Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />On January 27, 1994, MCR located the Calcite Nos. 1-7 <br />mining claims. See Attachments 12 through 18. These claims <br />overlap the community pit as to 140 acres in the SE1/4 Sec. 36, <br />T. 5 S., R. 89 W., 6th P.M., lands embraced by the abandoned <br />Tiger 2-6, Lynx 2-6 and Lion 2-6 claims, including the quarry. <br />In a February 1, 1994, letter to the BLM, Robert Delaney, writing <br />as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for MCR, advised <br />the BLM of the location of the Calcite claims. The BLM responded <br />with the February 25, 1994, from which the appellants have <br />appealed. <br />MCR points out that the BLM had concluded that Pitkin <br />had the right to sell waste limestone produced as a result of the <br />processing locatable limestone. SOR at 2-3. However, this was <br />done when the waste was being accumulated as locatable grade <br />limestone was being processed and sold by Pitkin for a qualifying <br />end-use. MCR does not now have the right to sell the waste <br />materials accumulated as a result of Pitkin~s operations. <br />When the ore from a mineral deposit in public land <br />embraced by a valid mining claim is severed from the land, and <br />processed, it becomes the personal property of the person whose <br />right it was to sever it. Forbes v. Gracv, 94 U.S. 762, 765-66 <br />(1877); Smith v. E1 Paso.Gold Mines. Inc., 720 P. 2d 608, 610 <br />material over that afforded the claimants under their mineral <br />location." 127 IBLA at 77. <br />8 <br />