Talk:Sulfide mining

This page has problems. First it seems to have been created as a publicity page for the "Eagle Project" of Kennecott Minerals Corporation in Michigan's UP and perhaps primarily to voice opposition. Second, the phrase "sulfide mining" is not used in the mining field - simply because sulfide is not the target of the mining operation, the metals combined with the sulfur are the target and consequently the Michigan project would be a copper - nickel mine. Google search on the "sulfide mining" phrase returns about 30,000 hits with seemingly most (of the first several pages) being "anti-sulfide mining" environmental sites most specifically about the Michigan and related Wisconsin sites. Google scholar returns only 80 with many (most?) hits occurring as part of a longer phrase ("refractory sulfide mining waste.." or "volcanogenic massive sulfide mining camp.."
Given all that I would reccommend re-naming the page to be specifically about the Eagle Project site and controversy -- if it is sufficiently notable. Vsmith 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (on the use of the phrase "sulphide mining"). The sulphide is in fact the target of the mining operations, while the metal is the target of the mineral processing operation. While the phrase may not be common in the mining industry, calling a large, multi-metal operation a "sulphide mine", may be just as valid as calling it a "base metal mine". Actually I think the page should be moved to sulphide mine (or with an "f" if you prefer), because the phrase sulphide mining (to me anyway) refers to an actual "mining method" (similar to the way cut & fill mining, room & pillar mining etc does), and there isn't a particular way to "mine" sulphides that is any different than mining any other type of ore.

I also think that the Eagle Project information should be removed, and put into it's own article, as it has no more reason to be on this page than any other sulphide mine, like say Kidd Mine, Birchtree Mine, Garson Mine, ore any other mine who's primary ore is a sulphide.--Kelapstick 12:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples, however, tell a different story: "base metal mine", "nickel mine" and "nickel mine" respectively. "Sulfide mine" is simply not used as sulfide is not the target, the metals are. Vsmith 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't proposing that those mines be included on the page, just that the Eagle project should have its own page similar to their's. Is there truely no such thing as a sulphide mine? I will concede that the target is not actually the sulphide, but rather the metal, but not all metal mines (base metal even) have their ore in sulphides, example is CVRD Inco's Goro Project, it will be mining laterite nickel not sulphide nickel. If you compare it to any of their existing operations, they are both nickel mines, but there are still differences. Also note the use of "sulphide mine waste" at http://www.earth.uwaterloo.ca/people/faculty/nicholson/research.html, as a way to catagorize mines who's ore is a sulphide, regardless of target metal.

--Kelapstick 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the reference given is focued on the pollution resulting from waste sulfide minerals (chiefly pyrite) in mine dumps - that is: mine waste that contains sulfides. The topic is covered on Wikipedia under the title Acid mine drainage and is a significant environmental problem associated with sulfide ore mineral occurrences. Again the main problem is the waste, usually from non-ore pyrite. Vsmith 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Eagle mine project as that was the main content of the article. A sulfide mine page can be created separately if usage is shown to be notable. Vsmith 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--Kelapstick 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfide mining is definitely notable. I have removed the Eagle project part of this article and moved it back to sulfide mining. Now that I think about it, a proposed mine, like the so-called Eagle project, probably is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now there is some debate above as to whether sulfide mines or sulfide mining is deserving of an article. If we are to use Google as one reference, then "sulfide mining" yields some 29000 hits, among them this article from Minnesota Public Radio about the debate surrounding such mines in Minnesota. Sulfide mines were proposed and defeated (after years of campaigning and legal battles) near the Wolf River in Wisconsin. And there is the proposed mine in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan, and I know of other examples in the United States. I don't see how there can be a debate on the validity of a encyclopedia article on sulfide mines and mining. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it's nice that you now see now there is some debate above; that's called act first - think later. Would've been nice had you joined the discussion previously. Ah well...

The page should simply be a redirect to Acid mine drainage as that is really the only use for the term by environmentalists, as your ref above illustrates. Geologists don't look for sulfide mines and miners don't mine sulfide mines. Geologists and miners look for and mine deposits that contain significant quantities of metal ore. If the metals are tied up as sulfide minerals ... that's just a metallurgical problem. The mines are copper mines, lead mines, silver mines, etc. The waste product from metal mining often contains iron sulfide or pyrite - and therein lies the environmental delimna. So now what? The current page, if it is to remain, should reflect that environmentalist usage - as it is not a commonly used geological or mining term. Is it notable as an environmental term? Maybe so - there are lots of nimbys out there who haven't a clue where all the metals to support their favorite technologies come from. Ask a geologist.

As for the Eagle project, which content was half or more of the original article as created back in March 06, I am not sure of its claim to notability or of the current status of the project. With 40,000 google hits, it would seem as or more notable than sulfide mining. Vsmith 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do apologize for acting first. I simply saw no reason to override the original intent of the article, which was to describe sulfide mining. I disagree with your opinion that sulfide mining is only environmentalist terminology. The state of Wisconsin has actually passed a moratorium on sulfide mining, and they used the terms "sulfide ore mining" and "sulfide mine" in their legislation. (PDF) And "Sulfide mining" and "sulfide mine" are both terms that have been used in multiple newspapers and other sources (not just environmentalist ones), as a simple Google news search will prove. As to your argument that "sulfide mine" is not proper mining terminology--forgive me, but that is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles need not be constrained by what is a scholarly or industrial "correct" term. In sum, this is not about the environment or environmentalism--we need only agree that this is an encyclopedic topic. I would have no problem if you added something to the article about "sulfide mining" not being a geological/mining term per se. But the fact is that this term is widely used to describe these mines, and I think a comprehensive (as well as non-biased) article could be written covering what exactly sulfide mining is, its history, and the controversies surrounding it. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 18:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Term 'Sulfide Mining' seems to have originated way back in the old Crandon Days (1960's to '70's) and it is a regional term, typically in the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota areas. The reason behind it is an attempt by activists to sway support away from the mines, playing on the proposed mine’s difference from the regions better known forms of metal, oxides (iron) and natives (copper, silver, etc.). Everywhere else in the world metals come predominantly from sulfides, and all past sulfide mines in the Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota districts were referred to by the primary metal(s) produced, such as the Ropes Gold Mine, etc… Take it from a mining engineer who is well read on the districts mining history. I personally am on the fence when it comes to Sulfide Mining being an article, its not a correct term but perhaps since it is used by environmental activists it is valid? My only thoughts are care should be taken to avoid a bias. Joe Djoeyd114 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Second Note the Eagle Project is notable enough to have its own page, if developed will be the only primary nickel procuring operation in the US, I am going to remove the redirect and start a page for Eagle. JoeDjoeyd114 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(following edit conflict) The original intent of the article as you say would seem to have been as publicity for the Eagle project and its nimbyism response. Look at what you wrote back then. However, original intent is irrelevant. Accurate reporting of teminology usage is more important. Yes, the term is used extensively by environmental groups and politicians. What they are actually concerned with is acid mine drainage and associated problems. And those environmental concerns are indeed valid and notable. The current stub of an article needs to be expanded with that in mind or else turned into a simple redirect as noted above. Vsmith 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"publicity for the Eagle project and its nimbyism response"? No, that was not my intention, as I have already stated, and I made an effort to keep the description of the project to a minimum--the entire paragraph was only 3 sentences long. I continue to disagree with you, and I do not agree that this should be turned into a redirect. Djoeyd, who says he is a mining geologist, said this term dates back to the 1960s and 70s--certainly an article can be written about this, at least in terms of why the term arose and what it describes. I personally am staying away from article at this time (taking advice from WP:TIGERS). Thank you, Fang Aili ^talk 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think pyrite mines would be considered sulfide mines. Volcanoguy 04:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should at least make clear that "sulfide mining" is a colloquial regional term, restricted to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. I have never seen it used elsewhere, either in the US, or in any other country. I live in Colorado, yet for all the press coverage of Summitville, I don't believe that I have ever heard or read of Summitville (the example in the article) referred to as "sulfide mining." There is a lot of mining of sulfide minerals all over the world, but it is simply not called "sulfide mining" anywhere I know other than the Upper Midwest of the USA. The reader should not be fooled into thinking that it is a widely used term outside of these states. Plazak (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it a redirect to Acid mine drainage as the term itself is rather meaningless and the usage, such as it is, is in terms of environmental problems/activism. Vsmith (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]