Definition of type of mine

[blackchipjim]

Good afternoon to all, I haven't done a thread search on this because I don't know exactly what I'm asking. I was prospecting last year in arizona and took a break from test panning an area. My wife and I were walking around and she came upon an adit. The adit was vertical shaft with broken down splintered up ladder. It was the first mine that she had every seen much less found one. My question is that how would or should this mine be listed if at all in a mine claims search? I'm going to show my ignorance of mining with my next question. I know it isn't a placer of course but is this a lode claim that in turned into tunnel site? I will now take all abuse and jokes I deserve by asking this question. Thanks all.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

Wow server... just wow.



Ca. dredging law has nothing to do with claim type. It is a regulatory scheme and no relation to location. Claim type is set in stone and has not changed via any court.

If it's detached from the vein it's placer. Naturally or by man. Waste rock throw out piles ore dumps even. If you find values in any it isn't a lode discovery even if it came from a vein feet away.

the majority of the best placers are under many many feet of overburden and there are no veins even nearby to locate a lode on.

The type of hole in the ground you dig, be it trench pit or drift. Does not change the claim type.

Ore dumps and tailings that are taken from a claim for processing at a millsite and left on land are even considered abandoned and not locatable. (land isn't mineral in character) of course people detect on them and even file but, per law they are not claimable since they are removed from the original deposit.

Just because someone does something it isn't necessarily lawful.

I enjoy reading your posts.. I don't really enjoy watching you get snappy and rude to Clay for no reason.

As per the term "drift" and placer mining.

Its a term miners used around here for when they were pushing underground to reach the pay layers in gravel deposits. You will read about many drift mines where there were also hydraulic mines.

Often they tunneled through bedrock dikes and uplifts to access the bottom of an adjacent channel. That is what I call a "drift mine" so did the old timers.

Different use of the term compared to a "drift" in a mine.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

The following is something to think about in "The State of Oregon" laws 1898:

Abandoned claims shall be deemed unappropriated mineral lands, and titles thereto shall be obtained as in this act specified, without reference to any work previously done theron. [L. 1898, p. 17, section 4]

Comparative Legislation: California. Public Resources Code, section 2307.
Oregon Case law: Where the appearance of a mining claim indicates an abandonment for many years, and no monuments mark the boundaries, another location thereon is authorized.

 

[blackchipjim]

Ok I have another question to ask if it's ok. I'm in my lode claim picking and shoveling ore. Behind me is a portable crusher/dry washer that processing my ore. Is this legal in Arizona or is a miilsite needed to process onsite? Thanks in advance.

 

[Assembler]

Ok I have another question to ask if it's ok. I'm in my lode claim picking and shoveling ore. Behind me is a portable crusher/dry washer that processing my ore. Is this legal in Arizona or is a miilsite needed to process onsite? Thanks in advance.

If one is 'Prospecting' a ton sample to try to find any 'Values' is one thing having a "Surface location" 5 acres or more and using 'Mechanical earth digging equipment' should require a "Plan of Operations" or a "NOI" if under 5 acres. There should be no run off issues if the surface is "Reclaimed / planted", This is just a general idea what you may be looking at. A "Millsite" is 5 acres.

 

[Rail Dawg]

You'll be waiting forever. I have zero interest in playing a stupid *** game of internet detective. Laws vary state to state and most likely directly contradict each other directly. Look no further than California's dredging laws.

Hey if you throw out what you see as facts you've got to prove your case.

Going up against Clay Diggins in the facts arena is a tough position.

The Mining Laws while sometimes hard to decipher are still the law of the land.

 

[mikep691]

If one is 'Prospecting' a ton sample to try to find any 'Values' is one thing having a "Surface location" 5 acres or more and using 'Mechanical earth digging equipment' should require a "Plan of Operations" or a "NOI" if under 5 acres. There should be no run off issues if the surface is "Reclaimed / planted", This is just a general idea what you may be looking at. A "Millsite" is 5 acres.

I don't believe you have to have a millsite or POO or NOI to process your ore onsite. There is no law in any state, or Federal, that I know of that requires you to have a separate processing facility for your ore.

 

[Assembler]

I don't believe you have to have a millsite or POO or NOI to process your ore onsite. There is no law in any state, or Federal, that I know of that requires you to have a separate processing facility for your ore.

"Mineral in Character" is a big factor as far as "Administration". Millsites embracing land occupied for milling purposes or used in any manner incidental to mining operations may be located, surveyed and patented in a manner similar to lode claims.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Wow server... just wow.



Ca. dredging law has nothing to do with claim type. It is a regulatory scheme and no relation to location. Claim type is set in stone and has not changed via any court.

If it's detached from the vein it's placer. Naturally or by man. Waste rock throw out piles ore dumps even. If you find values in any it isn't a lode discovery even if it came from a vein feet away.

the majority of the best placers are under many many feet of overburden and there are no veins even nearby to locate a lode on.

The type of hole in the ground you dig, be it trench pit or drift. Does not change the claim type.

Ore dumps and tailings that are taken from a claim for processing at a millsite and left on land are even considered abandoned and not locatable. (land isn't mineral in character) of course people detect on them and even file but, per law they are not claimable since they are removed from the original deposit.

Just because someone does something it isn't necessarily lawful.

I enjoy reading your posts.. I don't really enjoy watching you get snappy and rude to Clay for no reason.

As per the term "drift" and placer mining.

Its a term miners used around here for when they were pushing underground to reach the pay layers in gravel deposits. You will read about many drift mines where there were also hydraulic mines.

Often they tunneled through bedrock dikes and uplifts to access the bottom of an adjacent channel. That is what I call a "drift mine" so did the old timers.

Different use of the term compared to a "drift" in a mine.

The dredging law is a specific example of how laws can be at odds with each other on different sides of the state line.

Clay's, "show me what you find so I can prove you wrong" attitude is why my response is worded as it is.

I found an example years ago regarding how eminent domain trumped the mining laws in place. I'm not going to try and retrace history to know that laws are reinterpretted on a case-by-case basis that seem otherwise black and white.

Example, copyright law.

Company A sells a boat cleaning product in a bottle that has a consistent appearance on the label.

Company B comes along and sells the same product in a bottle that looks very much like what Company A sells.

Company A starts to lose market share to Company B on this product because consumers think they're getting Company A's product.

Company A changes their label and then brings suit against Company B.

Company B modifies their label to look exactly like Company A's original product.

Company A brings another suit for this as well.

Company A loses both suits. 1. The label differences were enough that it satisfied the law. 2. Company A abandoned the product label and the courts determined that Company B can now assume that original label as their own.

****ed up? Yup. Look up Starbright's lawsuit from the late 90's or early 2000's. They were company B.

Point is, pulling legal definitions that are over a century hold to be the de facto absolute beginning and end of legal determinations of mining law is frankly naive. Hence why I mentioned that things can be muddy.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Both Clay And SaltwaterServr are right in this case. Mining law is a muddy thing. It gets even muddier when dealing with MSHA since there are no hard and fast rules and laws. It is up to the MSHA Inspector to decide if there is a violation or not, then you have to fight them in court to get a citation dismissed.

MSHA will go by either the CFR or your companies policies, which ever are stricter and fine you based on those policies. Here's a good example. I am required to wear a respirator while welding at work. Our policy states it must be a half face respirator. I have a medical exemption that states I am not allowed to wear a half face respirator. So the company spent $2500 on a 3M welding hood with a built in respirator for me. Yet they still got a fine based on the policy that states I must wear a half face respirator. Chicken chit I know but that it how it goes.

Most of the CFR is written in blood. Someone either got badly injured or killed leading to the regulations. It just sucks that they can be interpreted however by the MSHA Inspectors.

AS for Mining Law in the courts, well, that gets even muddier. Decisions go both way as we can see in the court system today. That can be seen by what is going on in California. We have a federal right to go get the minerals, whether by dredging or hardrock mining, but more often than not this is ignored by the state in order to achieve a certain political agenda or mining regulations are made so onerous that it is impossible to comply. Funny how some states scream "State's Rights" when it suits them and ignore those rights when it doesn't.

The best we can do is try and keep up with the laws and do our best to follow them. Like I said both are right in this situation, just coming at the problem from different angles.

 

[Assembler]

Wow server... just wow.



Ca. dredging law has nothing to do with claim type. It is a regulatory scheme and no relation to location. Claim type is set in stone and has not changed via any court.

If it's detached from the vein it's placer. Naturally or by man. Waste rock throw out piles ore dumps even. If you find values in any it isn't a lode discovery even if it came from a vein feet away.

the majority of the best placers are under many many feet of overburden and there are no veins even nearby to locate a lode on.

The type of hole in the ground you dig, be it trench pit or drift. Does not change the claim type.

Ore dumps and tailings that are taken from a claim for processing at a millsite and left on land are even considered abandoned and not locatable. (land isn't mineral in character) of course people detect on them and even file but, per law they are not claimable since they are removed from the original deposit.

Just because someone does something it isn't necessarily lawful.

I enjoy reading your posts.. I don't really enjoy watching you get snappy and rude to Clay for no reason.

As per the term "drift" and placer mining.

Its a term miners used around here for when they were pushing underground to reach the pay layers in gravel deposits. You will read about many drift mines where there were also hydraulic mines.

Often they tunneled through bedrock dikes and uplifts to access the bottom of an adjacent channel. That is what I call a "drift mine" so did the old timers.

Different use of the term compared to a "drift" in a mine.

Excellent point you make about 'Claim type' and thank you for posting Goldwasher.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Copyright and MSHA have nothing to do with the subject of the definition of the type of mine. They have nothing to do with salty's unsupported and incorrect statement:

Placer claims generally only protect the top layer of sediment, not more than a few feet down. If you cut a trench, lode claim would protect you better than a placer, although we have an old placer claim not too far from one of our hard rock mines that notes a 14' deep placer pit.

The distinction between lode claims and placer claims are muddied when it comes to lode mining and placer mining

I expected crickets when this nonsense was challenged but this squirming and dissembling is embarrassing. I expect more out of people who attempt to publicly instruct or share knowledge when a valid question is asked.

I have come to respect the members of Period 6 Mining but if you guys really believe you can locate a lode over a valid existing placer you are ignorant of the facts and the law. Imaginary cases in Utah or Idaho, Copyright, Eminent Domain, MSHA or your aunt's bloomers don't support salty's statement or contribute anything to this thread.

Maybe it's time to pony up an explanation based on law or admit the whole concept of lode claims being muddied or better or even possible over valid placer claims is based on an incorrect understanding of the law.

Please give the folks here credit for not being so gullible or ignorant they will believe an unsupported statement just because it was written. I challenged salty in his misunderstanding to help eliminate the confusion incorrect information can cause. What he wrote is unsupported by law or reality. Why don't we just put this myth to rest and avoid having newbies illegally prospecting and locating lode claims over valid existing placer claims? You do your fellow miners a disservice perpetuating this B.S. and embarrass yourselves by trying to change the subject.

When you find yourself in a collapsing shaft it's best to get out as soon as possible. Digging deeper is not a viable solution.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

An ordinance for ascertaining the mode of locating and disposing of lands in the western territory, and for other purposes therein mentioned 20th of May 1785

This is the foundation of the "Laws relating to Surveys" There are at least 8 other "Acts of Congress" that should also be looked at as well.

That part of the "Northwest Territory which became the State of Ohio" was the experimental area for the development of the "Rectangular system", here the plans and methods were tested in a practical way; notable revisions of the rules were then made applicable as the surveys progressed westward until the general plan became "Perfected".

The adoption of the "Rectangular system" marked the important transition from the surveying practice that prevailed in the greater part of the Colonial States, where the land grants were defined by "Irregular metes-and-bounds".

 

[Assembler]

Copyright and MSHA have nothing to do with the subject of the definition of the type of mine. They have nothing to do with salty's unsupported and incorrect statement:


I expected crickets when this nonsense was challenged but this squirming and dissembling is embarrassing. I expect more out of people who attempt to instruct or share knowledge when a valid question is asked.

I have come to respect the members of Period 6 Mining but if you guys really believe you can locate a lode over a valid existing placer you are ignorant of the facts and the law. Imaginary cases in Utah or Idaho, Copyright, Eminent Domain, MSHA or your aunt's bloomers don't support salty's statement or contribute anything to this thread.

Maybe it's time to pony up an explanation based on law or admit the whole concept of lode claims being muddied or better or even possible over valid placer claims is based on an incorrect understanding of the law.

Please give the folks here credit for not being so gullible or ignorant they will believe an unsupported statement just because it was written. I challenged salty in his misunderstanding to help eliminate the confusion incorrect information can cause. What he wrote is unsupported by law or reality. Why don't we just put this myth to rest and avoid having newbies illegally prospecting and locating lode claims over valid existing placer claims? You do your fellow miners a disservice perpetuating this B.S. and embarrass yourselves by trying to change the subject.

When you find yourself in a collapsing shaft it's best to get out as soon as possible. Digging deeper is not a viable solution.

Heavy Pans

Interesting points and questions thanks.

Do some "States" have the 'Guide lines / documentation' if one digs 10 feet or more below the 'Vein apex line' one can "Re-Locate / Discover" an "Abandon claim"?
Thank you.
Thank you everyone for your inputs right or wrong as this can help everyone with there reading.

 

[Assembler]

A tunnel is only for transport. Owning the tunnel site allows you sole use of it since you're the person putting it in. Keeps the other whippersnappers from riding your coattails.

To file a lode claim you have to have a mineral discovery already. You can't drop a lode claim in the middle of the desert with no discovery of minerals. The vein strike (direction) dictates how the lode claim will be filed. Depending on the dip (angle the vein runs underground) you then tailor your lode claim to those dimensions but most folks go for the maximum 1500'x600' unless they're trying to avoid an acreage issue.

Specifically to your question, you'd have what's known as a chimney. There's one not far from me in Wickenburg. 15' or so and went down hundreds, if not a 1000' plus. I'd have to read up on it again. You'd drop a lode claim on top of it like any other lode. Personally I'd put three of them side by side to discourage neighbors.

To expand a little on any "Improvements".

Improvements / prerequisite to patent:

Only actual expenditures and mining improvements made by the claimant or his grantors, having a direct relation to the development of the claim, are to be included in the estimate. Labor or improvements, within the meaning of the statute, are deemed to have been had on a mining claim, whether it consists of one location or several, when the labor is performed or the improvements are made for its development—that is, to facilitate the extraction of the metals it may contain. (1887)

In preparing the certificate of the value of the improvements, the form shown in the “Specimen field notes” will be followed.