There's a problem with what you are saying. If you read the entire mineral patent decision, you will find that the judge, who is an administrative law judge and not a federal court judge, concluded that the claims didn't meet marketability when the patent application was submitted in the early 1990's, but did meet the requirements on the date of the patent hearing. Why is this important? The mining law requires that a "valid discovery" be made prior to the patent application and maintained through the hearing date; i.e., that the mine must be capable of making a profit throughout this period. You can verify this by reading Mining Law by Terry S. Maley, or by calling any BLM State Office and speaking to a Mining engineer who is also a BLM Mineral Examiner. I believe that himitwatchgave the file reference to the case in one of her posts. If I had read the part on environmental permitting more closely and I wouldn't have lost money on this stock, because I wouldn't have bought it. That's where I screwed up.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
