User:MeggyPenny/sandbox

Reviewing an article: Room and Pillar mining

Clarity

- Some of the sections are not particularly strong

- The introduction spends more time talking about mining related to room and pillar than room and pillar. Mentions "two stages" then only lists one - many mentions of similar types of mining, but not elaborated upon. Mentions "same method as "bord & pillar" but does not explain of link to anything about "bord & pillar" (also, Spelling?)
- history section is clear but could be longer

- mine layout and retreat mining sections are clear but would function better as a part of a longer section explaining how room and pillar mining is done

Structure

- Take out the "retreat mining" section and work it into a section about how room and pillar mining happens. Will still include a link to the retreat mining article

- Sections being kept will be expanded upon

- Revise the sections to

1. Introduction
2. Process
   1. Stages
   2. Mine Layout
3. History
4. Modern Use
   1. Advantages
   2. Dangers
   3. Profitability
5. See Also

Balance of Coverage

- this article is too short, and does not provide any strong information on either pro/con side of the argument. In expanding this article, more information about the advantages and dangers to room and pillar mining, would be appropriate. (eg, dangers, historical context, current use and technological advances that make the method more viable).

Neutrality

- the page is appropriately neutral for it's length. It mentions in the "retreat mining" section that it is particularly dangerous, but this is the only statement that could be interpreted in even somewhat of a negative way. It is true though, and the statistic is cited appropriately.

Talk page

- the only comment on the talk page suggests that "retreat mining" page be merged with the "Room and Pillar mining" page. While retreat mining can and often is a part of room and pillar mining, it is not always. Due to this and retreat mining's particularly dangerous nature, I think that it deserves its to keeps its own page. I would explain this in reply to the talk page.

-

Sources

- The references section is separated into "notes" and "bibliography", which is strange.

- as far as I can tell, the "bibliography" section should be a part of the see also / further reading section

- only one source is accessible online (Mark, Chris (2010). "Deep Cover Pillar Recovery in the US" (PDF).). A direct link is provided. However it is unclear where this article originates (improper citation). There is a talk that I think is the appropriate - but it is just the citation, not the actual article, so I cannot verify this (Mark, C.. (2009). Deep cover pillar recovery in the US. Proceedings - 28th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, ICGCM. (). p.1 - 9.). If this is the proper citation, it may not be appropriate, as it is just a conference talk instead of a peer reviewed paper. It is cited in other place though, so someone, presumably who knows the subject, feels that the information is reliable.

- all other cited items are out of print journals or books; or just really old, so many more references will be needed

- Kim, J., M.A.M. Ali, & H. Yang. 2018. Robust Design of Pillar Arrangement for Safe Room-and-Pillar Mining Method. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering online.

- Appears to be a good base source, as it explains the base principles.

Suggestions for improvement

- need to discuss placer deposits and explain relevancy

not needed

- need to reorganize and add more content in general! There is a lot more that can be said.

- the references section needs cleaned up and added to

- I don't think any part of the article is particularly strong; The whole article needs to be better cited, and would benefit from more information on all fronts. I think most of the information provided in the history, mine layout, and and retreat mining sections is technically correct but needs expanded on, and better supported.

- The introduction needs rewritten completely. The first paragraph is confusing, the second needs to be expanded, and the third needs to be partially removed, and partly moved into the new "profitability" section I proposed. ✔

- reference to the stoping article ✔

- examples of use in modern times (hard to do, kindof)

- the article mentions that room & pillar is a "variant of breast stoping". Explain this.(its just semantics, link to the stoping article)

Other changes

- lots of links added

This Section will be used to draft edits to the "Room and Pillar Mining" article

NOTE: sections in bold are from the current article.

NOTE: As of Wednesday, April 4th, 2019, all further minor edits will be done on the room and pillar page, and this section no longer represents the article.

Introduction

Room and pillar (variant of breast stoping), is a mining system in which the mined material is extracted across a horizontal plane, creating horizontal arrays of rooms and pillars. To do this, "rooms" of ore are dug out while "pillars" of untouched material are left to support the roof overburden. Calculating the size, shape, and position of pillars is a complicated procedure, and is an active area of research. The technique is usually used for relatively flat-lying deposits, such as those that follow a particular stratum. Room and Pillar mining can be advantageous because it reduces the risk of surface Subsidence compared to other underground mining techniques . It is also advantageous because it can be mechanized, and is relatively simple. However, because significant portions of ore may have to be left behind, recovery and profits can be low. Room and Pillar mining was one of the earliest methods used, although with significantly more man - power.

The room and pillar system is used in mining coal, Gypsum, iron and base metals ores, particularly when found as manto or blanket deposits, stone and aggregates, talc, soda ash and potash. It has been used worldwide from the Czech Republic to China to the USA.

Stage 1 - Exploration and Development

Planning for the development of room - and - pillar mines operates in much the same way as other mining methods, and begins with establishing ownership of the mine. Following this, the geology of the mine must be analysed, as this will determine factors like the lifespan of the mine, the production requirements, and the cost to develop and maintain.

Here, mine layout should be determined, as factors like ventilation, electrical power, and haulage of the ore must be considered in cost analysis. Due to the non - homogeneous nature of mineral deposits typically mined by room - and - pillar, mine layout must be mapped very carefully . It is desirable to keep the size and shape of rooms and pillars consistent, but some mines strayed from this formula due to planning and deposit characteristics. Mine layout includes the size of rooms and pillars in the mines, but also includes factors like the number and type of entries, roof height, ventilation, and cut sequence.

Mine Layout

General Layout or room and pillar mine

Room and pillar mines are developed on a grid basis except where geological features such as faults require the regular pattern to be modified. The size of the pillars is determined by calculation. The load-bearing capacity of the material above and below the material being mined and the capacity of the mined material will determine the pillar size.

Random mine layout makes ventilation planning difficult, and if the pillars are too small, there is the risk of pillar failure. In coal mines, pillar failures are known as squeezes because the roof squeezes down, crushing the pillars. Once one pillar fails, the weight on the adjacent pillars increases, and the result is a chain reaction of pillar failures. Once started, such chain reactions can be extremely difficult to stop, even if they spread slowly.. To prevent this from happening, the mine is divided up into areas or panels. Pillars known as barrier pillars separate the panels. The barrier pillars are significantly larger than the "panel" pillars and are sized to allow them to support a significant part of the panel and prevent progressive collapse of the mine in the event of failure of the panel pillars.

Stage 2 - Mining

The act of mining consists of three steps. First, the deposit is "undercut", where a slot is cut as deep as possible along the bottom of a section of ore. This undercut allowed for a manageable pile of rock in later stages. The second step was the drilling and blasting of the section. This created a pile of ore that is loaded and hauled out of the mine - the final step of the mining process. Other processes, such as backfill, where discarded tailings are unloaded into mined - out areas, can be used, but are not required.

Retreat Mining

Retreat mining is often the final stage of room and pillar mining. Once a deposit has been exhausted using this method, the pillars that were left behind initially are removed, or "pulled", retreating back towards the mine's entrance. After the pillars are removed, the roof (or back) is allowed to collapse behind the mining area. Pillar removal must occur in a very precise order to reduce the risks to workers, owing to the high stresses placed on the remaining pillars by the abutment stresses of the caving ground.

Retreat mining is a particularly dangerous form of mining. According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), pillar recovery mining has been historically responsible for 25% of American coal mining deaths caused by failures of the roof or walls, even though it represents only 10% of the coal mining industry. Retreat mining cannot be used in areas where subsidence is not acceptable, reducing profitability.

Stage 3 - Maintenance and Remediation

Mention of "environmental stewardship" is often mentioned, but no examples of how this is being done can be found.

History

Room and pillar mining is one of the oldest mining methods. Early room and pillar mines were developed more or less at random, with pillar sizes determined empirically and headings driven in whichever direction was convenient.

Room - and - pillar mining was in use throughout Europe as early as the 13th century, and the United States since the late 18th century. It is still in use throughout the US, but has slowed or stopped entirely in parts of Europe.

Coal mining in the United States has nearly always operated with a room - and - pillar layout, although originally operated with significantly more man - power .

Room and pillar mining of Gypsum was used in Iowa beginning in 1892, and was phased out of use in 1927 due to low recovery and development of technologies that made surface mining more practical, safe, and cost effective.

Modern Use

Modern room - and - pillar mines can be few and far between. This is due to many factors, including the dangers to miners associated with subsidence, increasing use of other methods with more mechanization, and the decreasing cost of surface mining.

Advantages

Room - and - pillar mining is not particularly dependent on the depth of the deposit. At particularly deep depths, room - and - pillar mining can be more cost effective compared to strip mining due to the fact that significantly less overburden needs to be removed.

Disadvantages

Due to a recovery rate as low as 40% in some cases, room - and - pillar mining cannot compete in terms of profitability with many modern, more mechanized types of mining such as Longwall or surface.

See Also

Longwall mining

Coal mining in the United States

surface mining

4303 Reflective essay

Critiquing articles & My contributions

It was interesting to have a framework with which to analyse the Wikipedia articles, and it will likely be something that I keep in mind when browsing Wikipedia in the future. I also think that the critical analysis related to neutrality may carry forward in other readings.

As far as deciding what to add to the Wikipedia article, I generally tried to ask what information I would want to know if I were reading the article. I think that this led to a good overview of the topic. My article was fairly sparse at the beginning, and so most of the information I added was my decision, but I feel it was necessary to provide a complete overview of the topic. I did not feel that it was necessary to add any additional images, as the one image I think is necessary (a "map" of typical room - and - pillar) was already provided. Any information that I removed from the article was due to the fact that I could not find support for that specific claim.

I have additionally made the decision that I wanted to direct this article to a more lay audience. I think that an audience who "needs" to know about room and pillar in detail will be looking for more technical sources than Wikipedia, and this article could be a good gateway to the sources I have provided, but I felt that providing too much technical information would be off putting to an audience who does not have a high degree of knowledge about mining or geology. This is the reason that I have left the large sections on "mine layout" and "retreat mining" as these are the sections deemed important by a non - geologist.

If I have one critique of my own work, it is that it is very US and very Coal oriented. I did attempt to find resources discussing different locations and ore types, but ran into a few problems. One that many of the non – US locations to use room – and – pillar are not primarily English – speaking, so fewer papers are published that I have access to and am able to read. Two, room – and – pillar is primarily used for coal extraction, and while I found some general reference other ore types, I did not find many actual sources for this information. Given Wikipedia’s strict referencing standards, I was therefore hesitant to include this information. Third, room – and pillar is inherently an older method, and in many cases has been replaced by longwall (especially in coal mining) or other methods. Related to this, historic coal mining did not keep great records, and did not have good safety standards, so there is little information about room – and – pillar mining from when it was actually being used. I have also noted in the talk page that I think images could enhance the readability of the article, but that I cannot fine any that I can confirm are room and pillar mining.

Peer review and feedback

When I went to do the peer review, all the articles by my peers either 1- already had two reviews, or 2 – didn’t have enough content to constructively review. I did not complete the peer review because of this.

I did receive one review, but because of the review being done so early in the semester, it did not provide me with any substantial feedback – I feel that the peer review would have been much more useful to me had it been assigned later in the semester. The note about maintaining neutrality when discussing advantages and disadvantage is relevant, but was already something I had in mind.

Wikipedia

I do truly agree that Wikipedia is an extraordinary source of information, and that it represents some of the best the internet can be. I think that it is interesting to try and write work that will be read by more than just a professor and a TA. The information provided to me about how to write a good Wikipedia article was useful for this project. However, I am skeptical that the specific requirements that writing for Wikipedia requires can be applied elsewhere. The focus on remaining unbiased in general can apply to academic writing, but was already something I personally tried to apply. Other pillars, such as the recommendations for interacting with other editors truly only apply to Wikipedia, as there is no other source of information that is collaborative in the same way as Wikipedia.

Additionally, I have a lot of specific problems with this project. First, there is no where to access all the information related to this project, and some information in different places was different. I had to look across the syllabus, the Culearn page, and the Wikipedia class page to begin to get a complete picture of what this project entails. When I did this, I would sometimes find contradictory information – differing due dates between the syllabus and the Wikipedia page is a big example (the syllabus lists the due dates as the Friday, while the Wikipedia page lists the Saturday). I found that this made the project feel like it was organised very last minute, and not well coordinated. The fact that grades were not posted until most of the early work was done also contributed to this feeling. I also think this is a project that was not large enough to spread across the entire semester, and so I found doing these teeny - tiny landmarks incredibly tedious, and easier to miss. If the project had of been introduced later in the semester, I feel like there would have been more pressure to work a significant amount on the project each week, rather than in the small, disconnected times that I did. I also think that this produces worse work, because I have a harder time remembering the things (ex: discussions about neutrality) we discussed at the beginning as I am attempting to finish and polish my the final work.

Overall, this project was very frustrating for me because I know it should have been easy, but due to the spread out timeline, and the scattered and disconnected information I had, it meant that I spent more time trying to figure out or remember what I was supposed to be doing, rather than being able to just do it. I feel that this is not a great format for a classroom project, and that a more traditional paper or literature review would have taught me more about a specific resource management topic, rather than a bit about a specific topic, and a bit about how to write Wikipedia articles.