Talk:Chuquicamata

Mining High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chile

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I just wanted to point out that the Kennecott mine also claims to be the largest open pit mine in the world

Largest mine in the world[edit]

It seems that a number of mines make this claim (specifically Kennecott_Copper_Mine in Utah), while i have certainly seen this claim in literature relating to chuqui (it is also writton on a sign by the entrance to the mine site). It might be more sensible to make the statement this qualitatively in all cases and make the measure explicit ( by volume, depth, diameter of mined area etc..) which all seem to have been used to justify the appropriate "I'm the biggest" claims. Zootalures 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that Chuqui is the largest open pit mine (not only cooper mine) in the world. Kennecott_Copper_Mine in Utah is the biggest. Chuquicamata has de bigger extension in kilometers, but the other one has the biggest volume, because the hole is deeper.

I added an internal link to Bingham and left the title of World's largest open. I will post a similar change to he Bingham site.Rockford1963 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingham Canyon looks much bigger than Chuqui because it started out as a depression in the hills and the benches have gradually crept up the hillsides (it was a canyon after all). I don't know which operation has moved the most dirt but there can be no doubt that Chuqui has produced far more copper than any other mine in the world, probably double that of Bingham Canyon by now. It will be overtaken by Escondida in a few years but for the moment its the biggest Egoli (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of proven / probable reserve would be a good number to have as far as 'biggest' claims go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unkle george (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Mine[edit]

I know there was a discussion about comparisons between this mine and Kennecott Copper Mine in Utah. What should also be mentioned somewhere is that there is more than a casual relationship between the two mines, as they were managed by the same company at one point during the history of the two mines. Mining techniques for the two mines are also very similar in part because of this relationship, as well as the fact that they are extracting ore in essentially the same manner. Yeah, I know, sources and all, but it is something that would be interesting to add. --Robert Horning 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What same company? Chuquicamata was discovered by the Guggenheims (ASARCO), and later sold to Anaconda in the 1920s. I wasn't aware that the Kennecott mine in Utah was ever part of ASARCO (certainly not Anaconda).BSMet94 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably true to say that open pit copper mining techniques have been pretty much the same the world over at any given time for the last 100 years, first rail and shovel then truck and shovel Egoli (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Photo[edit]

I doubt very much whether the top photo is of Chuqui. It certainly isn't the main pit (far too small) or Radomiro Tomic (wrong topography) and it doesn't look much like Mina Sur either. I would be surprised if you flew over Chuqui on a flight from Santiago to Calama because Chuqui is well north of Calama airport. To me it looks a bit like one of the Mantos Blancos pits but that is just a guess. Mafestel (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it. That photo is of the main pit at Barrick's Zaldivar mine, next to Escondida Norte. Mafestel (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Producing more copper???[edit]

One comment says that going underground will increase Chuqui's capacity to produce copper. This is not necessarily correct. The open pit, which produces over 500,000 tonnes copper p.a. will close once the underground mine gets under way and maximum production from underground is currently only estimated at 350,000 tonnes copper p.a. and that not for more than six or seven years. Mansa Mina will make up for some of this loss as might the expansion of the leaching operations. Taking Codelco Norte as a whole, Toki is rather an unknown quantity at this stage and Radomiro Tomic is now a mature operation. There is a lot of info out there which will take some time to analyse sensibly. Mafestel (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations[edit]

Sorry. I put in two alterations without reasons. The first is a rewrite of the first paragraph with a bit more information and the second is the removal of the comment that the startup of the underground mine will increase Chuqui's copper production considerably. Theis is not necessarily true, see above (Mansa Mina is actually the Alejandro Hales developing mine).Egoli (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chuquicamata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]