Talk:Bingham Canyon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bingham Canyon redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Utah

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Utah portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Utah.

Chuquicamata mine is largest?

The Chuquicamata mine in Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuquicamata) also claims to be the largest open pit mine in the world. I'm in Chile and it is common knowledge here. Maybe precise measurements should be detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.14.108.1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article states that it is the largest open-pit copper mine, perhaps that is the source of confusion? I haven't read up on the topic, so I'm not sure if it is larger or not. --Lethargy 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuquicamata is also a copper mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.14.108.1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the article I was referring to. :) --Lethargy 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited Bingaham Canyon years ago, they claimed that Bingham canyon was the largest pit, but that Chuquicamata produced more copper, because of the higher ore grade at Chuqui.Plazak 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the suggestion of merging with Kennecott Copper Mine - a good idea, but keep the title of the merged article as Bingham Canyon, the more commonly known reference. --Geologyguy 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be good reasons to combine articles, but in this case, may I suggest that we keep data in separate articles because there is going to be LOTS of information about activities which are necessary after mine closure... (unsigned, unknown author)

The article Kennecott Copper Mine repeats info present here at "Bingham Canyon" and I still support a merger of those articles. However the article Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation contains significant different information and seems more reasonable to maintain separately. The two articles should probably be interlinked a bit more (or at least more prominently). Cheers Geologyguy 12:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two ought to be merged under the title Bingham Canyon mine. To me, the actual Kennecott copper mine is up in Alaska. The Bingham Canyon mine is operated by the Kennecott Copper Company.Plazak 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Overhaul of this Article

Over the next several days, I'm going to try and completely rewrite this article to change this from being essentially a duplicate of Kennecott Copper Mine to talking about the former city of Bingham Canyon, Utah and the physcial canyon that the city was built in. It is a part of the story of Kennecott Copper, but there was much more to it than that.

Here is a list of internet articles that I'm going to get started on to compile into the newly revised article about Bingham Canyon:

In short, this page is going to be the more historical information about what Bingham Canyon used to be like, and Kennecott Copper is going to be more about what is currently there, at least that is what I'm proposing. The current article certainly doesn't do this topic any justice and needs to be revised or pratically deleted. Living in Utah, I'm sure I can dig up some historical books about the topic as well that might be more difficult to find elsewhere. --Robert Horning 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Once you start adding info I'll see if I can help by copy-editing. If you need any help I can be reached at my talk page. --Lethargy 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gold...

Some of the figures used in this article relate to ounces of gold. Gold is normally measured in troy ounces rather than standard ounces. The article does not state what measurement was used. The article claims 23 million ounces of gold or is it 23 million troy ounces of gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.59.148 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that it is troy ounces, as standard dry weight ounces are very seldom used to measure gold. Admittedly a source needs to be used, but I believe this is a quote from the Kennecott Mines website or promotional literature, where the P.R. agent didn't specify which unit they were using either. I'm sure that Kennecott would be willing to clear up anything like this that might be put into dispute. --Robert Horning 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen "ounces of gold" refer to anything except troy ounces.Plazak 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's Largest...

I recently made changes to this page and the Chuquicamata page, leaving the question of world's largest open pit copper mine not answered. The claim for th world's largest man made excavation deserves a citation with a statistic, as does the largest open pit copper mine question. The citation should mention something like amount of material moved, depth and or width of the mine, etc.Rockford1963 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]