Laserfiche WebLink
31 RMMLF-INST 12 (1985) <br />31 RMMLF-INST 12 (1985) <br />(Publication page references are not available for this document.) <br />[1] Repeal <br />[2] BLM Regulations <br />[3] Mining Laws for Stale Lands <br />§ 12.04 Lodes Within Placers <br />[1] Rights of Placer Claimant <br />[2] Lodes 'Known [o Exisf <br />[3j Rights of Other Locators <br />[4] Dimensions of Lode Claims Within Placers <br />[aj Width--The 25-Foot Problem <br />[b] Length <br />§ 12.05 Double-Staking <br />[lj Rationale for [he Practice <br />[2j Legal Risk <br />[3] Proper Sequence <br />[4j Size of Lode Claims <br />§ 12.06 Conclusion <br />§ 12.01 Introduction <br />Page 4 of 33 <br />Under the federal mining laws, [FNl] the locator of a mining c]aim faces the often difficult and sometimes <br />perilous determination of whether [o make a lode ]oca[ion or a pacer location. This determination is <br />necessitated by an artificial and sometimes confusing legal distinction between the types of mineral <br />deposits. [FN2] The peril arises because a locator's failure to select the proper form of location may <br />invalidate the claim. [FN3] <br />This paper examines [he legal distinction between ]ode and placer deposits and the legal standards For <br />determining whether a deposit should be located as a lode or a placer. It also discusses [he closely related subject <br />of appropriation of lodes within placers and [he legal uncertainties attending the industry's practice of <br />double-staking as a hedge against the lode-placer distinction and the problem of locating lodes within placer claims. <br />§ 12.02 Lode-Placer Distinction <br />[1] Source of the Legal Distinction <br />© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. <br /> <br />://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split... 6/ 14/2006 <br />