Jump to content

UpAndDownTheHills

Full Member
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    New Mexico

Recent Profile Visitors

234 profile views

UpAndDownTheHills's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (2/6)

7

Reputation

  1. oldmancoyote1 Have you thought sending it in to get an assay and see what the yield is? It might be pretty good even though it's not visible.
  2. I see it in a directional sense. They did not do work in a diligent fashion and so they therefore did not find valuable minerals. So, both conditions would cause a question as to the validity of the claim. There are many scenarios that could cause valuable minerals to be there. For instance, a CU/AU porphyry that is slightly under cover could exist there. Say at 20'. You vectored over to it via surface work of the lithocap in the region. But the current "claimant" claimed the lease 10 years ago because it is at the base of some mountains with scattered mines. Current claimant has done nothing over the last 10 years. Upon visual inspection of the surface, you find no trenches, drill holes, adits, shafts or anything. You suspect no discovery has been made. You find the claimant lives outside of the state the prospect is in. All you can find is an initial claim at the county recorder and the yearly fee paid to the BLM. You go through the motions of claiming it yourself; filings at the recorders office and the BLM and everything else to the letter of the law. You line up a drill rig ready to drill and put it on stand-by and then file suit against the current "claimant". Based on this scenario and how I read the judges decision based on the red highlighted text, the court does not support a prospector taking possession of the land without a discovery and holding it forever without doing work for a discovery. In the legal discovery of the case, it comes to light that Joe Blow, the original claimant, has made no discovery and done no work outside a few visits the 1st few years. I guess I find it hard to believe that they would still prevail in such a lawsuit. This was a key takeaway I read in the case was that diligent work towards a discovery gives the original claimant stronger title. Does the fact that there are valuable minerals there but they didn't know it for lack of knowledge still give them the right to it? I believe it wouldn't. You are correct this would only be worth pursuing for a major discovery. However, there are new discoveries of lithium in NV and AZ that I'm sure at one time where considered goat pasture. But if you get some corner shooter just going out to file claims hoping to flip claims to the discoverer at what point does the corner shooter start being unable to claim because they've done nothing to prove their deposit is there. If you look at Lithium America in NV, they are already a few years into the process of trying to even start the mining. Would a corner shooter in this caldera still have claim after a few years of nothing or no activity? There are always overlooked things that are being held by people who have no idea what they got. I definitely appreciate your points and knowledge. I would never attempt to do any of this without prior consultation with a mining specific attorney. Just for the reason you stated that this could turn from civil to criminal quickly and it's better to have expert legal advice each step of the way. Personally, I think some claimants wouldn't even bother fighting you because of the legal outlay and if they truly haven't made a discovery why would they fork over lots of dollars on a lawyer to defend something they aren't making money on. All of this written discussion is based on lay people who take claims as a hobby or some other non-business reason and treat it as such. And thank you again for taking time to respond in a very thorough manner.
  3. My point is that I think there are many claims out there that probably aren't valid for many reasons. For example, here is text out of the Title 30, sec 23 Length of claims on veins or lodes "...but no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located." So, my question is how valid is a lode claim that has sat there for 10 years with no work to show a valuable mineral discovery and with no surface indication of a valuable mineral. There has been no diligent effort to discover a valuable mineral. Even if a pit was dug but no valuable mineral was found that would just show no valuable mineral and hence no valid claim. Here are some quotes from Adams vs Benedict in New Mexico that went to this subject regarding drilling 2000' holes to discover the uranium and locate the claims. Adams was working diligently to do such and took more than the 90 days and the court sided for them. The interesting case notes are as follows: "It is our opinion that the rule which has been applied with regard to the placer claims, where the prospectors were hunting for oil, presents a situation very similar to this case, even though it is a lode claim. Whether or not a discovery could be made before the hole was drilled, there is no question that the exposing of mineral in place would require the drilling of the holes as was done by the appellants and appellees. Since the appellants had taken peaceful possession of the premises and since they were actively and diligently working on the claim with bona fide intent to make a location, their right to possession of the claim described in the notice of location and as partly marked on the ground, should be protected. This court is not taking the position that such acts constitute a valid location without a discovery. We merely state that when a person is prospecting for uranium ore which lies at a great depth below the surface of the earth and where he has peacefully taken possession of the premises and is in actual possession, diligently and persistently drilling a hole in an attempt to disclose uranium in place, he should be protected in his possession to the full extent of his proposed claim as against someone with no better right. It is to be understood that the court does not countenance a prospector taking possession of land in a case such as this without a discovery and holding it indefinitely without going forward with his work. He may hold it only for such time as he is diligently and persistently conducting his operations in good faith with the intent to make a discovery of mineral. An illustration of the operation of this rule is given in Whiting v. Straup, 17 Wyo. 1, 95 P. 849, 855, as follows:" So again, how many lode claims out there meet this criteria? And probably placer but those are easier to say you made a discovery but possibly not if the "prudent person"/"marketability" test was to be asserted and how deep the pockets of the claimant are. There has been much case law based on a lot money being at stake. A good lawyer and some money I think would bust a reasonable number of mining claims by individuals for a host a reasons. It just that most claims don't have anything valuable associated with them so why spend the money fighting some claim that is 10 years old riddled with issues from the start along with ongoing issues. But, the fact that there are no challenges doesn't mean they would stand up to a challenge. One way I look at it is the difference between mining companies claims vs individuals. It's night and day for a lot of them. The mining company is out there working to get a discovery of a valuable mineral: drilling, geophysics, etc. The lay person a lot (not all and maybe not most but there is some fraction to who this applies to) of time seems to stake the corners file the paperwork with BLM and county recorder and calls it a day. It's hard to believe both are equally valid under the law. And the only way to know is to press the issue and go to court.
  4. Exactly. I think most individuals probably don't follow the correct procedure to staking claims and in reality they probably don't even have exclusive right to the minerals. And I really doubt they are doing the proper procedure to keep the claim alive either with filings of record. The BLM office is not a public filing place. Here is text directly from the Az code of regulations for staking a claim. How many claims do you think have had a centerline monument erected to specs? And it looks to me in Section B failure to do this correctly gives no right of location. So it would seem like all the paperwork filed afterwards doesn't mean anything since it applies to something you have no right to. I'm not an attorney but it seems pretty simple and straight forward. The next sections deal with monumenting the claim which is a whole other set of requirements a lot of people don't seem to follow either. A. Location of a lode claim shall be made by erecting on the surface on the centerline within the boundaries of the claim a conspicuous monument of stones not less than three feet in height, or an upright post securely fixed and projecting at least four feet above the ground, in or on which there shall be posted a location notice, signed by the name of the locator. The location notice shall contain: 1. The name of the claim located. 2. The name and address of the locator. 3. The date of the location. 4. The length and width of the claim in feet, and the distance in feet from the location monument to each end of the claim. 5. The general course of the claim. 6. The locality of the claim with reference to some natural object or permanent monument whereby the claim can be identified and, if known to the locator, the identification of the section, township and range in which the notice of location of the claim is posted. B. Until the requirements of subsection A are complied with, no right of location is acquired. C. The notice may be amended at any time and the monument changed to correspond with the amended location, but no change shall be made which will interfere with the rights of others. If such amendment changes the exterior boundaries of the claim, a new or amended map, plat or sketch shall be recorded pursuant to section 27-203 showing such change.
  5. So, I guess you didn't find or see any gold in the rock you dug out? Was the fresh surface of the shale either black or gray? If it was either of those colors, there would be organic matter (OM) in the shale and depending on the maturity it could have been a hydrocarbon generative shale. These kind of shales also have pyrite associated with them. This much I know for sure since I work in the oil and gas field. From what I've read and heard from lectures on gold deposition and precipitation, OM and pyrite can help precipitate gold from solution. The fact that you only see it in localized areas is also a good indication that maybe it is gold because fluid flow will be controlled by high permeability zones (most likely fracture areas associated with faulting) and would be in discrete areas and not just as a blanket over the entire area. It is also possible that the rocks are "hot" due to associated minerals from gold deposition too. Have you tried crushing and panning any of the shale that sets off detector? Does the gold you find in the creek look like its traveled far or sourced nearby? If it looks sourced nearby, you might be finding the location of its source. Either way, it is pretty exciting.
  6. In O&G, we have commercial geological libraries that are membership based that contain a lot of info that isn't public or in the public domain. This info comes from old companies donating their data, people that die will give their personal collections to the library, and many other avenues. While most of it isn't useful for a whole variety of reasons, there is still plenty of good, informative, and helpful data in these libraries. While there is a ton of material in the public domain (online and in person), these libraries definitely fill a niche in O&G. Are there any equivalents is the mining industry that anyone is aware of? Appreciate any responses. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...