August 9, 2022 

Another U.S. precious metals miner goes foreign


Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 ]

 By The Big R

03/18/2010  11:14AM

Behre Dolbear just came out with its Ranking of Countries for Mining Investment, where not to Invest. Canada, Australia, Chile and Mexico where at the top. "The United States will remain a difficult country to develop new projects and could deteriorate further depending on additional new regulations and taxes". India and Brazil also look good.
 By The Big R

03/04/2010  12:49PM

Yesterday one of my mining partners had a conversation with a Nevada lawyer who at times represents several of Nevada's largest gold mining companies. During the conversation the lawyer made the statement "you know Barrick and Newmont just want to mine what they have and get out of the United States". Many of us believe this but had never heard an insider admit to it. Considering the way the US has treated them I think they will be better off. Newmont and Barrick presently have 7 years reserves. There goes 60 thousand +$30/hr jobs.
 By Dave I.

03/01/2010  4:53PM

Why??? Is only open to speculation. During a tour through Nevada last year, the landscape was a planted garden of white tubular claim stakes. Thousands and thousands of mining claims have been staked.
By the allowed number of claims that can be staked per person by the 1872 mining law, that to hold them has been cheap for the claimant.
Now with this increase in tax per claim, it will become exponentially more expensive for the small miner and the speculative claim holder, looking to hold and sell a claim. This would be a bad time for this due to the present economic recession thus causing stress to the small claim holder.
Who benefit? The big mining companies do, and the state government do.
The big mining companies are flush with profits, but limited on staking new claim. They hold to many to originate new mining claims.
So the next thing they can do to increase their claim holdings is to buy up existing claims who are unfunded to develop. These existing small claim holders would be willing to sell cheap to get out from the tax loss for holding such claims. This higher tax is beneficial to a monopoly of greed.
The State of Nevada is the holder of the greatest mineral wealth of our nation as well as geothermal wealth for energy needs. There will probably be a need for this open land to support Solar energy farms, and wind farms. With the possible economic development for National lands of Nevada, he who controls it gets the most.
 By Michael Miller

03/01/2010  10:38AM

Last weekend the Nevada legislature passed a proposal to raise the tax on unpatented mining claims ten times. It amounts to an increase per claim from $12.50 to $125.00. All unpatented mining claim owners were hit by a series of increases that raised the fee just to hold onto a mining claim that has gone on for two decades. Now each claim holder must pony up $140 to the federal BLM to maintain ownership in the right to spend his money looking for ore. The Nevada governor, Jim Gibbons has indicated he will go for an increase. The question is how much?

There are near 14,000 miners employed in Nevada. They produce new wealth for Nevada and America. The equipment purchased supports American companies throughout the country. The wages are mostly locally spent in the mining towns. What will be the fall out from this legislation?

For years Congress has had legislators pushing to rewrite the 1872 Mine Act. A key change is a proposed royalty on gross production. A figure as high as 8% is proposed. What will become of American investment in exploration on US soil? How will front the money to develop a mine in the United States? Where will the capital come from to take a property into production?

Interestingly, the Nevada newspaper that reported on the tax increase said, “Miners agree to increased fee on mining claims.” This means the big dogs: Newmont and Barrick. Why?
 By studbkr

06/24/2009  12:32PM

Do you have photos and GPS coordinates? (I'm not a potential buyer, but I'm curious)
 By Michael Miller

05/28/2009  1:56PM

For fifteen years our company has been excited about the gold deposit known as the “Brown Bear”. Over 500,000 ounces of gold were produced from its claims (total patented acres: 580.18). What sticks out is that little development occurred below the drain tunnel. Interpret this as less costly mining in future development time and expenses and a mine owner's dream.

The Brown Bear is the home of a ghost town…Deadwood. Deadwood had a school, a post office, saloons, churches, businesses and homes. And the spirit remains. Ray Wittkopp and I are familiar with the old workings, geology and concepts for future mining. It is a great bet, even when the gold price was half what it is today.

Well, yesterday I listed the property with Coldwell Banker. The price is $1,323,000 (surface rights), a price suggested by the local broker. Our Company needs working capital along with debt reduction. Since the gold collection did not sell, our Trinity County property becomes next in line to raise money.

This northern part of California has rugged features that are accessible yet hard to find in one location: world class fishing, boating hiking, wilderness, unyuppiefied communities, a short drive to the Pacific ocean, redwoods, and even golfing. It even has a commercial airport about an hour away.

After speaking these glowing words about the gold potential of the Brown Bear, another fact is the Sixteen to One deposit and its potential is unrivaled anywhere in the world. Therefore, the Brown Bear is now available for someone else to take a shot at getting some gold. This became possible because as I entered the real estate office, I thought about our awaiting plans in Alleghany and decided to also offer the mineral rights to the listing. I love the Bear but the gold here in Alleghany is at our finger tips.

It is difficult for anyone to appraise the mineral value of deposits like the Sixteen to One or Brown Bear so again I listened to the broker. His estimate was significantly lower than mine; however again I thought about our plans in Alleghany, our expectations and the need to goose this operation into action, so agreed that the “mineral rights may be included for a purchase price of $2,318,000”

There is an ancient saying that if the deal sounds to good to be true, it probably isn’t. Adequate data exists that supports another rarely used saying that if a deal sounds to good to be true and is, take it with a smile. Such is the situation now available at the Brown Bear.

So either with or without the mineral rights, these 580.18 acres on four parcels will have someone walking away with a smile. Let’s find a buyer right now!
 By Michael Miller

04/30/2009  4:42PM

Parts of the world are moving to improve their GDP with natural resource development. China is a global leader when it comes to gold. Its mines have stepped up investment, which translates into ounces of bullion. It also has been active in a different way with gold.

China became the #5 holder of gold as purchases continued the past quarter. As China moves toward more bilateral trade agreements, it recently negotiated six major contracts where the Chinese Yaun is the medium of exchange. Move over, dollar. The Yaun has the weight of en ever growing supply of gold behind it.

As an aside, when I negotiated the long-term lease in 1983 with Lucky Chance Mining, I included a gold choice as well as a dollar choice payment for royalty payments. At one time such agreements between private parties was illegal in the USA. Will Americans be better off or worse if the dollar loses its international reputation of value?
 By Dave I.

04/07/2009  8:36PM

The hearing for California State Senate Bill 670, is scheduled to happen April 28, 2009.
 By Dave I.

04/07/2009  6:05PM

We who dredge our rivers need the help of all those who want to protect the right of mining
here in California

“The Enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” : this is the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This means that the rights identified as written are not the only rights we as a people have. This also means that those making laws in government do not restrict their view of our rights as only those written in the constitution. This gives the responsibility to the legislature in making law, to first evaluate the necessity for the law, that it does not take away these other rights of the people. We have identified these other rights as “FREEDOM” . The freedom of the people is in-fact protected by our constitution.
Sb670 is written to stop river dredging, when in fact river dredging has held and still holds the respect of people as a right and legal method of the miner to retrieve the valuable metal from the river bottom. For the legislature to stop this activity with out evidence of damage to the river eco-system is a false cause to protect the environment. It does not justify such restriction of the peoples right to dredge our river bottoms.
This is an attack on the rights of the people based on false cause and a clear disrespect by certain people in our State legislature who falsely represent their constituents and their obligation to defend the constitutional rights of the people. Please help by standing up to those that would destroy our freedom, and tell your state representative of your objection to SB 670, and to vote against this threat to our freedom.
 By Michael Miller

03/12/2009  4:52PM

John Muir is mentioned (below) as a beacon of light for George Miller and other like-minded Americans and members of Congress. As you read the FORUM entries below and consider whether to make a pro-active effort to squash ignorance, go back to an entry under the topic “Correspondence from the President” on Page 6, written on 06/03/2003, which contains a lengthy and poignant story written by John Muir.

It isn’t too long but full of the real John Muir, a keen observer, not the altered Mr. Muir, altered to give credibility to those who make powerful attacks on the natural resource extraction industries. One sentence goes like this:

“ The importance of these ancient gravels as gold fountains is well known to miners. The hills have been cut and scalped, and every gorge and gulch and valley torn to pieces and disemboweled, expressing a fierce and desperate energy hard to understand. Still, any kind of effort making is better than inaction, and there is something sublime in seeing men working in dead earnest at anything, pursuing an object with glacier-like energy and persistence. Most of the pioneer miners are sleeping now, their wild day done, while the few survivors linger languidly in the washed-out gulches or sleepy village like harried bees around the ruins of their beehive. ”

Ah, John, you wrote so well, these thoughts and observations in 1894. Wish you were here today.
 By bluejay

03/12/2009  8:37AM

I just gave my Congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, an earfull. This should be the bare minimum for each concerned people to do, directly complain to your people in Congress.
 By Dave I.

03/06/2009  9:02PM

George Miller is the number one tree huger in congress. His district includes the ancestral home of John Miur. The ground zero for environmental advocacy with the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society.
Geo Miller is one the most powerful congressmen in the House of representatives. He is a chubby guy and looks like a cross between Teddy Roosevelt and Santa Claus. He is a bad foe to have against you and dedicated to everything environmental.
Vallejo is part of his district, and was very active in the up front efforts to keep Mare Island Ship Yard form being closed. We heard later that behind the seen he supported the closure. I am not sure there is any truth to this statement other than here say.
I sincerely doubt that George Miller would represent a sympathetic representative to mining rights and Liberty. He is the one who is writing legislation to condemn the liberty and rights of mining in our nation.
 By Dick Davis

03/06/2009  6:45PM

George Miller may have kept a casino out of Contra Costa. I'm not familiar with Mr. Miller or his agenda. But there is an Indian Casino in San Pablo.

Tribal Organization: Lytton Band of Pomo Indians

13255 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo, CA 94806
 By martin newkom

03/06/2009  1:53PM

I believe Geo. Miller reps.
a SF Bay Area District inclu-
ding Contra Coast Co. He kept
an Indian Casino out of that
area as it would compete with
a cardroom he was involved in.
 By Michael Miller

03/04/2009  1:00PM

Let me save you some time in responding to the Rahall legislation detailed below.

I called to open a dialog on the subject of why and how did Rep George Miller decide to co-sponsor this legislation. After three transfers and about ten minutes I was told Miller’s personal office number is (202) 225-2095. Call this number, explain that you want to learn his justifications for co-sponsoring. He or she will listen and ask for your e-mail address, which is how his office handles this type of request. I expect to hear from him.

A different Miller employee suggested I call the Natural Resources Sub Committee, ask for energy and mineral resources (202 225-6065). He also recommended going on internet to find its members and seek out the one most representative of my district. I said that nine co-sponsors were Californians and eight other states were also represented; however natural resources are a countrywide issue important to every American regardless of our state borders.

I also picked Rep Patrick Kennedy to contact. Being smarter it took six minutes but I got a person’s e-mail address plus I left a phone message to Ben Kershaw, who handles my type of question. Rhode Island is unlike California in significant ways but this bill will adversely affect its Americans who are likely far removed from gold and other mineral producers.
 By Rick

03/03/2009  6:00PM

Well, we've received "change" ....thanks to the ignorant.
 By Dave I.

03/02/2009  10:57PM

Dear Michael Miller,

I stand in opposition to the fact of congress is once again performing an abortion on the 1872 mining law and that which is being aborted is the freedom and opportunity of American Citizens to seek and hold the mineral wealth of our nation. I ask congress not to do this. To let the 1872 Mining Law to stand as it has to provide our nation with the resources to the demand of our society and nation.
The History of the congress for the last half of the twentieth century and now the beginning of the twenty first century has done more to steal the freedom of the people than any time in the history of our nation. That the liberty of the United States is more and more being taken from us in bits and pieces by the continuous siege on the good laws that were developed to keep America free and vital. This freedom and vitality has so impressed other nations that they are now emulating us for good reason, they want freedom. That does not mean that we want any less freedom.
The examples of freedom lost are many, such as the gutting of the homestead act, so that it is only a law in name. The creation of the wilderness law which imposes restrictive use of national land for the benefit of the few. The same restriction for the wild and scenic rivers law.
All were created for a grand cause of preservation, but they shame the face of liberty for these causes prevent access by the thirsty, the disabled, and the old. The Nation has the responsibility to manage our national lands thru multiple use policy as the best benefit to all of us. To provide a safety valve for people to live when private ownership becomes so restrictively priced.
Our nation needs no change of the 1872 mining law. Our nation does need a law with regards to making laws. A law that must require any new law to be tested to the intent of the constitution by a majority vote of the house and senate prior to any law being considered for a vote of enactment. This would be a commitment by our law makers that would preserve the environment of peoples freedom and the law of the constitution that protects that freedom.
Such a law is needed when so many mighty causes of our nation would trample the greatest cause of all: the liberty and power of the people.
 By Michael Miller

03/02/2009  5:47PM

I’ve known Scott Harn (see below) since he took over the operation of the California Mining Journal from his father, also a solid acquaintance. The magazine is now called ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal. It can be found on line.

Scott put some extra juice in this ill designed proposed legislation. I would not be sensitive to the mining industry if I had not immersed myself in it 35 years ago. This industry is as important and necessary to the welfare of our country and its people as food production and heavy industry manufacturing. There is no employment that embodies the American creed, cultures spirit as that found in the development of our natural resources. Otherwise smart people are just plain ignorant to suggest the following be passed into law. I offer you Scott’s presentation on a shocking and troubling desire to turn America’s well being on its ass. I hope you will take time to read it.

Rahall Proposes Bill to End All Mining in the U.S. - March 2009 (Vol. 78, No. 7)

Rahall Proposes Bill to End All Mining in the Scott Harn
Nick Rahall, chairman of the House Resources Committee, reintroduced mining reform legislation in the House of Representatives on January 27, 2009. The Congressman has obviously been away from real work for far too long. H.R. 699, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009, should be labeled H.R. 666 because it appears to have been written by the Devil himself. If it passes as written, it will completely destroy an entire industry.Here are a few “highlights” from H.R. 699:

· Casual use would be redefined to allow only those activities that do not cause “any disturbance of public lands and resources.” The collection of samples, use of gold pans and non-motorized sluices would be the only activities allowed without a Notice or Plan. Taking a vehicle off-road would also require a Notice or Plan. Any extraction of minerals for sale or use would require a Notice or Plan.

· H.R. 699 would be retroactive. Existing mining that is not already operating under a Notice of Plan would require proof of a valuable discovery to retain a mining claim, and those operating under a Notice or Plan would have ten years to bring their operation under compliance with the new regulations.

· The patenting of mining claims, which has been suspended by yearly legislation since 1994, would be permanently discontinued.

· The federal government would be entitled to an 8 percent gross royalty for all locatable minerals for any new mining operation. Even if the miner is unable to make a reasonable profit at current commodity prices, he would have to give 8 percent to the federal government. Existing operations at the time the bill is passed would be subject to a 4 percent gross royalty, and any federal lands added to the operation after enactment of the bill would be subject to the 8 percent royalty.

· The reporting requirements are absurd. Anyone transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate or product derived from a locatable mineral shall carry documentation declaring the amount, origin and intended destination. Miners shall create and maintain reports relating to the quantity, quality, composition, volume, weight and assay value of all minerals extracted from a mining claim. Failure to produce these reports when requested by any officer or employee designated by the federal government may result in involuntary forfeiture of the mining claim.

· The federal government would be authorized to conduct audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters, purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or indirectly involved in the production or sales of locatable minerals. · Mining claim maintenance fees would be raised to $150 per claim, and would be adjusted at least every five years based on the Consumer Price Index. The location fee would be increased to $50 per claim.

· Tens of millions of acres would be added to existing areas that are already off-limits to mining, including Wilderness Study Areas; areas of critical environmental concern; areas designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; areas designated for potential addition, or eligible for inclusion; and any area identified in the set of inventoried roadless maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.

· Any State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe could petition the Secretary of Interior to withdraw areas based on drinking water supplies, wildlife habitat, cultural or historic resources, scenic vistas or other similar values. Indian tribes could also petition for the withdrawal of areas for religious or cultural value. The bill would give the Secretary the authority to deny any operation that may cause undue degradation. To get an approved Plan, the operator would have to be able to show that no treatment of discharged water will be necessary 10 years after mine closure, and any Plan could be changed or halted if additional information about scientific, cultural or biological resources becomes available.

The miner would have to submit an application to the federal government to request any cessation of operations greater than 180 days. A miner would have to obtain consent of the federal government to transfer ownership of any operation, and the transfer would require a fee to be paid to cover the government’s administrative costs.

· Financial assurance (bonding) would be required for any operation—presumably this would also apply to suction gold dredging—and the amount would be evaluated and adjusted every 3 years. Where water treatment is necessary, financial assurance funds would not be released until there is 5 full years where treatment is not necessary. · States would be allowed to implement regulations that exceed the regulations in this bill.

· The federal government would be allowed to collect administrative fees to cover expenses incurred while regulating mining operations. · Mining operations would be subjected to a minimum of one complete inspection per year. · The bill would provide environmental lawyers an unending source of income. Any citizen would be allowed to file a civil lawsuit against the miner or the federal government to force compliance with the mining laws after giving sixty days written notice. The court would be allowed to award the costs of litigation, including attorney and witness fees, as the court deems appropriate. ·Any miner who fails to comply with any portion of a permit would be subjected to a fine of $25,000 per day.

· Any citizen who believes they are being adversely affected by a mining operation could request an inspection. If the Secretary agrees that an inspection is warranted, the complainant would be allowed to join in the inspection. Complainants could remain anonymous if desired. ·Any person who engages in mineral activities without the required permit, if convicted, would be punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 per day or by imprisonment for up to 3 years or both. ·

Designated employees of the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture would be given full law enforcement powers over permitted miners, including the power to subpoena miners to force attendance, testimony, and disclosure of all paperwork, and warrantless searches of vehicles and buildings expected to contain locatable minerals or products derived from them would be allowed.

· The Secretary would be forced to prevent mineral activities that could have an adverse impact on the resources and values of National Conservation System Units. H.R. 699 would completely wipe out all small-scale mining in the United States. Small-scale miners do not have the time and resources to handle the fees, lawsuits and reporting requirements. Large-scale mining would be also phased out as mining companies would be unable to deal with the unattainable requirements of these regulations, citizen lawsuits, thin profit margins, reporting requirements, and the uncertainty that comes with the federal government’s new authority to halt a mining operation when “undue degradation” is occurring or a scientific, biological or cultural resource is discovered. Many areas that may have potential would be inaccessible. No one in their right mind would provide funding for exploration or operations under the proposed conditions.

The most likely outcome would be that the environment would suffer as mining companies move all operations to countries with little or no regulations.Like the current situation with oil, Americans would be forced to obtain natural resources overseas, sending money to countries that don’t like Americans and would love to control our prices.The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. George Miller (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jim Costa (D-CA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Pete Stark (D-CA), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Ron Kind (D-WI), Lois Capps (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), John Salazar (D-CO), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), and Gerry Connolly (D-VA).

The legislators who have sponsored this bill should be labeled as un-American, voted out of office, and sent packing for attempting to decimate one of the few industries that has managed to stay afloat and provide an honest paycheck during these tough economic times.Please take a minute to contact your Representative and Senator to let them know your stance on H.R. 699. Better yet, why not start a recall effort if one of the bill’s sponsors is in your area, or stop by their local office for a bigger impact? Contact information for each of the bill sponsors:· Nick Rahall (D-WV) phone 202 225-3452 · George Miller (D-CA) phone 202 225-2095 · Henry Waxman (D-CA) phone 202 225-3976 · Ed Markey (D-MA) phone 202 225-2836 · Howard Berman (D-CA) phone 202 225-4695 · Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) phone 202 225-2435 · Rush Holt (D-NJ) phone 202 225-5801 · Jim Costa (D-CA) phone 202 225-3341 · Donna Christensen (D-VI) phone 202 225-1790 · Dale Kildee (D-MI) phone 202 225-3611 · Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) phone 202 225-6335 · Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) phone 202 225-4811 · Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) phone 202 225-4911 · Ron Kind (D-WI) phone 202 225-5506 · Lois Capps (D-CA) phone 202 225-3601 · Adam Schiff (D-CA) phone 202 225-4176 · Mike Honda (D-CA) phone 202 225-2631 · John Salazar (D-CO) phone 202 225-4761 · Anna Eshoo (D-CA) phone 202 225-8104 · Niki Tsongas (D-MA) phone 202 225-3411 · Gerry Connolly (D-VA) phone 202 225-1492
 By martin newkom

05/05/2008  10:24AM

Why not just go fishing in
either the Yuba, the Downie
or Kanaka Crk. and hunt for
the wedding ring attributed
to Juanita the "ghost fish"?
 By Thushara.Weligama

05/03/2008  9:34PM

I think a few million dollars is all they need, and a substantial interest could be purchased.

Wow, check out this site called Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 ]


© 2022 Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc.
PO Box 909
Alleghany, California 95910

(530) 287-3223      
(530) 287-3455

      Gold Sales:  

(530) 287-3540

Design & development by
L. Kenez