See, e.g., United States v. Am. Pumice Co., 404 F.2d 336, 336-37 (9th Cir. 1968) (rejecting assumption that mineral properties could rarely be comparable to one another unless nearly adjacent), modifying in relevant part United States v. 237,500 Acres in Inyo & Kern Ctys., 236 F. Supp. 44, 51 (S.D. Cal. 1964); Whitehurst, 337 F.2d at 775 (finding valuation that ignored or rejected comparable sales evidence in valuing alleged mineral property was “grossly mistaken”); A.K. Stagg, P.G., A.I.M.A., Federal Condemnation and Takings – A Journey Down the Yellow Book Road, to Soc’y of Mining, Metallurgy, & Exploration, Inc. (Denver, Colo., March 1, 2011) (noting “predisposition on the part of many mineral appraisers to believe that the sales comparison approach simply cannot be used” and stating that sales comparison approach “can be used quite adequately in mineral appraisals, albeit, perhaps, with a little extra effort involved”); see generally Trevor R. Ellis, Sales Comparison Valuation of Development and Operating Stage Mineral Properties, miningeng’g 89 (April 2011).