Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />C~ <br />metallurgical or chemical grade limestone, gypsum, and the like <br />are not `common varieties.'" 43 C.F.R. ~ 3711.1(b). In United <br />States v. Harlan Poreayth et al., 100 IBLA 185, 245, 94 I.D. 453, <br />484-85 (1987), the Board held that limestone with a total <br />carbonate content of 95~ or greater was an uncommon variety. <br />Nevertheless, a mining claim in which is found a deposit of <br />uncommon limestone ie not, for that fact alone, a valid one. The <br />mining claimant must clear two hurdles. It must be shown <br />(1) that the deposit of limestone for which the claim was located <br />is an uncommon one, and (2) that there is a reasonable prospect <br />that the uncommon limestone can, ~ itself, be mined, removed, <br />and marketed at a profit. United States v. Alaska Limestone <br />Coro., 66 IBLA 316, 318 (1982); United States v. Foresyth, <br />15 IBLA 43 (1974); United States v. Richard M. Lease, 79 I.D. <br />379, 383-84 (1972). "It [the uncommon limestone deposit] cannot <br />ride piggy-back, as it were, on the shoulders of a common <br />variety." United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.. Inc., 76 I.D. <br />331, 348 (1969). <br />". sales of an allegedly uncommon <br />variety of limestone must reflect the <br />limestone's special value in order that the <br />limestone may be considered in a <br />determination regarding the existence of a <br />valuable mineral deposit of locatable <br />mineral. This special value can be <br />demonstrated either by sales for uses which <br />require particular characteristics or by an <br />increase in marketplace price if sold for <br />'common variety' uses." <br />United States v. Harlan Foresyth et al., 94 I.D. at 486. <br />12 <br />