Jump to content

Talk:Mining

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.242.240.112 (talk) at 13:37, 21 March 2011 (→Medieval Mining Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:WP1.0

State of Nevada's old Department of Minerals abandoned mine commercial/PSA

Growing up in Nevada, the State made TV stations air, instead of infomercials, a PSA about abandoned mines, complete with a skeleton making a "come" hand gesture. It's scarier than a tornado warning with a EBS two-tone alert! I have one commercial on tape and am planning to put it onto YouTube at a later date. I have to review the DVD transfer to see where it is on the disc. It just has a camera dropping down to the bottom of the mineshaft. Not all that scary, really. But others have been this Right-winged nut shooting the camera, warnings about animals, one where a person in striped shirt gets his head smashed during a cave-in (this particular commercial made me erase and entire tape of Super Mario World/Captain N original broadcasts from 1991/1992 TV season, that's how scary it was), and of course, the skeleton.

Coffee4binky (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron mining

How is Iron mined?

You may be able to find your answer at iron. HereToHelp 21:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--- <rant> This rampant page consolidation has got to be stopped. Iron mining is a DISTINCT activity, different from mining in general. While you're at it, each and every type of mining is distinct. </rant>

-swelke

12000 km of tunnels under Banská Štiavnica seems an awful lot of tunnelling, even if it's been going on for centuries. Sure there isn't a decimal point mislaid somewhere? -- Hongooi 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What problems do mine owners have to deal with?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:User:456.789.123|User:456.789.123]] ([[User talk:User:456.789.123|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:456.789.123|contribs]])

I'd like to see discussion of native sub-Saharan African mining (pre-European contact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:User:69.232.105.130|User:69.232.105.130]] ([[User talk:User:69.232.105.130|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:69.232.105.130|contribs]])

REVISION NEEDED: environmental section, "Several million dollars annually are spent on the environmental effects of these tailing ponds at Climax, Colorado, even though the molybdenum mine has been closed for decades." The mine closed in 1995, and will probably reopen next year. And I seriously doubt the "several million dollars" part. Pete Tillman 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time moly prices spike they say that they'll re-open the Climax mine. Usually before they make the final go-ahead decision moly prices go back down, or there's a threat that they will, and they end up not doing it. I wouldn't expect Climax to re-open until I actually saw concentrate on a truck leaving the place. That said, they ought to be making good money over at the Henderson these days. BSMet94 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miner's strikes

I came to this article looking for a link to the mining strikes that took place in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, but can find nothing even in the "See also" section. The economic impact of mining, and the effect of removing this economy from an area is a very important issue that should at least have a mention, I feel. -- Francs2000 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very U.S centric article here. Interesting info but there is so much more happening worldwide. What about some of the current global geo-political mining issues? Coltan, diamonds etc. and the current situation in Congo? Environmental issues such as those happening in Eastern Europe etc.?

Too specialized. Why not start up a separate article on the miner's strike in England in the mid-1980's.86.141.250.177 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"sub-surface" mining

The section discussing "sub-surface" mining should be edited as noone in the industry refers to any of those "types". It would be better to distinguish being captive and non captive methods, or conventional vs mechanize methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.112.214 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 January 2007

I added correct terms, I think they suit the subject better than the ones above it, I would recommend removing everything above Borehole mining IMO... Further the shaft mining makes no sense, it could be modified into shaft sinking... Suggestions? Djoeyd114 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Video depicts a extreamly short bit on Undercut mining. Is it worth a mention? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical techniques

I'd be very interested to see this article's history section expanded with a discussion of historical techniques of mining, how pre-industrial or even ancient cultures mined without the aid of modern equipment or mass production.--Primal Chaos 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records

The line about the deepest open pit copper mine being Chuquicamata in Chile is inaccurate or needs clarification. The Bingham Canyon Mine (listed at 300 meters deeper) is an open pit copper mine.

Kennecott Utah Copper

WXAggie 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Which link would be considered spam? --Remi0o 22:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is a general article on mining I would expect the links to cover most of what is in the article, not be country specific and not require the reader to go searching for the specific information that only cover part of the article (leave those links to more specific article pages ie Mining in the American West).
Journals have specific articles, not a general article on what mining is (although this one has - see below)-
  • Mining Journal [1]
Commercial sites that don't easily add to the information in the article (more focused on company and products - save these links for other pages) -
Association pages add nothing to the article except links to other pages or phone numbers to ring to get more information-
These links are too specific and should be moved to their respective pages
So that would make these links (more) relevant-

Which I have updated. Remi0o see the commercial sites above - they are just promoting their websites, they don't add extra info to the article in a simple fashion. - Ctbolt 02:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call(s). Thanks for doing that. Cheers Geologyguy 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery links to this page but this page doesn't talk about Gallery 72.66.204.188 17:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed merger proposal

I removed the merger proposal {Mergefrom|abandoned mines|date=June 2007}. The article 'abandoned mines' doesn't exist. Calamarain 08:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some work done

I took to work on citing reliable sources. The history is kind of a fragmented collection of facts, but at least it is now an accurate and reliably cited random collection of facts. However, I was never able to confirm the Neanderthals in Hungary. If ever a more coherent and comprehensive history is of interest, I might suggest A concise history of mining by Cedric E. Gregory. I may do more work in the future. --Kenneth M Burke 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Sorry, that's what I get for trying to hunt and gather information in a history book on Hungary. There are some websites that might do fine. --Kenneth M Burke 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Mining

There is an attempt to get mining, and its derivative articles, listed as an official topic; please sign up if you are interested. Rolinator 06:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed working on this page. While I know little about mining, ever since reading The Road to Wigan Pier . . . . I think I would be around to help a project. I am good in the library, can follow a "to do" list and am good at getting done and done well what's asked of me (as long as people aren't too rude in asking). I would be particularly interested in working on a history page. --Kenneth M Burke 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I think the merger suggested for abandoned mines is a good idea as long as the article can be expanded, adding info to make it less U.S. centric would be a good step in expanding it. --Kenneth M Burke 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The 3774 metres depth quoted for the "deepest mine in the world" is actually the deepest part of Savuka Mine measured below the government mine datum (mbd) and not below surface. The deepest part of the old Western Deep Levels below surface, defined as the shaft collar elevation, is Tau Tona at 3,581 metres (mbc - metres below collar). Savuka is one blast (3 metres) deeper than Tau Tona below datum only. However its shaft collar is 4-5 metres lower than Tau Tona's so it is actually one metre shallower below surface. If the depth of ERPM in Boksburg was measured below collar, that mine probably still has the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.160.215 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merge template has no direction - is it being proposed that the info here be merged there, or the other way around? Of course, if the latter, a summary should probably appear here regardless. Richard001 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Records: deepest mine in Europe

According to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergwerk_Ibbenb%C3%BCren (under "Statistische Daten"), the coal mine in Ibbenbüren, Germany, is up to 1.545m deep, making it deeper than the one listed. I personally recall that they claimed it was Europe's deepest when I visited the mine... can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.55.63 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mine safety section

There is an entire section of almost 750 words dedicated to mining safety in the Unites States. Part of that section is a 12 point list of "immediately reportable accidents and injuries" in mines. Is this really necessary? This is already a long article, and while safety in mines is a huge concern, both historically and in modern times, do we really need a page and a half of text on mining safety in the US? I propose we leave a short segment on mine safety here, with more general concerns and dangers rather than a section specific to the US. The bulk of the material, along with the list, can be moved to a new article mining safety in the United States or into the already existing article Mine Safety and Health Administration. Comments? Opposition? If not, I will go ahead and do this in a few days.Theseeker4 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved the majority of the US-specific information to the page on Mine Safety and health Administration. I also re-organized the safety section, including the abandoned mines section into it and removing the unnecessary US specific information from that section.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Employment in United States

I removed the following section from the article as being unnecessarily detailed and centered on a single nation. I am posting the section here in case anyone wants to incorporate the data into a new article. <begin cut and paste>

Employment

United States

Miners today do more than just dig in the Earth's subsurface. There are many different jobs, direct and indirect, in the mining industry, ranging from engineers and lab technicians to geologists and environmental specialists. Beyond employment directly linked to mine-site activity, the modern mining industry also employs many other professionals, including accountants, lawyers, sales representatives, public relations specialists, not to mention thousands of men and women involved who manufacture the machines and equipment necessary to mine minerals.

Employment in the mining industry offers highly competitive wages and benefits, especially in rural or remote areas. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), wages for coal miners are 30% higher than the wage earned by the average American. Employees possessing at least a bachelor's degree in mining or geological engineering can earn a median pay of over $80,000 annually.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 675,000 are employed in the natural resources and mining sector. Estimated employment by selected specific commodity (including mine, mill, smelter, and quarry workers) listed below is from US Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Surveys:

  • Crushed Stone - 79,700 workers
  • Copper - 7,000
  • Cement - 18,000
  • Sand and Gravel - 38,300
  • Gold - 7,600
  • Aluminum - 56,000
  • Iron Ore - 4,400
  • Platinum Group Metals - 1,600
  • Salt - 4,100
  • Phosphate Rock - 2,900

The mining industry has an experienced but aging workforce with a mean average age of 50 years and median of 46 years. Indeed, while the industry will require new employees to meet future demand, the largest dilemma currently facing mine operators is finding employees to fill vacancies left by a generation of miners, mine engineers, senior managers, technical experts and others who are set to retire between 2005 and 2015. However, the industry is struggling to meet that demand due to current low enrollment levels in mining education programs at American colleges and universities.

Mining is regulated under a comprehensive federal safety law (Federal Mine Safety and Health Act) that is administered by the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Currently under federal law, and enforced by MSHA each U.S. miner must have an approved worker training program in health and safety issues, including at least 40 hours of basic safety training for new underground miners with no experience; 24 hours for new miners at surface mines with no experience; plus eight hours of annual refresher training for all miners.

According to the NAICS classification system, there are ten industries that are classified as belonging to the Mining division. Over 2008, the three riskiest industries within the Mining division are expected to be: Oil and Gas Extraction, Coal Mining and Other Metal Ore Mining. These three industries combined account for around 2.3% of America's gross domestic product. [1] </end cut and paste>

ThanksTheseeker4 (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of Mining

A lot of the references in these articles seem to be rather negative. While there have been some negative impacts to communities and environment in the past due to poor practices, in the U.S. laws are very stringent and there are strict guidelines and severe penalties for failure to obey.

I would like to see some of the positive elements of mining here, such as the multitude of things we take for granted that are a direct result of mining.

Do you realize that coal generated electricity is the cheapest form of electricity in the nation? Any other generated electricity is going to be anywhere from 100 to 400% more expensive than your current rate.

What are some coal-based products available to you thanks to coal miners? Electricity Perfumes Detergents Plastics Antiseptics Fingernail Polish Nylon Fertilizers Roofing Insecticides Artificial Silk Insulation Baking Powder Linoleum

Over 31,000 scientists have approved a study verifying the cyclical weather patterns rather than impending doom of global warming due to carbon emissions (Reference: http://www.oism.org Global Warming Study).

Coal mining is a proud and honorable trade, as well as a geological miracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kygater (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I'm going to suggest that an article on mining should focus on the process of getting the stuff out of the ground, (a not insignificant undertaking) and ignore the matter of what happens to it (positive or negative) after that.207.161.98.187 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kygater's reference of 31,000 scientists appears to refer to the Oregon Petition, not any formal peer review process. I have grave doubts that this would be suitable for inclusion as a reference for this article. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize tag

I removed the globalize tag from the history of mining, Egypt, Rome, Europe and North and South America...That's 4 continents...--kelapstick (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deepest mine

TauTona is now officially the deepest mine again. Here is a reference: http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/tautona_goldmine/ . I'm not sure how the best way of presenting this would be and am not a regular to this section of the wiki, so I will let those that maintain this page sort it out. BobertWABC (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

I noticed that the environmental section is completely without references. Some information can be found here [2] if anyone has the time (if that reference is already in this article's list then I missed it). I'm working on a different article atm or I'd work on it myself. Mishlai (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gases

What are the common gases that you can encounter in a mine?other than methane,carbon dixode,monoxide,Mercury and ammonia?


Ammonia is by far the worst gas to encounter so far to my knowledge.

If you inhale 23%ammonia in your inhale,consider your self dead.Because it fry's your lungs and it is flammable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo81001 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to environmental section

I'm not saying that there are not environmental issues with mining, but far too much in this diff is sourced to environmental non-governmental organizations, which are far from reliable independent sources. And the section about submarine tailings is illegal in Canada and the US, if that is underwater in general that is entirely wrong, if it is in the ocean, maybe I am not sure. Either way, I have reverted as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. As always contentious claims have to be supported by reliable sources --kelapstick (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • See my edit summary when I reverted. Note that the text you restored included "mining companies in many countries are required to follow environmental and rehabilitation codes, ensuring the area mined is returned to close to its original state. Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health effects" with no citations. Notably, there were multiple sources which were not from nonprofit groups: these include a Canadian mining researcher (the article summarized in Mining Journal and a UN researcher from the UNRISD. Further, most of the information is noncontroversial. The MiningWatch Canada article (which a very comprehensive bibliography) on tailings cites an EPA official for its comment on STD. Very little research is needed to confirm this; for example, a search on Google Scholar for "submarine tailings disposal" turns up several sources stating the same, eg The environmental effects of mining waste disposal at Lihir Gold Mine, Papua New Guinea, The implications of disposal of mining waste in international waters, ect. Submarine tailings disposal is a term for ocean disposal (hence marine), not fresh water. Anyway, if a decent source is provided, the onus is on you to show that it's either (1) unreliable or (2) contradicted by better sources. So that we're clear, I have no relationship to the mining industry or nonprofit groups. How about you? II | (t - c) 23:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start, yes I am involved in the mining industry. however, that does not mean that I do not recognize that that there are isssues and concerns with the industry, as there is with all industry. That being said, we need to consider the source of the information when using it. It definately helps to consider the intended audience. The reality is that industry has to be more accountable for what they publish than most media or NGO's, as their business and the relationshisp with the public and regulators depend on it. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of unbiased information rather than a soapbox for special interest groups who don't need to answer to anyone about what they publish as long as they don't cross certain lines. Lets make sure we are dealing with the facts.
The only reference listed above that I have an issue with is the MiningWatch Canada one. I would be very careful what I cite from them, as much to be found on their site is very anti-mining, and prone to over-generalization and will tend to reference accordingly in thier documents. For example, the comment "For example, 99 tonnes of waste are generated per tonne of copper, with even higher ratios in gold mining." means nothing, as every mine is different depending on grade, mining method, and recovery. I am not saying don't use it, as they do put out some good information, but be careful with the what and how. Turgan Talk 08:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do have a relation to mining companies, which I do show on my talk page. On second review, Turgan (and you) is right, as most of the information is better sourced than I initially read it as. Some issues that I still have are the sections sourced by National Geographic are quite specific to non-North American, Australian etc. operators though, and should be stated as such, a little better than "many countries do this but many countries don't do this", that includes the self regulation section. I am in the process of permitting an operation in one of the most mining friendly areas of the United States, and there is no such thing as self regulation here. Thanks for the clarification of what you meant by "submarine", but submarine is about the boat, and Submarine (disambiguation) only lists underwater.--kelapstick (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the waste-to-product ratio sourced to MiningWatch Canada may generalize too much, and I'm researching to address that currently (currently reading the MMSD paper). Nonprofit groups may highlight the negative, but I don't think their facts are likely to be incorrect. Mining is environmentally destructive enough that its effects don't need to be exaggerated. The waste-to-product figure appears to be a decent ballpark figure. This school website says about 96 tons of gangue will be generated per ton of copper. The implications of mining article had the same figure (99 tons of waste per ton) as the MiningWatch article. I've emailed the author about her source. This article notes that nearly 100% of the raw material is waste in gold (versus about 10% in potash). Kelapstick: marine means ocean, although I don't blame you for being confused. I suppose I should disclose that I do keep about 5-10% of my portfolio in mining stocks. Yes, regulation can be onerous, but it's pretty hit or miss, particularly in the developing world (I'm guessing you're talking about Canada). Globally, miners are not subject to an organized agency which encourages international regulation; historically it's been more of the opposite. Obviously the regulation in the Unitd States is not that onerous, as the Kensington mine case illustrates. II | (t - c) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not uncomfortable with the 99:1 ratio, rough estimate, if you are mining 1% copper/nickel the other 99% is waste, that ratio would be (not significantly, say up to 5%) lower with high grade material, and (even less significantly) higher with low grade pit material. Gold being a higher ratio would make sense (considering the lower percentage of gold in ore), as would potash's percentage being lower. I am familiar with that Supreme Court case, in fact I started Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council shortly after the ruling, and nominated it for DYK which got it on the main page. Also there are companies that set up their operations outside of the developed world, but design the environmental program to North American (or similar) standards. Not all of them do it, but I can think of at least one operator that is.--kelapstick (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Bill C-300

I was reading into the Bill C-300 and came up with a brief section on it to add, but I think it will be controversial so I'd like some other opinions. I was thinking this would be added after Mining#Regulations_and_World_Bank_relationship or perhaps a separate section on international regulation.

Controversy surrounding the international practices of mining companies has led to a controversy in Canada. It's estimated that Canadian firms account for 40% of the mining exploration budget worldwide.[2] No laws regulate the overseas practices of Canadian mining companies, and allegations of injustices led to a proposed bill which would regulate the practices of Canadian mining companies overseas.[3] The Bill C-300 would allow the federal government to investigate complaints and deny support from the government's Export Development Corp.[4] The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada has opposed the bill.[5]

  1. ^ September 2007, Case Study: The Riskiest Industry in the US, IBISWorld
  2. ^ Thomson Ian. (2008). Will Canada regulate its mining companies internationally?. ECCR
  3. ^ Popplewell B. (2009). Canadian mining firms face abuse allegations. The Star.
  4. ^ Argentine minister testifies to house committee on mining practices abroad. The Star.
  5. ^ CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: PDAC opposes Bill C-300. Canadian Mining Journal.

I can see how the above might be too much, but it seems like efforts like these could deserve a short mention. II | (t - c) 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to create an International mining regulations section and turn the World Bank and the C-300 sections into subsections of that, right now the are related but not close enough to include within the same section, and Canadian mining regulations are too country-specific for an entire section in an article about a global activity (but not too specific for a subsection in my opinion). --kelapstick (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kelapstick on this one as this article is more on the global mining industry. A layout as he proposes is the way to go. This could be expanded on considerably in an article on Mining in Canada should it ever be created. Turgan Talk 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Mining Section

The section on European Medieval Mining is decent but could use some elaboration. It does have many unreferenced statements, notably the assertion that mining in the early Middle Ages was mainly focused on copper and iron. Some references do not seem very scholarly, reference 10 notably. Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph is confusing and could probably be clearer if split into several sentences. The section does not seem to cover the historical period thoroughly.

I am pleased to see references to De la pirotechnia and Agricola's De re metallica. Those have their own pages, but deserve to be in this page as well as they are such an important part of the history of mining in this historical period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10ddeans (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ore recovery from wastewater

Biofuel cells can help in increasing yields, and more importantly, reducing the amount of cupper that comes into large rivers/lakes from the mine. Ie the biofuel cell made by Annemiek Ter Heijne can be used to retrieve copper from wastewater. See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100526g , http://www.wur.nl/uk/newsagenda/archive/news/2010/Biofuel_cell_retrieves_copper.htm

add to article 81.242.240.112 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mining&oldid=419968715"