Golden Shovel Issue#9 - July, 2022 - Mitch's Musings - Its All A Conspiracy!

​Back in 2005 the mineral titles went online. The digital age in mining had begun. No longer were we staking claims with post and tags and no longer was history confined to the archives spread throughout the province in obscure government buildings.
Online mapping and staking also produced a location for what are called Min files. The Minfile system was the first nonfinancial data base in the government of BC. This is during the 1970’s when it was on the main frames. In those days you would call the ministry and they would print you a minfile on a dotmatrix printer with a tractor feed. These Minfiles are technical reports written by claim owners that contain information specific to an area and are located on the mineral title online maps appropriately. Anyone can access this information, but its value is to whomever stakes a mineral or placer claim in that area.
The information contained in these min files can be extensive. These reports show the geology and history of the province. The whole point of these reports being made public is for people to do research on their claim and use that information to further their mineral/placer exploration.
Mineral/placer Exploration is very much like working a mystery. It is a process of elimination. Through the min files a miner can read the past and learn what they did to do something new. Each new venture recorded as a min file adds to the historical record. It also adds to the potential for a future claim owner to make their own discovery.
I use the Minfile system regularly. Then one day I looked at one of my claims on mineral titles and the min file associated with the area was gone!
In speaking with other claim owners, we all agreed it seems a bit suspicious. With the outrageous politics in the industry, its a plausible argument this was just one more tactic the government was doing to harm the miner. Why were min files disappearing? Are they closing out information like they are closing out ground for staking?
I contacted a Mineral Resource Geoscientist employed by the ministry in the geological survey department, and he helped me understand enough to share the following with you.
I was able to provide him with the min file number and he was able to locate the min file where it was supposed to be. However, he is viewing it on MapPlace2, another government online mapping program.
I asked why the location associated with the Minfile were not located accurately to where the work was performed. His response was that it had to do with updating. Larger projects pegged on Minfile can be (in my case) based on a drill hole location in 2009. This location can change later on as the project moves. The ministry doesn’t necessarily follow the project. They follow where there’s mineralization found. This is an old issue as the argument is
“well it should be over here” and the response is “that is where there are working now in 2022 but in 2009, they were working somewhere else as part of that project”.
Sometimes the ministry will add something new to the file or keep it as that one. When you go through the Minfiles information and supporting documentation such as assessment work reports you can see they were in a number of places. You can see 3 or 4 different soil grids, a couple geophysical things, and that is why you need to check deeper.
Then there Minfiles that will show discovery outcrops with a whole bunch of work done nearby. Everybody thinks that the work location is the project. However, the ministry tries to tie the Minfile to a point on the ground where you could walk up and beat it with a hammer and you would be at the point of that mineral occurrence vrs a geophysical target in a different location that you cant put your hand on it.
An example is Eskay creek. A lot of the original work was done in the 1930’s. The work was done in this one area that everyone was looking at and nobody came up with anything but then when a few of the companies backed off and tried to drill underneath they hit something else. That is Eskay creek as we know it now. That is how it can evolve over time where some of the original showings are not something people are working today. This can present a discrepancy.
Mineral titles seem to have a lot of trouble with MinFile. They are either using older versions or whatever scripting Editorial: Mitch’s Musings they use forgets things. It’s a technical issue. Government has several types of data sets with multiple versions of software. The Technical points are Software A and Software Z don’t talk to each other anymore so there is a loss of connections. They had to do a major upgrade to MapPlace1 because the software and servers were just out of date and would not function properly. Hence MapPlace2. People like to use mineral titles online and stake accordingly but then they get on the ground and find that they don’t have what they thought they had. Mineral titles tend to have older data whereas MapPlace2 is more current.
MapPlace2 is a viewing platform https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/mineral-exploration-mining/britishcolumbia-geological-survey/mapplace
Go to MapPlace2 and click on mineral titles located in the Legend column. Those claims are what they were yesterday. At midnight the Ministry takes a snapshot of mineral titles and then that becomes the mineral titles for the day. Tomorrow they will take a snapshot at midnight and then there will be a new representation of the mineral titles the following morning.
Mineral titles is always yesterdays claims at the end of the day at midnight. When you click on a mineral title you go directly to the mineral titles data base, and you see all the current information. Who staked it, when it was staked, what the transactions are, when is it good till, all that information. That’s mineral titles data and you’re looking at the same stuff the ministry is looking at.
When you are reviewing a Minfile be sure to review the supporting information in the Bibliography. If you’re looking for location information, always check the Minfile detail report for two things.
Where did the location information come from and what is the confidence of that location?
It can vary from within 500 meters to one side of the mountain or the other. Those that are that far away tend to be older showings where not a lot of work was done or poor documentation was made. The Ministry does its best but with 18,000 mineral occurrences, and the few people available, it is difficult to keep up to all the changes. They are about six months behind in uploading information to Mineral Titles.
MapPlace2 is designed for extracting information for tenure holders to make their own maps. You can view it, search it, and filter it to your needs.
​In response to my question about removing Minfiles, the ministry does not like removing a Minfile. They may leave the point where it is on the ground. Maybe add a new name to it or something that will reflect the latest information. If a project shifts off to where that’s going to be happening then it will get a new location but it will also get a new number with its new name and new information.
​When a Minfile is removed it is based on new information presented by one of the ministry’s geologists in the field. This is when they recognize that something is just not the way it is and should be removed. These are decisions made from the field.

---