Talk:Longwall mining

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Mining (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

NPOV[edit]

Of the three footnotes in this piece only one works and that leads one to a lobby group (the Illinois Coal Association)--not the picture of nonpartisan information. There are "further reading" links to a book review that focuses on coal in Appalachia and stops at 1945 as well as an "educational" link to an Australian University that educates students on how to extract coal. Again, this presents a single side to this extremely controversial subject. Claiming immediate subsidence a benefit is as well an interesting take on this violently disruptive effect. This is not a neutral entry. This is not a quality entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SADouglas (talkcontribs)

I can see that SADouglas is a little concerned by the neutrality of the article. I am not sure what the contention is because it hasn't been spelled out by him. The only obvious (and immediate) negative consequence of longwall mining is the issue of subsidence. The article does mention this, though I can see if it really gets someone's goat, they could add examples of instances of subsidence that has actually affected someone other than cattle and kangaroos. I think Muswellbrook might be an example though I am not 100% sure.
The cut and thrust of subsidence is that it's more or less necessary. The goaf will collapse. It can't be stopped without filling the ground with cement or whatnot. If I was a land owner affected, I'd prefer it to be immediately when the mine is still a going concern than in 25 years time when who knows who one should sue. In most cases, the property above coat extraction is compensated for. Definitely such compensation and mining methods are better than open-cut.
If it's such a huge issue, SADouglas, please add any relevant information on the topic.
Boy do I feel silly for not signing that. Bilious 13:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I read the article first and then the discussion, I did not notice that the article was biased in any way. It may have changed since SADouglas read it, though this is difficult to determine as there is no "timestamp". I am anti-coal mining and have a conflict of interest on this subject as BHP Billiton want to commencing test drilling on our property.--Yendor72 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As ex mining engineer from area of the UK (North Staffordshire) which was the most intensively mined, with multiple seams over 200years of extraction, you are over concerned by the effects of subsidence. Damage to the surface is to an area at the edges of the longwall projected out at 35 degree, (making no allowance for the gradient of the strata) The damage is due to the surface at these points being subjected to a tensile stress. The bulk of the area undermined will drop uniformly and undamaged. The time scale for this event will be substantially less than 25 years, a couple of years would normally be enough for the effect to be observed, and that is from over 1000m below the surface.
Now you might be against mining for global warming but that's another argument!
I think this article seems neutral and does not seem to suffer from the use of sources/references that are from within or involved in the mining industry.
I believe the larger issue is the heavy use of mining jargon and rather long and dense paragraphs. Shorter paragraphs and reorganisation of the content within them (maybe have a seperate glossary/terminology section?) would make the article much more readable to someone without any background in mining.
--I (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have editted the entire article and changed layout and wording for readability and explained terms where necessary. --I (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, excuse me for reformating, please fix up any mistakes i've made in attribution and indenting. Please see Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. I have removed one of the external links which was redundant and changed the order to put the more informative one higher up. I found the Uni Wollongong site a good source, not biased and in fact with some good technical information with diagrams on subsidence, the other link was partisan but on topic. I think the balance of the article is improved with an expanded, referenced, section on the problems with subsidence; and the illustrations from wikicommons. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gate roads[edit]

I'm having trouble following the "Modern methods" section. It jumps immediately into discussing "gate roads", without ever defining the term, nor linking to another article which does. As someone with absolutely no familiarity with mining jargon, this doesn't mean anything to me. 157.127.239.146 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

TYPES OF LONGWALL MINING[edit]

LongWall Mining is generally of 2 types:
1. Longwall Advancing
2. Longwall Retreating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Him.12.pat (talkcontribs) 23:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Refs dubious[edit]

Like all potentially contentious articles in WP, the refs are weak, to say the least. Newspaper articles, blog websites, etc., are not good refs at all. Such things are symptomatic of politically motivated idiots grasping at straws. (Anyway, most contributors to WP do fall into that category.) There's a HUGE amount of peer-reviewed engineering literature on all sorts of mining, yet no such refs are given in this article. If my memory is correct, the subsidence reported in NSW was due to very old mines, which had been closed for decades. The usual practice in those days was to fill the mines with water, which stopped most of the cave-ins, but not all.220.244.246.158 (talk)

confusing pictures[edit]

OK take a look at West Virginia retreating longwall mine. First of all, is this a top view or side view?!? I assume top view; would be nice if someone who's sure could insert that phrase.

The words "Barrier Pillar" are in white areas. Are these white areas the solid pillars themselves, made of coal? Or are they open-air places, and the dividers with rectangles in them are solid coal walls, and therefore the pillars?

The divider areas with rectangles in them: are they supposed to be conveyor belts, and therefore the divider areas are open hallways? Are they conveyor belts, loaded from miners in the open-air white areas?

Portion of panel worked out - worked out, you mean dug out and gone? Or, a mining engineer 'worked out' that this solid area is strong enough to use as a pillar? Is the shaded area full of coal or of air? What is the direction of digging?

longwall face just formed - do the words refer to the neighboring shaded area? Or to the white block it's in? Is the shaded area actually a 'face' - the plane between rock and air - rather than a space? Or is the face intended to be the right edge of the shaded area, immediately to the left of the words?

The Oklahoma picture is a lot better - there's a key in the image. The longwall before-conveyors, at least I can see from the arrows and the door that the thin parts are air and the thick parts are rock.

OsamaBinLogin (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A better subsidence example[edit]

Yes it's all very small and no subsidence happens and everyone is happy. But what about the Mount Sugarloaf incident, I think it shows a better example of the sorts of things that can happen. [1] Healyhatman (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Longwall mining. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Longwall mining. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)