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 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[DizzyDigger]

Hi Jim, from your description I would call that a mine shaft. An adit would
refer to a mine dug in the horizontal plane.

It should be listed as a lode mine.

You'd be surprised at how many prospectors don't know the difference,
so you'll get no grief from me.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Hard rock is lode claim.

Tunnel: A through-Earth working with openings (portals) on both ends

Adit: A horizontal or very nearly horizontal working into the Earth. The angle of the workings should only be a few degrees and that slope is usually only for drainage. This is subjective of course. Our Shade Adit drops 23' through its 200' length, but that's mostly confined to a pair of spots.

Inclined shaft: Any working that requires ladders or assistance in getting into or out of. My rule of thumb, if you cannot push a wheelbarrow out of it loaded with ore on a repeated basis, it's an inclined shaft.

Shaft: When you fall into it, you would only hit rock as you bounce off the sides until you splat on the bottom. See also: A bad mother******. What? I'm only talking 'bout Shaft.




Shaft with drift:



Inclined Shaft:

 

[SaltwaterServr]

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.

It really depends on if it will be listed at all, depending on it's age. I've got close to 2000 mines in my self-built database that have no names, no claims associated with them because they're too old. County court house might not have existed when these were claimed and being the Old West, some guys didn't claim to avoid neighbors. Their claim was enforced at the end of a pistol or rifle barrel. If they were worked recently, i.e. at least in the 1920's forward, they probably have some documentation somewhere but it can be damned hard to find.

 

[Bonaro]

Be careful messing around old mines especially in areas that have vertical shafts. It's pretty easy to fall in, not so easy to climb out

 

[blackchipjim]

Thanks gents, ok here is a question. Can my lode turn into a tunnel or is that something you have to declare. I have watched the period six videos and have a lot of questions when I watch them.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Lode claims are based on the discovery of an in place valuable mineral deposit. Lode claims encompass all the valuable minerals within the claim boundaries and strikes that are extralateral to the long side of the claim (usually).

Tunnel Site claims are exploratory or work related only and don't come with any mineral rights.

In some circumstances you can locate a lode claim based on a mineral discovery you make while digging your tunnel but in no circumstance can a lode claim be converted to a Tunnel Site claim.

Lode claims are a maximum of 600 feet X 1500 feet and the long way center line follows the strike of your discovery.

Tunnel Site claims are up to 3000 feet long and as wide as the tunnel needs to be to accommodate the work - usually 6 feet.


There are four types of mining claim in two groups:

Mineral Claims
Lode and Placer claims give the locator the right to the discovered valuable minerals within the location.

Work Claims
Millsite and Tunnel Site claims are made to assist processing or mine work. Neither of these claims have any mineral rights. Millsite claims can not be located on valuable mineral ground.

Hope that helps.

Heavy Pans

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Thanks gents, ok here is a question. Can my lode turn into a tunnel or is that something you have to declare. I have watched the period six videos and have a lot of questions when I watch them.

Ask away hoss.

 

[arthos]

Correct me if I'm wrong gentleman but couldn't the vertical shaft they found be a Drift mine. Where the miners were searching the alluvium for pay layers of placer gold in sediment? If that was the case would the mine still be considered a lode claim? Can one dig a Drift mine on a placer claim?

 

[bc5391]

Correct me if I'm wrong gentleman but couldn't the vertical shaft they found be a Drift mine. Where the miners were searching the alluvium for pay layers of placer gold in sediment? If that was the case would the mine still be considered a lode claim? Can one dig a Drift mine on a placer claim?

That would depend on what they were digging through. Rock(any solid surface you will crush your skull on if body slammed) = Load. Any surface with dirt (something you could plant flowers in ) could be a drift mine, look up Jeff Williams on youtube, he has a drift mine.

 

[blackchipjim]

I understand the mill site restriction of course. I don't understand the no mineral rights for the tunnel. So help me out here to understand . Suppose I have a lode claim and went from one point to the other. Right in the middle of the lode claim I find a Vein of Quartz two feet wide and six foot long with gold. If it goes down two hundred feet what to I do?

 

[Clay Diggins]

I understand the mill site restriction of course. I don't understand the no mineral rights for the tunnel. So help me out here to understand . Suppose I have a lode claim and went from one point to the other. Right in the middle of the lode claim I find a Vein of Quartz two feet wide and six foot long with gold. If it goes down two hundred feet what to I do?

dig

Heavy Pans

 

[arthos]

dig

Heavy Pans

Cracked me up Clay

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I understand the mill site restriction of course. I don't understand the no mineral rights for the tunnel. So help me out here to understand . Suppose I have a lode claim and went from one point to the other. Right in the middle of the lode claim I find a Vein of Quartz two feet wide and six foot long with gold. If it goes down two hundred feet what to I do?

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.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Correct me if I'm wrong gentleman but couldn't the vertical shaft they found be a Drift mine. Where the miners were searching the alluvium for pay layers of placer gold in sediment? If that was the case would the mine still be considered a lode claim? Can one dig a Drift mine on a placer claim?

A drift mine is just another term for an adit, but generally not through solid rock. A shaft through sediment is still a shaft. 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.

 

[Clay Diggins]

A drift mine is just another term for an adit, but generally not through solid rock. A shaft through sediment is still a shaft. 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.

You might want to back up and read the mining law salty.

A lode claim can only be located for valuable mineral in place (hardrock).
A placer claim can only be located for unconsolidated material (not still in place).

Both types of claims encompass all valuable minerals wherever they may be found within the bounds of the claim.

If the claim owner finds loose unconsolidated (placer) valuable minerals on their valid lode claim those minerals belong to the lode owner.
If the claim owner finds mineral in place (lode) on their valid placer claim those minerals belong to the placer claim owner.

There is no such language or concept in the mining laws as a limited depth to a placer claim just as there is no such concept as a limit to the depth of a lode claim.

Here's a link to the General Mining Act of 1872. Notice that right there in the beginning of Section 2 it states:

That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim exists at the passage of this act, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth,

You will find one small exception to that right when it comes to patenting placer claims as described in Section 11 of the same law.

You won't find anywhere in the law that a placer claimant is restricted to mining placer material. If it's within the bounds of the claim the valuable minerals belong to the locator no matter what form they take.

The difference in a placer and lode claim when they are located is what type of mineral discovery the initial claim is based on. Past that point other discoveries on the same claim do not limit the rights to the claimants ownership of all the minerals within the claim no matter how or where the claimant discovers them.

The Supreme Court explained it well in the important case of Clipper v Eli 194 U.S. 220 in 1904:

The owner of a valid mining location, whether lode or placer, has the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the location.

One going upon a valid placer location to prospect for unknown lodes and veins against the will of the placer owner is a trespasser, and cannot initiate a right maintainable in an action at law to the lode and vein claims within the placer limits which he may discover during such trespass.

The owner of a placer location may maintain an adverse action against an applicant for a patent of a lode claim when the latter's application includes part of the placer grounds.

Their are several other Supreme Court decisions quoted in Clipper v Eli stating the same thing. It's a very old principle of law.

Understanding the differences between lode and placer discoveries is critical to properly locating a claim but once that claim is located the same rights apply to both the placer locator and the lode locator. Neither is limited in their ownership of any and all valuable minerals found within their claim.

Heavy Pans

 

[blackchipjim]

Thank you gentlemen you have resolved the issues in my mind as to what to do when I hit the motherlode.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

You might want to back up and read the mining law salty.

A lode claim can only be located for valuable mineral in place (hardrock).
A placer claim can only be located for unconsolidated material (not still in place).

Both types of claims encompass all valuable minerals wherever they may be found within the bounds of the claim.

If the claim owner finds loose unconsolidated (placer) valuable minerals on their valid lode claim those minerals belong to the lode owner.
If the claim owner finds mineral in place (lode) on their valid placer claim those minerals belong to the placer claim owner.

There is no such language or concept in the mining laws as a limited depth to a placer claim just as there is no such concept as a limit to the depth of a lode claim.

Here's a link to the General Mining Act of 1872. Notice that right there in the beginning of Section 2 it states:


You will find one small exception to that right when it comes to patenting placer claims as described in Section 11 of the same law.

You won't find anywhere in the law that a placer claimant is restricted to mining placer material. If it's within the bounds of the claim the valuable minerals belong to the locator no matter what form they take.

The difference in a placer and lode claim when they are located is what type of mineral discovery the initial claim is based on. Past that point other discoveries on the same claim do not limit the rights to the claimants ownership of all the minerals within the claim no matter how or where the claimant discovers them.

The Supreme Court explained it well in the important case of Clipper v Eli 194 U.S. 220 in 1904:


Their are several other Supreme Court decisions quoted in Clipper v Eli stating the same thing. It's a very old principle of law.

Understanding the differences between lode and placer discoveries is critical to properly locating a claim but once that claim is located the same rights apply to both the placer locator and the lode locator. Neither is limited in their ownership of any and all valuable minerals found within their claim.

Heavy Pans

Those laws have been updated and amended and overridden with new precedents dozens of times.

There have been instance(s) where a person or company has dropped a lode claim right across the top of a placer claim and successfully argued in court that the placer claimant had no intent of developing the subsurface mineral deposit. It follows along with eminent domain as a precedent. I came across it a few years back. Small mining company in Utah or Idaho I want to say.

I give no credence to mining laws written and interpreted more than a century ago. They formed the basis for today's mineral specific laws, but like I said, those have been reinterpreted on a case by court case basis with new precedents being established.

Anyone seeking specific protections need to be up to date on their local state laws that are more restrictive than the general federal laws.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Those laws have been updated and amended and overridden with new precedents dozens of times.

There have been instance(s) where a person or company has dropped a lode claim right across the top of a placer claim and successfully argued in court that the placer claimant had no intent of developing the subsurface mineral deposit. It follows along with eminent domain as a precedent. I came across it a few years back. Small mining company in Utah or Idaho I want to say.

I give no credence to mining laws written and interpreted more than a century ago. They formed the basis for today's mineral specific laws, but like I said, those have been reinterpreted on a case by court case basis with new precedents being established.

Anyone seeking specific protections need to be up to date on their local state laws that are more restrictive than the general federal laws.

I would LOVE for you to provide those new amended laws salty.

I'll wait a reasonable time for you to come up with your "updated and amended and overridden with new precedents" for balance and then I will post much more recent court decisions quoting the "old" laws and court decisions.

You are mistaken.

Heavy Pans

 

[SaltwaterServr]

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.