My name is Bill Wilson, and I am president of Idaho Mining Corporation, a Grand Junction-based exploration and mining concern. We are engaged principally in the mining of gold in Nevada, and exploring for and developing uranium deposits on the Colorado Plateau. We employ approximately 30 people. Since graduating from Oregon State University in 1951, save for two years spent in the U.S. Army, I have been engaged in mining and mining exploration in the western U.8%, principally upon the public lands, and consequently I am familiar with the mining laws of the U.S. In my opinion, the Mining Law of 1872 has served us extremely well over the past one hundred-plus years. The genius of that mining law seems to be that it encourages development. Given an initial right to a mining claim, so long thereafter as a person is willing to expend substantial amounts of money in developing that claim, he can retain title to it. Once he is unable or unwilling to spend money on the claim, it becomes subject to forfeiture and another individual then has the opportunity to acquire title and seek a mineral deposit. This encourages individual enterprise, and as a byproduct, competition. I acknowledge that there have been some abuses of this law, in the area of required annual labor or assessment work. The law requires annual expenditures in the amount of $100.00 per claim and it is not uncommon that persons will fraudulently claim to have done the work when it was not, in fact, done. This can and should be corrected whether by a stricter application of our judicial process, or by modification of the laws to ensure that this does not happen in the future. After all, unless strictly enforced, people disregard many laws - witness the 55 m.p.h. speed limit. But I am hard-put to describe to you any other significant abuse of the mining law. Regarding the bills presently before Congress, H.R. 5831 contains significant flaws; however, it is vastly preferable to H.R. 9292, which is so flawed as to be unworkable. In my opinion, either of these bills will result in the demise of the individual prospector, the small miner and the small mining company.. The matter of paying a royalty to the federal government is not a reasonable concept. It will not only result in an increase in the price of metals or mine products, but will also cause a shift of purchasing of minerals to foreign sources, thus adding to our already huge balance of payments deficit, a matter which is presently taking our nation to the brink of disaster. It has been frequently stated, and I believe it is true, that the federal government is the principal beneficiary of any mine (new or old) by virtue of its share of income taxes, not only from the operator of the mine, but also from the employees and suppliers to the mine. It seems unrealistic to impose a royalty payment in addition to all of the revenue that a mine generates for the federal government. The bonding requirements of both of the proposed revisions will materially hamper operations by small operators. It is difficult for even a well-financed small corporation or individual to secure a bond; it is impossible for many operators to do so. In these bills, the bonds are a condition precedent to operations by the small operators, and therefore will literally. preempt them from engaging in operations on public lands. This will result in the loss of claims which they would otherwise be financially capable of maintaining.. To summarize, I favor retention of the Mining Law of 1872, but eliminating the abuses which are still possible under that law. I favor the present mix of entities engaged in the mining business in the U.S. The individual prospector frequently serves a most useful function. The small mining company is willing to take risks that the larger corporations are unwilling to assume, and sometimes will pursue mineral deposits smaller than those which interest the larger corporations. The major mining companies are the only entities capable of financing major mines today. All serve an essential function in the total mining industry. I do not favor having to ask the B.L.M. if one can prospect, explore or develop on the public lands, as is required by H.R. 9292. We have seen what has happened to the coal industry and to the oil and gas and oil shale industries, even in these times of critically short energy supplies. They must seek permission from the federal government before they can explore for or develop these resources, and this contributes significantly to our present energy crunch. Leave the mining laws as they are, making amendments as suggested, and for those commodities which are locateable under the Mining Law of 1872, you will have a continued and uninterrupted supply of the commodities needed for the American economy and at the lowest possible prices. Change the laws to a leasing system, such as has happened with coal, oil and gas, and you will see inflated prices, disruption of supplies, and continuing shortages. Look at where the shortages of today are, and you will see that they are not in the areas of locateable minerals. They are shortages of the leasing act minerals; namely, coal, oil and gas. If you want shortages, higher prices, and stagnated development, then institute a leasing system, and you will see the hardrock mining industry go the way of the coal, gas and oil industries. Our competitive system in America really works, and in this instance it works far better under our present location system than under leasing. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to submit the more detailed letter which is attached to this summary. WLW/jb Yours Very Truly, W. L: Wilson W. L. Wilson I represent Idaho Mining Corporation, a relatively small, privately held firm engaged in the exploration, development and production of metals. Our principal mining operation at this time is an open pit gold mine/heap leaching facility in Eureka County, Nevada which employs nearly 30 people and contributes substantially, to the economy of a depressed area. Additionally, we have a significant exploration/development effort for uranium, operating out of our Grand Junction, Colorado office. This firm has been in existence since 1959, and the writer has been closely associated with the mining industry since 1951, and is therefore familiar with not only the federal laws relating to mining, but also in the practical application of these laws in day-to-day field operations, both in the pre-mining (exploration and development phases) and the mining phase. MINING LAW OF 1872: It is my sincere belief that the Mining Law of 1872 has served this nation well. While not perfect, it is my recommendation that the present mining law be retained. There is no denying that this law, which was written more than 100 years ago, should be updated to reflect presentday conditions, and to correct abuses which sometimes occur. Let me first discuss some proposed modifications of the law of 1872 which would be beneficial not only to those operating under the mining law, but also to the general public. I would give serious consideration to the following: 1. Eliminate the distinction between lode and placer claims and drop extralateral rights for new claims. Only in a highly unusual situation is there likelihood of developing simultaneously both a lode and a placer operation on the same ground, but if this were to be done, it should be done by the same operator. The fact that these two types of claims conflict, and the possibility that certain minerals might be locateable under both types of claim, lends confusion to the subject. In my opinion, there is no need for a distinction between lode and placer claims. 2. Claims should be locate able by legal subdivision where the lands are surveyed, in tracts of 40 acres, conforming to the public lands surveys. The rule of approximation should apply, and where lots occur in the public land surveys, a lot should be locateable as one claim, whether it is larger or smaller than 40 acres. Where the lands are unsurveyed, I think that claims should be 40 acres in size; square in shape (1320 feet on a side); that the boundaries should be oriented in the cardinal directions, i.e. north-south and east-west; that the claim boundaries should be marked with substantial monuments on the ground, and that the claim should be tied in rather well to either a point on the public land surveys or a mineral monument. 3. The stipulated expenditure for annual labor on a claim is presently $100.00. is 20.661 acres, which results in a per-acre cost of almost · $5.00. It seems to me that the annual labor requirements should be held at $5.00 per acre. Accordingly, if the size of the claim increased from approximately 20 to 40 acres, the annual labor requirement should then be increased to $200.00 per claim, or $5.00 per acre. I favor the strict requirement that money be expended in good faith to retain rights to mining claims. 4. A method should be established to assure that if annual labor on an unpatented mining claim is not performed, the claim becomes subject to relocation by another. This is the intent of the present law; however, this is probably the area of the greatest abuse of that law. The law intends that the owner of an |