Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

USAIsAUcountry t1_jd045pp wrote

Reply to comment by RequiemForSM in TIL of Trix, a t-rex skeleton that is considered one of the most complete skeletons ever found. It was found only in 2013 on a farmers land in Montana, US. It was bought from the farmer for almost $5mil and is now on permanent display in The Netherlands. by lucamila5

If there was no established criteria for what is considered a mineral under the mineral rights other than a loose definition of the word then I guess that's not the fault of the claimant. Perhaps I judged them too harshly.

−15

RamboGoesMeow t1_jd08i0g wrote

I mean, fossils are just minerals in the shape of ancient bones. Unless they had rights to specific minerals/metals, it would only seem fair that they have a claim to part, if not all, of it IMO. Still, this was an awesome find regardless.

18

USAIsAUcountry t1_jd0gc77 wrote

A line should be drawn somewhere, or not at all. Seems senseless to have it open to interpretation. Should it just be anything containing a mineral regardless of the origin then? We can argue that a lot of things are minerals that we wouldn't normally consider minerals, gravel, ice, snail shells or whatever you want really.

Perhaps it would be better if it was just mining rights that apply to anything of significant value that is unearthed from the ground. That's what people are out after anyway.

4

its_not_you_its_ye t1_jd0i0wt wrote

> A line should be drawn somewhere, or not at all.

Hard to disagree; I think these are the only options.

3

USAIsAUcountry t1_jd0ksyo wrote

There's also a third option where you try to adhere to a definition but lack a consensus and then end up in a 5 year dispute trying to establish whether a fossil is a mineral or not.

1