Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

feds decree 7 state mining ban....


yuccagold

Recommended Posts

I maybe reading this new land order wrong, but I don't think existing claims are affected, only the locating and filing of new mining claims, I say this because of the wording...."..subject to valid existing rights...", a valid existing mining claim/s gives you valid existing rights to the claim/s.

But this still doesn't change the fact that no other mineral claims can be filed on these public (our) lands.

Quote:

"

SUMMARY

This order withdraws 303,900 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a period of 20 years to protect 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZ) for future solar energy development. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral material sales."

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/05/2013-16215/public-land-order-no-7818-withdrawal-of-public-lands-for-the-protection-and-preservation-of-solar

http://www.menafn.com/eb45641a-c0a7-410c-8bdc-71366e0793f0/Public-Land-Order-No-7818-Withdrawal-of-Public-Lands-for-the-Protection-and-Preservation-of-Solar-Energy-Zones-for-Future-Energy-Development-Arizona-California-Colorado-Nevada-New-Mexico-and-Utah

http://www.gravel2gavel.com/2013/07/blm-land-order-leads-to-solar-energy-development-opportunities-on-public-lands.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au Seeker

You are correct,and this whole thing is overblown ,and not a threat to real prospectors.

Energy withdrawals have been in effect for a long time,and the renewable energy sites

are just part of an old existing system for withdrawing public land. They have just withdrawn

public land for a newer energy type.

The sites are really kind of small in scope ,as in a section or two here and there in several

states. The sites were picked in areas that create few conflicts for mineral production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:old: :old: :old: Found a copy of the Public Land Order No. 7818 on the Federal Register, dated July 5, 2013. W

What is interesting is the summary states:

"This order withdraws 303,900 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a period of 20 years to protect 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZ) for future solar energy development. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral material sales."

But paragraph two states:

"The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of the public land laws other than the mining laws."

While been about 3 years or so since I've had to interpret contractual type language there are a couple of items that stand out:

1) The large scale mining operations are still in business based on the statement "……. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral material sales."

2) Everyone else (all the non-small time miners) can play but the small time miners are not allowed based on paragraph two.

PLO No. 7818.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is still open for leasable minerals and sand and gravel . Gold ,copper,and silver

are locatable minerals and not subject to lease. Closed to entry means locatable

minerals,and that includes prospecting,or searching for locatable minerals.

If the big guys are looking for locatable minerals,they are screwed too. Existing

valid claims can still be worked,even by a little guy.

Most of those sites are just speculation ,and may never be used. The big lease site

here in Western Utah will just sit for at least two more years. The company that wants

to lease it doesn't have the money to start the project,or any real sale for the power.

A lot of these outfits go belly up,before even starting a project. Once the investors

money is gone,so are they. Unless Obama pours a few billion more of our dollars into

this,it is mostly pipedreams. The Utah site is all on State trust land,so it is not a problem

for prospectors. Maybe the school kids will get a few bucks out of it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget about PL 359. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title43-vol2/xml/CFR-2011-title43-vol2-part3730.xml

I've used it file claims on powersite withdrawls in the past. You just have to relinquish the claim if they decide to actually pursue the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...