught a lot of people by surprise when they introduced the NEW! IMPROVED! LR2000 on November 1 and shut down the functions of the OLD! BAD! LR2000 at the same time.

Problem was they didn't tell anyone. The old LR2000 still appears to be there and will allow you to do a search. That search returns an error, as mentioned earlier that's not unexpected or uncommon when using the LR2000. I use the LR2000 a lot when I need the most recent information on a land or claim case file. It took me nearly 24 hours after the changeover to get fed up enough with the old LR2000 not working to try the new LR2000 which has been available but not working for the last nine months. I'm hoping the BLM will set up that old LR2000 web address to redirect to the new LR2000 page so others won't have to waste their time beating a dead search system like I did.

The old LR2000 was clunky. It reminded me of an old unfamiliar broken down right hand drive truck with a Japanese language repair manual. It was really that awkward and counter intuitive. There were many blogs, manuals and videos devoted to explaining the esoteric mysteries of the BLM's version of public access to public records, I even helped write a few myself. I made good use of the old LR2000 on the days it was working and I was glad to have it when I could get results but it needed fixing.

The new LR2000 has a cleaner less intimidating interface with a slightly simpler set of options. I really don't like the "black topo" background the BLM now puts on all their web pages. If you like the black topo theme you are probably going to like the look of these new search pages better than the old ones.

The behind the scenes search function has changed a lot from the old LR2000. I tried it on several browsers and three operating systems. I had problems on every browser and system. The Search seems to hang in some circumstances, in others it returns results as quickly as the old LR2000. The actual search itself seems to be slower sometimes. Every browser I tried had problems when it had run a few searches. The searches would eventually hang and several loops would keep the browser so busy it would lock up. That's not something I'm used to experiencing. This is a new system so I'm hoping the BLM will get these glitches out soon.

The results of each search now displays in a new interface. Essentially there will be a window frame on the results page with the document displayed inside the frame as a PDF. Like the old LR2000 there are options to download the document in several formats including Excel, PDF and HTML. You can now modify or start a new search from the results page.

Land Matters has made an effort to bypass the clunky old LR2000 interface and allow you to directly access any claims BLM serial register page directly with a few clicks on a map. This turned out to be a lot quicker way to get information on claims in a specific area without having to pound through the old LR2000. Being a direct live link to the BLM the information is as current as possible unlike other mapping programs that present static information updated every month or so.

When the unannounced changeover in LR2000 search systems happened it broke Land Matters system of direct access. With more than 380,000 mining claims being actively tracked Land Matters had a problem. Claims Advantage Members also get several reports a month. In the last two days Land Matters had released two reports with a combined total of more than 20,000 maps and direct links to a broken LR2000. That's 400,000 missing documents. Sometimes life can be.... interesting.

Needless to say I have been busy. It took 24 hours but I deciphered the new LR2000 system, fixed the links to the serial register pages and corrected, compiled and uploaded new member reports. The mining claim serial register pages linked to on the maps load more quickly than the old ones did. If you have any problems with those maps or the Member Reports please let me know.

Please try out the new LR2000 and share your experiences here. Try the Mining Claims Maps at Land Matters and marvel at the new search results. If you like the way the map link system works we can add the feature for a lot more types of research.

Barry

That's sad.

2 minutes ago, DolanDave said:

How about the guys that claimed BLM land the Old Woman Meteorite was found on, and the government took it anyways, like Lunk said they basically said : meteorites are not locatable under the mining law and belong to the owner of the land they are found on.

Another mystery case with no record. The government did not take the Old Woman Meteorite. The discoverers signed a contract to have the meteorite delivered to a museum in southern California. Everything after that was about how their contract gave them no right to the meteorite - they had signed away their rights.

The BLM pointed out that since the Old Woman meteorite had been removed they could find no valuable minerals on which to base a claim. Just because a mining claim once had minerals is not evidence that it still does have minerals. You can't claim minerals that aren't there. They made the mining claim in an effort to bolster their claim that they had a right to the meteorite they had given away.

The BLM has never made a final decision that meteorites are not subject to mineral claim. If you ask why they might mumble something about BIG ELEPHANT IN ROOM.

2 hours ago, Clay Diggins said:

There are no "meteorite laws" in the United States. Which is probably why they aren't common knowledge. If you know of one I'm sure you will share it here.

OK that was a trick question Lunk. You can't share any meteorite laws with us because there are none.

Many years ago I was constantly getting different answers about what was written in the law. Seems nobody could come up with a verifiable answer. It was all like this thread, different opinions and a lot of "everybody knows". I tried looking up the laws but that turned out to be full of lawyerspeak and Not Yours! attitudes in secret libraries far away from any working man. So I did the obvious - I went to law school and learned how to find and understand the actual written laws. Back then that wasn't an easy thing. Took years to figure the system out. Try looking up Shepardizing to get a hint as to how onerous the process was.

Lucky for us now in the modern times we can look up any Federal law quick and easy. No need for years in law school. It's like Google Search for law.  Here's a link to that search function direct from the folks that keep the law records. I've even done the search for you. As you can see the word meteorite is nowhere to be found in Federal law. I think we can agree that if the word meteorite is not to be found in the law then the law has nothing to say about meteorites? Feel free to play around there it's a great resource.

Of course being curious when I first heard these theories about meteorites not being valuable minerals I had to investigate every new theory being proposed.

One of the big fantasies in the meteorite circles was there was a case called "The Old Woman Meteorite". Supposedly this was the big case that established that meteories were not subject to location and belonged to the Smithsonian. Well such a case actually exists so I got a copy and read the case and it doesn't address meteorite ownership, mining claims or the actual meteorite itself.

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 9th Circuit 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.

You can read the Old Woman case HERE.

As for that BLM "Internal Memorandum" you might observe that expired a year after it was issued? It was neither law nor regulation and was not a public document. It really doesn't matter though because the woman who wrote that memo was in the archaeological resources office. Her job is to enforce the Antiquites Act. The Antiquites Act specifically exempts stone or mineral that has not been worked by men. The writer of that "Internal Memorandum" had no right to make any rules or regulations about stone or minerals. Even if the stone had been worked by a man the object and work had to be more than 100 years old and Archaeologically significant.

Quote

        (1) The term "archaeological resource" means any material
      remains of past human life or activities which are of
      archaeological interest, as determined under uniform regulations
      promulgated pursuant to this chapter. Such regulations containing
      such determination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery,
      basketry, bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures
      or portions of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock
      carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any
      portion or piece of any of the foregoing items. Nonfossilized and
      fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece
      thereof, shall not be considered archaeological resources, under
      the regulations under this paragraph, unless found in
      archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an
      archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph
      unless such item is at least 100 years of age.

Even if there were some traction under the Antiquities law mining claim locations are specifically exempt.

Quote

 

Sec. 470kk. Savings provisions

    (a) Mining, mineral leasing, reclamation, and other multiple uses
      Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to repeal, modify, or
      impose additional restrictions on the activities permitted under
      existing laws and authorities relating to mining, mineral leasing,
      reclamation, and other multiple uses of the public lands.

 

You can read the whole Antiquities Act HERE.

Now we still have the big elephant in the room. The fact that mining claims have been located, mined and patented for meteorite materials. After many court cases challenging those mining claim patents they are still as valid today as the day the claims were located. Despite all the meteorite collectors rumors and invisible "law" that big elephant is sitting right in the middle of one of the most significant falls in the world. Proof that mining claimants own all the valuable minerals within their mining claim - including the valuable meteorite materials. You can ignore that or pretend it's a one off case but several courts disagree with you. In fact the man that made those meteorite claims was the author of "The Law of Mines and Mining in the United States" - still in print today 120 years later.

8 minutes ago, Lunk said:

This is a common misperception and simply is not the case; the meteorite laws in the U.S. clearly state that since meteorites are not part of the earthly estate of minerals, they are not locatable under the mining law and belong to the owner of the land they are found on.

There are no "meteorite laws" in the United States. Which is probably why they aren't common knowledge. If you know of one I'm sure you will share it here.

Mining claims are not public land Lunk. The minerals are segregated from the public, they belong to the claim owner. 

It's true that if a meteorite falls on private property it belongs to the property owner. The public lands of the United States do not belong to the government they belong to the public. When a mining claim is located the minerals are granted to the locator. All members of the public that are citizens and have reached the age of majority can make a mining claim on lands open to location.

You can not locate a mining claim for meteorites but you can locate a mining claim for meteorite minerals.

On public lands where the minerals are still open to the public recreational and commercial collecting laws are in effect. As I recall those are based on a certain number of pounds per year. Commercial collection requires permits and taxes the same as any other lease or sale of public land materials.

12 minutes ago, DolanDave said:

Arent meteorites / meteorite hunting with a metal detector still exempt from placer or lode claims? I know there has been some nice meteorites found in the Rye area's. Just be sure to leave the gold right where its at if you detect it on someones claim... :)

Dave

I don't know how that rumor got started Dave. There is no such exemption and never has been.

All valuable minerals on a mining claim belong to the claimant. Meteorite minerals are valuable. Heck they are usually sold by the gram which puts them right up there with the most valuable minerals found.

Mining claims have been located, mined and granted patents for the meteorite minerals discovered on the claim. If you get right down to it all the minerals on every claim were put there my meteorites.

According to the Master Title Plat those sections are part of the same land action. Without looking each section up I'd have to say the odds are high they both have the same private subsurface status as Section 19.

The Case Number for those odd sections is Nv 050293. With a little research you could know for sure.

The Master Title Plat will give you the status of each Section in that Township.

According to the Serial Register page Section 19 is split estate. The surface is BLM managed and the minerals are privately owned. This doesn't make a lot of sense considering the ownership history there but it is how the government has the split estate classified.

To prospect or mine Section 19 you would need the written permission of the private mineral owner. You will need to visit the Humboldt County Assessor to find out who the current owner is.

One individual and one company have mined that area in the past. The last approved mining there was closed out in 1998. There may be a private mineral lease there now but there is no way to know until someone begins the mine permit process.

The one thing that is clear is that there can be no prospecting (including metal detecting) or mining on Section 19 without the mineral owners written permission.

26 minutes ago, mn90403 said:

Barry,

Thanks for your clarification.  It is humbling to know that my 'common knowledge' and research is inadequate and incomplete in this matter.

I'll have to look at more than Land Management and claims when I research open ground.  

Mitchel

It wasn't personal Mitchel. You know I'm always looking for a good opportunity to educate and you just happened to be the one to bring the right materials for me to work with.

From our conversations and meetings I know you are always concerned with the status of the land you prospect. Thanks for letting me play a little on your dime.

Barry

23 minutes ago, Rail Dawg said:

I just made yet another donation to MyLandMatters.org

Clay Diggins (Barry) works hard to bring this information to all of us and it is a site worth visiting on a regular basis.

 

Thanks for the kudos and your continuing support Dawg.

I should point out that Land Matters is a group effort based on volunteers and donations from the public. I myself am a volunteer. Land Matters has a board of directors (I'm not an officer) as well as a nearly full time director. There are no paid employees and no advertising.

I couldn't do what Land Matters does without the help of the many volunteers and donors. Many of those volunteers and donors post on this forum. Land Matters couldn't exist without those individuals support. This isn't really all about me, I'm just the loudest voice among many.

My personal thanks go out to the many donors, supporters and volunteers that make Land Matters possible.

Barry

The Land Matters Mining Claims Maps have been updated to October 15 ...finally!

The BLM Secure Transfer Server was finally repaired late last night. We got the download after midnight. You now have access to the most up to date mining claims maps available.

Thanks go to Kathy Ferguson for her assistance at the BLM Denver Applications Support Section, National Operations Center. There are good BLM employees and Kathy has always been responsive and helpful

There are about 1,000 acres of claims being opened up in Northern Washington State around where the Kinross gold mine is operating. This is a big deal in a small mining State. Washington State prospectors are going to have fun exploring those new areas.

California is still working on mining claim case files from two mining years ago. As usual Utah State BLM is doing their job very professionally and are progressing with their updates in a timely manner. Two different worlds in those two BLM offices alone. Thanks go out to Utah BLM for taking mining case files currency seriously.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

 

Quote

(a) Filing requirements
The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim located prior to October 21, 1976, shall, within the three-year period following October 21, 1976 and prior to December 31 of each year thereafter, file the instruments required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection. The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim located after October 21, 1976 shall, prior to December 31 of each year following the calendar year in which the said claim was located, file the instruments required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection:

(1) File for record in the office where the location notice or certificate is recorded either a notice of intention to hold the mining claim (including but not limited to such notices as are provided by law to be filed when there has been a suspension or deferment of annual assessment work), an affidavit of assessment work performed thereon, on 1 a detailed report provided by section 28–1 of title 30, relating thereto.

(2) File in the office of the Bureau designated by the Secretary a copy of the official record of the instrument filed or recorded pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, including a description of the location of the mining claim sufficient to locate the claimed lands on the ground.

(c) Failure to file as constituting abandonment; defective or untimely filing

The failure to file such instruments as required by subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be deemed conclusively to constitute an abandonment of the mining claim or mill or tunnel site by the owner;"

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.

Quote

1865 Mining Act

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of 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 ...

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.

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.

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.

Congratulations Rios. It looks like your hard work and optimisim is paying off.

Thanks for sharing your adventure!

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.

Quote

That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession.

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.

1 hour ago, LipCa said:

Thanks Clay.  Cleared up some of it.

The "Flow Chart" does not have a date or deadline for filing the NOI.. (Under miners that pay the Maintenance Fee)

Then the "General Guidelines" had this which prompted the question:

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.

Quote

Always review State Mining Laws. Dates shown are Federal deadlines. State laws may have earlier required deadlines.

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.