Talk:Porphyry copper deposit

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.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Porphyry copper deposit is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed the following, prior toa bit more discussion:

Low-grade but very large "porphyry uranium deposits" have been studied as future resources. The most well-known of this class is the Rossing deposit in Namibia.

F. C. Armstrong (1974) Uranium resources of the future-"porphyry" uranium deposits, in Formation of Uranium Ore Deposits, Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, p.625-635.

As far as I am aware, the Rossing deposit is hosted within an alkaline granitoid, heavily modified by metamorphism, which is not technically in line with most porphyry copper deposits, given a lack of alteration similarities, metal zonation, etc. As far as I recall (being in South Africa, not my usual haunt in australia, and away from my literature) that the uranium resides primarily in phosphates such as apatite, monazite, etcetera. This is again, not really a 'porphyry' style deposit as the type of magma (alkaline silica-undersaturated and highly potassic) is not at all the same.

I am, however, merely ecouraging someoe to come and say why it should be included ere, versus under perhaps its own class, where it currently more or less resides. The search for another Rossing has been long and unfortunetely rather fruitless, meaning, again, anging it on the coathanger of a porphyry deposit is drawing a rather long bow...it is like claiming that the Olymic Dam deposit isn't now an IOCG, it's a porphyry uranium deposit. Rolinator 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had put it in based on the cited reference, but if it doesn't belong, then leave it out. Plazak 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania please (you have Oceana.) 115.187.228.230 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

The phrase "1.7 times 1011 tons of copper" seems to be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.104.60 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly "10^11" is what was meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.104.60 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 1.7×10¹¹ tons of copper. Vsmith (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements needed!

First and foremost, we need photos and illustrations of what's going on. I'll put it on my list, but help is welcome! I don't think a newcomer would get much out of the body of the article now. The lede and list of mines are fine.

Second, the cartoon model (from USGS) is blurry and hard to make out. I'll look for something better, and try to get permission to use it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Porphyry copper deposit. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]