Many Mining Claim Closures

[Clay Diggins]

For the last two years the BLM had CLOSED many thousands of mining claims on one day. These claims are the "Abandoned and Forfeited" mining claims that didn't file their annual requirement.

Last year the BLM closed 28,340 claims on November 17th.
The previous year the BLM closed 20,704 claims on November 17th.
At present there are 29,069 mining claims in the BLM database that are marked as not having paid their annual fees.

Land Matters members have been receiving updates and maps on these claims scheduled for closure for the last month. If the past MLRS system is followed this year there will be more than 20,000 claims closed tomorrow. Those claims will be removed from the Land Matters Mining Claim Maps next week with our new claims update. Land Matters Claims Advantage Members will get a map of those closed claims for their use. A smart prospector might find these closed claims maps useful.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

Any break down of why the change?
Any reasons given such as economy, health or other reasons?

 

[russau]

I just can't believe that there are so many prospectors that are so forgetful to keep forgetting to file and then to lose their claims ....... OR just to throw the towel in and give up prospecting ! I'd hate to go to one of these claims afterwards and have one of the previous owners show up and NOT know that their claim has been closed ! It could be a dicey time !!

 

[Reed Lukens]

I think that a good majority of them are let go because they bought them on the internet without testing them from one of the paper claimers Russ. Lots of people get taken to the cleaners, then the paper claimer refiles on it and sells it again to the next newbie. There are lots of worthless paper claims filed with no gold or only piles of garbage to be found on them. Then others are illegal filings over the top of existing claims or even patented lands down here in Az. I see this all over the Rich Hill area. Claims piled over the top of each other... If you go and look at any claim that came open that your interested in, lots of times you will see the reason it closed right off.

 

[tamrock]

I just can't believe that there are so many prospectors that are so forgetful to keep forgetting to file and then to lose their claims ....... OR just to throw the towel in and give up prospecting ! I'd hate to go to one of these claims afterwards and have one of the previous owners show up and NOT know that their claim has been closed ! It could be a dicey time !!

Could be they were simply....
Shot down in cold blood by a gun that carried fame, All for a useless and no good worthless claim

 

[Clay Diggins]

To put this in perspective 20,000 claims are only 3% of the more than 540,000 active mining claims. All together less than 3.5% of all active mining claims are closed each year. Almost all those closed claims and new claims are big mining companies shifting their interests and money to the next big thing. Individual claim owners don't really even make a blip in these figures.

In the first two months of this mining year more than 9,800 new mining claims have been located, Here are the figures for the last (2023) mining year that ended September 1, 2023:
Closed Claims - 31,434
New Claims - 68,097

In other words there were 36,663 more mining claims at the end of the last mining year than there were the previous year.

Mining is BIG business. Just the annual BLM fees from all those claims total more than 92 million dollars! More than a quarter million people are employed full time in the mining industry. It's one of the best paying industries in the country.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

I just can't believe that there are so many prospectors that are so forgetful to keep forgetting to file and then to lose their claims ....... OR just to throw the towel in and give up prospecting ! I'd hate to go to one of these claims afterwards and have one of the previous owners show up and NOT know that their claim has been closed ! It could be a dicey time !!

More then likely the previous owner has had enough hard work.

 

[russau]

Thankyou Barry for the clearly stated answer to the question !! A very good friend of mine sold the claim he had and several other guys in Colorado had . It just got to be to much at our age to keep up with ! I had went there and other places they had for quit a few years and NOW everything just got to much even for this ole goat !

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm working on the mining claim updates today. Land Matters Members will be receiving their detailed reports and maps throughout this week.

Preliminary results are truly astonishing. More than 47,000 claims were closed by the BLM in the last two weeks. I'll provide more info as I sort out this mess.

Heavy Pans

 

[HeavyMetalThunder]

I'm working on the mining claim updates today. Land Matters Members will be receiving their detailed reports and maps throughout this week.

Preliminary results are truly astonishing. More than 47,000 claims were closed by the BLM in the last two weeks. I'll provide more info as I sort out this mess.

Heavy Pans

I'm inclined to believe it's just the start (for the good)...the new BLM MLRS system is taking the human error factor out of equation...it's double checking who's been naughty or nice with their past filings.

in the last year I've looked at the minimum of 500 claims reports, and things where a mess, many many many errors...multiples of.

* association claims with less then required signers
* no yearly NOIH filed
* the ever egregious small miners waiver when over ten claims owned...I've literally seen whole sections claimed...640 acres 32 claims in total, with small miner waivers filed!...a very serious matter, felony, big time fine.
* location map to acreage ratio incorrect
* over filing
* withdrawn areas filed on
* etc. etc. etc.
the new Blm MLRS is doing so much more then what the old lr 2000 wasn't set up to do!

the old way( for a new claim)...of file with county, get your paperwork back...then personally take said paperwork to regional BLM office in person, and file and pay there...has been supplement with a new option courtesy of the new BLM MLRS system..

A new claim, can be filed online for the BLM part now! I've checked it out slightly, I've yet to file a new claim with it..

the map down load/ input part is pretty cool, besides metes and bounds and aliquots ...there's a option to to plot a new claim using longitude and latitude for corners, that should be very handy for lode claims...it'll then check acreage, size, shape conformity...and I suspect existing claims and withdrawn areas and such then say map good/ map bad...

Heavy pans to all,

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm inclined to believe it's just the start (for the good)...the new BLM MLRS system is taking the human error factor out of equation...it's double checking who's been naughty or nice with their past filings.

Clearly you haven''t worked much with the new system. I have hopes it will work one day but for now it's kind of a big cludge. They are using the Microsoft method where you fix stuff whjen you get enough complaints. It's slow but eventually it will all work out.

I have to correct more than a million errors in the MLRS database before it's usable. I do this twice a month. Working with the LR2000, and the same data, for 12 years and never had a single error. I have to say the LR2000 was the better built system.

in the last year I've looked at the minimum of 500 claims reports, and things where a mess, many many many errors...multiples of.

* association claims with less then required signers

This is common in some states where the BLM is behind on their case file work. No computer system is going to fix this, it's up to the individual State BLM offices to correct and update their inputs in a timely manner.
Although in perspective Association claims are a very very small portion of total claims.

* no yearly NOIH filed

The NOIH is only filed at the BLM if it's a first year Small Miners Waiver. There are only a few hundred first year small miners each year. You have to look long and hard to sort out the few that missed their NOIH

* the ever egregious small miners waiver when over ten claims owned...I've literally seen whole sections claimed...640 acres 32 claims in total, with small miner waivers filed!...a very serious matter, felony, big time fine.

It's not a felony. It's not even a crime. There are no fines.

What happens when small miners go beyond their 10 claim limit is the BLM mails the claim owner(s) a notice that they are disqualified as a small miner and need to either pay the full fees within 30 days or have their claims forfeited. That's all.

There has been a very effective system in place since 2009 to flag oversubscribed small miners waivers each year at notice time.

* location map to acreage ratio incorrect

Maps are often incorrect. The courts have consistently ruled for 150 years that the only requirement is that the locator describe the claim location so that a reasonable person could, practicing ordinary due diligence, locate the claim on the ground. If the claim is in a surveyed section a reference to the quarter section is required.

* over filing

This has nothing to do with the BLM.

The very first mining law in 1865 clearly stated that disputes over ownership of minerals between claimants was a matter for the local civil courts to decide based only on the law of possession.

By law the BLM can not determine which of the many claims that are over-filed are valid nor can they invalidate a claim based on the location of another claim. It's up to the individual claimants to settle disputes over claim seniority and location.

* withdrawn areas filed on

Once again this is about the State BLM offices performing their required land status checks. These status checks have to be reviewed and completed by the certified land examiner. There are no computer short cuts possible.

Many state BLM offices have fallen very far behind on this since COVID. States that were once 100% compliant with their status checks are now under 50% compliant. The MLRS can't fix this.

* etc. etc. etc.
the new Blm MLRS is doing so much more then what the old lr 2000 wasn't set up to do!

The new BLM MLRS is exactly the same data as the LR2000 had with the exception of every case file now being assigned a new "SALESFORCE ID". That's because the BLM does not maintain or control the MLRS, as they did the LR2000, but instead Salesforce in San Francisco has the contract to build and run the MLRS. I can guarantee you this database is no more capable than the LR2000 was.

Heavy Pans

 

[HeavyMetalThunder]

* the ever egregious small miners waiver when over ten claims owned...I've literally seen whole sections claimed...640 acres 32 claims in total, with small miner waivers filed!...a very serious matter, felony, big time fine.

It's not a felony. It's not even a crime. There are no fines.

What happens when small miners go beyond their 10 claim limit is the BLM mails the claim owner(s) a notice that they are disqualified as a small miner and need to either pay the full fees within 30 days or have their claims forfeited. That's all.

There has been a very effective system in place since 2009 to flag oversubscribed small miners waivers each year at notice time.




you might want to take a look at line 2 and 6 of the above small miner waiver.


What happens when small miners go beyond their 10 claim limit is the BLM mails the claim owner(s) a notice that they are disqualified as a small miner and need to either pay the full fees within 30 days or have their claims forfeited. That's all.”

....an after the fact scenario if small miners waiver/s been validated and later that assessment year new claim/s ownership goes over the 10 claim limit. But to start out with more then 10 claims and file a small miners waiver is perjury...

“There has been a very effective system in place since 2009 to flag oversubscribed small miners waivers each year at notice time. “

...from what I've seen there should be a D in front of the effective system...

 

[Clay Diggins]

you might want to take a look at line 2 and 6 of the above small miner waiver.

Yes, reading is fundamental.

Line 2 sets the declaration limit at 10.
Line 6 expresses the prohibition of perjury related to the submission of "false, fictitious or fraudulent documents".

Maybe you can explain how declaring 200 small miner's claims would be false, fictitious or fraudulent?

After you get done mulling that conundrum I'm sure you can point us to any circumstance ever where a small miner claimant was prosecuted for filing on more than 10 claims on a single waiver.

There have been a few prosecutions through the years for people filing multiple small miner waivers under different names. That is clearly fraud and prosecuted as such. A few have been caught forging a fellow claimants name. No prosecutions for declaring more than 10 on a single waiver.

The fact is that all small miner waiver submissions are subject to BLM scrutiny and approval before they take effect. If more than 10 claims are held by any small miner claimant, their immediate family members or association claimants the BLM rejects the waiver and sends a 30 day notice to pay full fees or the claims will be closed.

You stated above that you have seen as many as 32 claims in a section held under a single small miners waiver. I sure would like to know where you are seeing that happening?

I keep a current full copy of the entire BLM mining claims database (33 GB) which includes all current and past claims. I just did a search and could find no small miners with more than 10 claims under waiver. I do see hundreds of rejected small miner waivers every year but no history of more than 10 claims per waiver.

Heavy Pans

 

[russau]

"Just the fact's mam ,just the facts" . Thankyou Barry for the fact's !

 

[russau]

That's a quote from the T.V. show " Dragnet" Yep I know it's early !

 

[Clay Diggins]

Back on the subject of the thread.

After checking though the recent claim closures MANY MANY of these "CLOSED" mining claims are in fact current on their fees and filings and likely should not have had their case files closed. For example in Nevada 4,074 of the 19,683 closed mining claims have their fees marked as being paid in the BLM database. It appears most of the closed claims in South Dakota were in fact paid on time. Something went wrong somewhere in the BLM closures.

The BLM seems to be aware of this problem as they have been correcting the incorrect "CLOSED" status on quite a few claims earlier this week. That may be because the claim owners notified the BLM of the error. If you have mining claims it might be a good idea to see if your claims ended up closed by mistake and notify the BLM.

This particular MLRS update is really messed up. As far as we can tell as many as half of the closed claims in some states were closed in error. This isn't the first time this has happened with the MLRS. In mid April and again in July of this year the BLM was unable to produce a database copy due to an ongoing problem. In 2022 an error was made that eliminated nearly 11% of all claims by mistake.

When these type of errors happen it really messes things up for our users. In this case if we were to update the Land Matters Mining Claims maps with the new data thousands of active claims would no longer be shown on the map. For that reason Land Matters will not be updating their online Mining Claim Maps until these issues and mistakes are corrected by the BLM.

For claim owners I would strongly suggest you check your current claim status on the BLM serial register page. If your claim has been marked CLOSED in error contact the BLM and have them correct their case files.

For prospectors who encounter claims marked as "CLOSED" on the claim's Serial Register Page look to the Next Payment Due Date in the upper left and the most recent date under "MAINTENANCE FEE PAYMENT" in the action list further down the first page. If the Next Payment Due Date is 9/04/24 or the MAINTENANCE FEE PAYMENT is dated 2023 there is a very good chance the claim was closed in error.

Every claim on the Land Matters maps has a link directly to the current Serial Register page at the BLM.

I would also advise that the current online BLM MLRS map has all these closed claims incorrectly classified. Please don't rely on that mapping. It is incorrect.

Heavy Pans

 

[Bodfish Mike]

Back on the subject of the thread.

After checking though the recent claim closures MANY MANY of these "CLOSED" mining claims are in fact current on their fees and filings and likely should not have had their case files closed. For example in Nevada 4,074 of the 19,683 closed mining claims have their fees marked as being paid in the BLM database. It appears most of the closed claims in South Dakota were in fact paid on time. Something went wrong somewhere in the BLM closures.

The BLM seems to be aware of this problem as they have been correcting the incorrect "CLOSED" status on quite a few claims earlier this week. That may be because the claim owners notified the BLM of the error. If you have mining claims it might be a good idea to see if your claims ended up closed by mistake and notify the BLM.

This particular MLRS update is really messed up. As far as we can tell as many as half of the closed claims in some states were closed in error. This isn't the first time this has happened with the MLRS. In mid April and again in July of this year the BLM was unable to produce a database copy due to an ongoing problem. In 2022 an error was made that eliminated nearly 11% of all claims by mistake.

When these type of errors happen it really messes things up for our users. In this case if we were to update the Land Matters Mining Claims maps with the new data thousands of active claims would no longer be shown on the map. For that reason Land Matters will not be updating their online Mining Claim Maps until these issues and mistakes are corrected by the BLM.

For claim owners I would strongly suggest you check your current claim status on the BLM serial register page. If your claim has been marked CLOSED in error contact the BLM and have them correct their case files.

For prospectors who encounter claims marked as "CLOSED" on the claim's Serial Register Page look to the Next Payment Due Date in the upper left and the most recent date under "MAINTENANCE FEE PAYMENT" in the action list further down the first page. If the Next Payment Due Date is 9/04/24 or the MAINTENANCE FEE PAYMENT is dated 2023 there is a very good chance the claim was closed in error.

Every claim on the Land Matters maps has a link directly to the current Serial Register page at the BLM.

I would also advise that the current online BLM MLRS map has all these closed claims incorrectly classified. Please don't rely on that mapping. It is incorrect.

Heavy Pans

Was it a mistake ?
Think about all that guys and gals that jumped to file on
those closed claims - I know I have been thinking about one.
BLM may have just made more money.

I can't help it as I can be a conspiracy theorist sometimes.

big thanks as to bringing this to our attention.

Cheers Mike

 

[Clay Diggins]

Was it a mistake ?
Think about all that guys and gals that jumped to file on
those closed claims - I know I have been thinking about one.
BLM may have just made more money.

I can't help it as I can be a conspiracy theorist sometimes.

big thanks as to bringing this to our attention.

Cheers Mike

There are some people at the BLM that prefer to obstruct mining despite their mission to enable mining. There may be some of that in this snafu. I do see where much older claims seem to be over represented in this closure.

All in all I think this problem and most of the other past problems with the MLRS are due to incompetence and a total lack of knowledge of mining law on the part of the company hired to create and run the MLRS database. We are talking about a bunch of young San Francisco residents working for Salesforce. Just a quick view of their website and you will see that cute cartoon figures are the theme.

There is a lot more to the story of the failure of the MLRS project. We worked closely on the development of MLRS from 2014 until November 2020. After that all BLM communication and cooperation stopped and the MLRS was rushed out 6 months ahead of schedule on January 21, 2021. It was a complete unusable failure for the next three months. It's been broken many times since. Any further on this story and we will be into politics so I'll just leave it there.

Heavy Pans

 

[Reed Lukens]

That's what happened to mine last year, it was taken off of the online database but there were no problem on BLM's side... It's marked now as current online but with no claiments named, just a bunch of xxxxxxxxx's where my name used to be ...lol. There's more X's then names in my area.

 

[Assembler]

What is the definition of the phrase "Serial register"?
What is the definition of the phrase "Serial number"?

Perhaps the above is defined within the Federal Code as it is not defined within "The State of Oregon" code.

The following comes to mind:
Used in frequency division and counting applications.
To distinguish that product from all others.

Could this explain why there is a number of closures yet have no effect of the "Claim"?