Clay

Members
  • Content count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Clay

  1. All minerals are subsurface estate Mike. It doesn't matter if the minerals are placer or lode. Known lodes are not included in placer claim patents. If a placer claim owner knows of a lode deposit on his claim he must either declare it as a lode claim and pay twice as much per acre ($5 per acre for lode as opposed to $2.50 per acre for placer) for his purchase or the lode will be excluded from the patent grant. This was explained in detail in Section 11 of the 1872 General Mining Act. The inverse is not true. Known placer deposits found on a perfected lode claim are patented along with the lode minerals. Also unknown lode deposits on a patented placer claim belong to the patentee as long as they were discovered after the patent was granted. Until a patent is granted both placer and lode claimaints own all the valuable minerals within their claim as long as the initial discovery supports the type of claim located. You can't locate a lode discovery as a placer claim and you can't locate a placer discovery as a lode claim. A placer claim can never be located over a valid lode claim but a lode claim can be located over a placer claim IF the placer claim owner or an invitee discover a lode. Uninvited prospectors can not discover or locate either type of claim over an active claim. You will probably find it helpful download and read the entire 1872 Mining Act if you want to get a better understanding of the principles behind the mineral grant.
  2. Try Qgis. It can handle any mapping project and it's free. Google Earth is very inaccurate and doesn't use equal area projections. There is no effective way to draw an accurate rectangle much less determine compass direction and distances (metes and bounds) which you will need to make a proper lode claim. Google Earth is great for looking over an area before you go there but it's not adequate for describing land areas. Qgis is not specifically for claims maps but it does the job great. It's the core program used in all high level mapping today. Did I mention it's free? Barry
  3. You are correct that the material in a mine dump is properly located as a placer deposit. There are no circumstances where a placer claim can be made coincident to a senior valid lode claim. There are very limited circumstances where the opposite is sometimes possible. You might want to review Cole v Ralph for a more holistic and authoritative view than I can give you on the issues surrounding mining claim rights against subsequent locators. The Supreme Court did a pretty good job of covering the possibilities in that very important mining case.
  4. For clarity that would be: The SW 1/4 NW 1/4 of the SW quarter Section and the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 of the SW quarter Section of Section XX Township XX Range XX Meridian and Baseline XX County of XX State XX. That's presuming the areas you show are regular aliquots and not Lots. That LLD description is even more condensed in Patent descriptions but I wouldn't count on your average BLM desk employee deciphering that method. You can find the BLM's take on this in the Land Matters Land Status Library by searching for Legal Land Description. There is a three part video course as well as a PDF of the course material available for download there. Hope that helps
  5. Thanks for bringing fact based information to this subject diggingbar. The BLM circular is clearly in error but that doesn't really matter. The BLM and the Forest Service are not your lawyer and can't legally be held liable for disseminating false or misleading information in their handouts or conversations. You can rely on one source of information however. The Federal Register contains the explanations of the intent behind the CFR regulations. In 2008 the Forest Service published Clarification for the Appropriate Use of a Criminal or a Civil Citation To Enforce Mineral Regulations in the Federal Register. This was classed as a final rule. From the explanation of that rule: Clearly on Forest Service lands occupancy (including camping) related to "prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing" that does not create a significant surface disturbance is not subject to a NOI, POO or the 14 day camping rule. No permit or plan required. These are what the regulations mean. Every Forest Service employee is bound by this explanation no matter what circulars are offered or silly statements by their boss. The Federal Register is your reliable go to source when learning the meaning of federal regulations. It demonstrates irrefutable agency intent in any court of law. A simple exploration of the law behind the regulations will show you why no federal government agency can prevent or regulate your reasonably incidental mining activities, including dredge size or length of stay as long as you do not create a "significant surface disturbance". I'll wait for the obvious next question about what is a "significant surface disturbance" for another time in another thread.
  6. That would be a lot easier (and cheaper) than the iodine/platinum foil test. Can anyone point to some more information on how that works?
  7. This is about mining claim surface rights on a pre 1955 mining claim. Not sure why so many folks want to get all militant? The BLM has been heavy handed there for quite a while but threatening violence won't make the BLM do their jobs better and it won't get the injunction that is needed by the miners. It's a simple matter for the courts to sort out. Properly handled in court it's likely the miners will be victorious in a short time. I guess for some folks firearms are less scary than courts?
  8. Garmin
  9. I didn't know GPR could distinguish precious metals from other mineralization. It's been my understanding that GPR records the distance to boundary layers - not degrees of mineralization or types of mineralization. Has the ability of GPR advanced far beyond my previous study? Could you educate us on GPR mineral discrimination ability?
  10. There are no State or Federal restrictions on dredging in Arizona. There are some rather severe natural restrictions to deal with.
  11. I think several different types of trespass are being confused here. Throwing theft into the mix doesn't help clear the muddied waters. I think discussing and understanding the nature of the different types of trespass might be helpful. Federal mineral trespass is committed against the property of the United States. Federal mineral trespass can be prosecuted civilly or criminally - agency choice. Those trespasses are prosecuted in the federal courts by the managing agency - usually the BLM or Forest Service. Federal mineral trespass will involve Federal Marshalls or Agency Law Enforcement. Claim trespass is committed against the claim. Those trespasses are pursued civilly in the first court of record in the state by the claim owner. That is usually at the local county level. Claim trespass is usually about overclaims or disputed boundaries. Only the claim owner or registered agent can bring this type of civil suit. There is no enforcement agency. Claim trespass is a private civil matter. Criminal mineral trespass is a crime committed against the claim owners mineral estate. Criminal mineral trespass is a violation of a state criminal statute. Those trespasses are prosecuted in criminal court by the state. That is also usually at the county level. Only the state can bring criminal mineral trespass charges. Usually the sworn complaint of the claim owner as well as substantial evidence is required before the state will bring charges. Usually the county sheriff is the enforcing authority. Generally with matters of trespass only the owner of the property trespassed against has the legal ability to pursue the trespass. Theft in and of itself is not trespass. Seeing someone taking fuel or minerals from another's claim does not allow someone who does not own the claim to make a complaint of trespass. Being a witness to a trespass may help the owner of the claim prosecute his complaint but it does not enable the witness themselves to make a trespass complaint. Theft should be reported as theft. Theft from a claim, car, private land or a house is punishable by law. I hope that helps? Barry
  12. Be careful what you believe Geowizard. Given enough information I could even figure out what you mean by: Do you have some information that would help David given the parameters he has shared? Do you just need the definition of Concentration Ratio" to answer Davids question? Barry
  13. I had a horce name Jiggs once. Speling aint no big deel as long as wee no wot u mean. Now back to our program... I'm going with Chris' answer - more information is needed. Barry
  14. The waters of California are owned by the people. California State has a Public Trust duty with relation to the people's water. California has not appropriated the water but they did take over administration of the allocation of unappropriated waters in the State, in 1914, as part of their public trust obligations. Waters that had already been appropriated or were part of preexisting riparian rights are not a part of the State's allocation of unappropriated water resources unless the owner of the water right opts for the State allocation scheme. Many have opted for that scheme, the United States has not. The United States holds riparian rights, reserves the right to appropriate needed water, as well as having granted locators the right to appropriate water needed for mining on lands held in trust by the United States. All of those water rights are subject to the "beneficial and reasonable use" restriction in the California Constitution. California is not unique in recognizing both the Eastern standard of riparian rights to water as well as the "first in time first in right" prior useful appropriation doctrine. Being as both rights are also tangled up in the State's control over allocation of unappropriated waters your confusion about the nature of water ownership is a common misunderstanding. Water is not owned by individuals but individuals do in many cases have a right to the use of water. Surprisingly the California Water Board has a fair synopsis of water rights in the state. You can read that synopsis HERE.
  15. The mining acts give you a prior appropriative right to the beneficial use of water for mining purposes only. The California excess allocation process (1914) is years subsequent to the mining acts (1866). Miners have, in the past, proven their prior appropriative right to beneficial use in California. You are already using the riparian rights that are also superior to the allocation of unused waters. All that being said you should carefully consider Chris' points about agriculture and the allocation system in California. Should some water authority object you could expect a phalanx of objections, fines and arrests from the various affected parties. You could become infamous. Should you choose to exercise and defend your prior beneficial use right I have no doubt that you would eventually prevail - you have 150 years of precedent on your side. Prevailing in those circumstances could not be considered a "win". As your obvious intent is to mine I can virtually guarantee you that you would be distracted from that goal for a very long time. I've studied water use in the west for many years. You might call it a part time hobby. My interest began when I was a stakeholder in the Merced irrigation district many many years ago. Water is power in the west. It's the unseen base to virtually all the power struggles between the states and the various use interests. The Central Arizona Project canal is the largest federal government project ever undertaken - it's still incomplete after 47 years. The 7 states settlement of the Colorado river water use was the longest, and costliest series of legal actions in U.S. history. Arizona and California declared war over water. The Colorado river was diverted to inland California for two years and much of the land law in Northern Mexico has evolved from the many attempts to turn that critical waterway to the exclusive use of California. Your 250 gallons may be puny by any standards but those of your 3/4 ton trailer. In the overall scheme of things it might well be the straw that broke the camel's back. If you have the interest, fortitude, skill and funds to enforce your prior beneficial right to that water I, for one, would support you. Please be aware of the implications of your actions before proceeding. There is a poorly hidden monster out there and it's particularly cranky now that the excess allocations can't be filled.
  16. The contours you are describing are surface contours overlaid on the graphic representation of the data. The contours, gulches, sections and trails were not produced by the survey but were added later to give a point of reference to the viewer. Barry
  17. Taking your offered values gives us these figures. There are 117,376 pixels in that little image. I suspect the original is much higher resolution (higher pixel density per ground unit) but I'll base the equations on the image as presented. That comes out to 6.9 pixels for each of 17,000 sample points. The original sample points have no colors - they are only number values. The smoothed and color graduated values on the map representing the sample data use about 160 cartographer defined colors to represent the smoothed values of the survey data. The number of input values from the survey may be greater or less than the number of color values used - that's the representative nature of a color ramp. 17,000 samples made in an evenly spaced grid over the 11 square miles on the map comes out to one sample per 289.44 linear meters (949.6 linear feet - 4.55 square acres per sample). Not one per 3.3 meters. If your calculation of 3.3 meters is based on a straight line survey sample and the survey lines are 1/4 mile apart the resolution is 1/4 mile (402.336 meters) - not 289.44 meters or 3.3 meters. Sample resolution is calculated on the greatest value not the least. _________________________________ Resistivity depth is not a measure of the z axis it is only relative to the time domain measurement. This is properly classified as apparent depth. Actual 3D resistivity studies are done with a receiver used at known depths in a physical bore hole in the earth (z axis). See my comment above about the necessity to actually dig before 3D subsurface data can be imaged. There is no z axis in the data. There is an apparent depth assumption in relation to other readings from the survey. With a few accurate physical bore samples the apparent depth can be extrapolated to actual depth to a fair degree but not without physical corroboration. The x & y values are complimented only by the actual calculated survey value. A z axis represents the third dimension, not a survey value. The survey does not produce a three dimensional map. Barry
  18. I've got my hip waders on and I'm going to give a shot at bringing some of my cartographic experience to this subject. We find it much easier to understand complex discreet interactive data as visual images. It's just our nature as human beings. As such it's important to realize that the maps you have been viewing are not the data. These are only an attempt on the part of the mapmaker to interpret the data in a visual form. This has led to some basic misunderstandings of the quality, quantity and nature of the data being displayed. Some of the most obvious I'll explain below. 1. This data is not being displayed in three dimensions. These mapping methods often appear to be three dimensional. This is a common misunderstanding due to our experiences with multi dimensional mapping. If the data is 2D the mapping is 2D. There is no effective way to describe the z axis when all the data is captured in the x and y axis. Surface grid samples whether by air or on the ground are x & y axis only. The only effective way to extend a grid under the earths surface is by drilling or some other form of digging. Just because a sample value varies, whether magnetic, sound or gravity based, it does not allow you to see actual z values below the earth's surface. 2. The data is not smooth but the presentation is. Values vary greatly in any type of single point sampling. The cartographer tries to make sense of the data by "smoothing" the actual values. This smoothing is based on some pretty complex mathematics but they are all related to a few, less than simple, concepts. The basic formulas are usually directly calculated from r.flow or one of it's many mathematical brothers, sisters or cousins. Suffice it to say the way the data is manipulated within this math is up to the cartographer. Usually that decision is based on their understanding of the intent of the map and the appearance - not the actual data. If you want to understand the basics of how that data is smoothed look into the math concepts of spline and tension. 3. The data resolution is artificially increased by a large factor. The images you see as a map are almost completely interpolated values. They are interpolated in at least two ways. By the previously mentioned smoothing and by creating artificial color/density gradients between adjacent values. The space between any two data points is usually shown as a gradient from light to dark or visa versa. Color is used to visually define different data classes or predefined levels of values. Of course real maps are dealing with many more data point interactions than two. This can lead to a misunderstanding about the quality or density of the data. The color gradient methods used on these and many other interpretative maps are what are called "heat maps". These heat maps give generalized visuals of single point data that appears to be much more complex than the data actually is. Data points 1/4 mile apart are visualized as a continuous color and density ramp with a resolution about 60 - 300 (or more) times than that of the actual data. Looking at the map already discussed in a previous post the area represented by the outline has a total of about 33 - 35 samples (at 1/4 mile resolution) represented by about 18,000 color dots of about 160 different color combinations. This visual representation has mathematically smoothed data values and artificially created filler values of at least 800:1 in relation to the actual sampled data. This doesn't mean that these maps have no value. They do have a probative value if you understand the limitations of the medium. As I stated in the beginning we are a visually orientated species. This type of map is our best shot at a quick understanding of the meanings behind the numbers. My point is the information you are discussing has already been interpreted by a visual artist (cartographer). The data you are looking at is not the data to be found in that 2D grid sample. Your own understanding of what the map is showing you is going to be influenced by your understanding of the presentation method, and intent, and the prior interpretation of the cartographer. Dig deeper, much deeper, than the maps if you want to understand the real value of the data being presented. Barry
  19. Here's one: Don't start and end your prospecting day on the inside of the bend next to the parking area.
  20. First rule of prospecting: 1. Don't buy processing equipment until you have discovered and defined a valuable mineral deposit. (First rule of mining corollary: Tailor your processing equipment to your mineral discovery - not the other way around.) Second rule of prospecting: 2. Don't start mining until you have discovered and defined a valuable mineral deposit. There are many more but I thought I would get the basics out of the way. Lot's of digging and processing going on out there in the name of prospecting.
  21. Holy coils batman! Alaska is truly expensive. My wife handled several assembly contracts for a major defense contractor. Arizona and New Mexico as well as some work in Canada. Experienced electronic techs are going for around $30, $40 for a very experienced one, all have EEs. Good electronic assembly workers are making $12 - $14 on contract - usually piece work (no load). Maybe another 20% for internal overhead and management. All mil spec qualified. It is getting harder finding good assembly workers. You can make more as a waitress at Denny's and many have chosen similar paths. Maybe it's the "rare" litz wire you can buy just about anywhere since I was a kid? I've been told that by one of the coil makers. Looking at the winding standards I've seen in the industry high school interns could meet those quality standards. It's a coil fer crikeys. It's not rocket science. There is more litz wire, electronics, moulding, assembly and design in an $80 induction cooker than in a metal detecting coil. The liability insurance, advertising and packaging are much more expensive too. I'm pretty sure that more than 80% of the retail cost of a coil has nothing to do with manufacturing expenses. I'm all for coil makers and retailers making a good living for their efforts. As you can see the actual assembly workers don't. There is still a big gap between the $99 Bounty metal detector with a coil that doesn't false and the aftermarket $300 coil of the same size and design (no detector included) that sometimes does false. I'm guessing the coil makers are caught between oodles of small shop competition splitting market share too fine and a dwindling market. I hope the coming shakeout at least produces some price competition. It seems to have already started. I'm not pointing fingers here. I asked an honest question. Why are these coils so expensive? I don't know the answer but I'm pretty sure it has no direct relationship to manufacturing expenses.
  22. Thanks for that explanation Eric. Now it makes sense. The all important distinction between magnetism and electrical fields was enlightening. The theories most offer about electrical field charges never made sense. Now maybe you can explain why a simple coil glued into a plastic case can cost $300 or more?
  23. That's brilliant Chris, I'll be putting that into my bag of "what ifs" and rusty shovels!
  24. I will throw my limited experience into this thread just to provide a point of reference for a small working operation. Back when I was a strong young man and hadn't yet discovered the wonders of high value ores like gold I worked a medium size (6 man crew) manganese dioxide processing operation. We used an electrofusion (submerged-arc furnace) process. The dross was burned off into bag filters. We would run about 2 ton pours every 40 minutes and the resultant rough ingots were stacked to cool for about 5 days before we sledged them into small enough chunks to feed a 42 x 48 Milwaukee jaw crusher. The crusher was a side feed (hand fed) that dropped the screened crushed material by gravity into a feed hopper for a roller mill. The Milwaukee was electric powered and ran about 250 hp (Manganese Dioxide is tough stuff). The real key to the crusher was the massive flywheel. Without that flywheel I doubt any of the ore could have been processed. It was a relatively simple machine that relied on brute force rather than fancy leverage mechanisms. A simple cam and axle assembly drove the jaws. The crusher axle bearing surfaces were a problem in the original design. A simple piston pressurized pot fed moly grease to the two bearing surfaces and the excess was routed into catch cans. The moly and the ore dust formed a wonderful grinding paste that was really good at eating the bearing surfaces. No matter what we tried the abrasive mixture would feed back to the bearing surface and eat the bearings and eventually the journals. I only had to pull the flywheel/axle bearing assembly once but it was a three day job involving two very large and expensive cranes. Not fun. After that we went to an experimental sealed bearing that actually worked. Back in those days American companies backed up their work and Milwaukee went the distance to make sure their rep was solid. Even the simplest machines have their weak points. There were very few moving parts on that crusher but an ore crushing environment is brutal to even the best made equipment. Chinese design tends to be pretty good but their cast parts often vary greatly in quality from batch to batch. A porous pour or bad metallurgy in one part is all it takes to make an operation unsafe or non functional. With the slim margins in most ore processing operations a bad cast could easily amount to financial failure. There is no support system with the Chinese crushers as there was with the Milwaukee. Check out the equipment auctions and I'll bet you could find an old well made crusher that, with shipping, probably wouldn't be any more than the Chinese option. At least you would be working with a known quantity. One of the things that was obvious in the manganese dioxide operation and the parallel fusion high grade (medical) silicon dioxide operation was that crushing and "grinding" were treated as two different distinct processes. In those industries, to this day that is true. I've followed the development of autogenous processing and they can be much more productive with the right raw materials. Autogenous processes should always be a consideration in any specific operation but self initiating processes aren't always the most efficient. I can't share any direct experience with the Chinese jaw crushers. Two inches seems really small for anything but a laboratory environment. Maybe if the original poster defined the intended use the needed equipment could be discussed with the process variables in mind?
  25. There is no such "rule". There must be a public record made at the county recorder's every year. There must be a filing with the BLM State office every year. Both are required, by law, to keep your locations valid. The public record has been required since 1866. The informational notice at the BLM has been required since 1980. The BLM's role is entirely administrative and does not fulfill your obligations under the mining acts. The public recording is a legal duty and does not fulfill the requirement for a yearly informational filing with the BLM. The rules of filing with the BLM State office are the same in every State. The laws governing public recording dates, forms and requirements vary per State, and in the case of California they can vary between counties. Eliminating either the required public recording or the informational filing leaves you without a valid mining claim.