Talk:In situ leach

Need to merge articles

This needs to be merged with the existing article In-situ leaching and a redirect page set up. I don't care what the article is called as long as there is a redirect page. Having two separate articles is pointless and confusing.Plazak 14:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Merged content here, as this had more stuff and refs. Vsmith 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Concerns: ISL Uranium Mining

I object to the wording, "It is important to note that "baseline conditions" include commercial quantities of radioactive U3O8. Efficient in-situ recovery reduces U3O8 values of the aquifer." By putting that in quotes it is implied that somehow that is suspect from the beginning. This leads to a bias. "It is important" sounds like you are trying to persuade someone of your point of view. This is not an economic discussion, but one of water quality before and after ISL is performed. Bwtranch (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwtranch (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. We can cut out IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT. Beginning the sentence with (Baseline conditions...) No quotes. However, the greater concern here is the undue weighting WP:UNDUE that "Environmental Concerns: ISL Uranium Mining" has taken on in this article. While this is an important and valid concern, and should be included in the article, it should not be the main thrust of the article. To bring balance and neutrality back to the article, it would be best to reduce the size of this specific section. Probably about 1/3 its current size. Would you be willing to undertake that task? Gulbenk (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It never had any balance, that's why I undertook to edit it. You seem to want to look at it in terms of an extraction scheme tied to some economic benefits. This is the environmental impact of doing this and I have plenty of sources. I was wondering if this would go over and cause trouble and thought it might be better to start a new article. But I tried this. I want to wait and let someone else weigh in at this point because I see what you have done in the past and I don't want to get caught up in a war. btw, I do have a University degree in geology, geography and an MS in environmental science. So that's full disclosure. Bwtranch (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I saw your last edit and I can live with that. Bwtranch (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is *precisely* about "an extraction scheme tied to some economic benefits". In-situ leach recovery is not a geological event. It doesn't happen naturally. It would not happen at all, were it not for the technology and the economic benefits tied to the "extraction scheme". Environmental and regulatory discussions are quite appropriate to the subject matter, but the subject matter is about a mining technique. The title of this article is "In-situ leach". The mining technique is in primary position, with ancillary issues in secondary position. That is how an article works. When a secondary issue takes up the majority of the article, then the article has lost its focus and balance. When the secondary issue is presented from only one perspective, the article has lost its objectivity and neutrality. If environmental issues are foremost in your thoughts, as they appear to be, why not devote an entire article to that subject? I think it would be a great idea for you to create a separate article titled (something like) "Environmental and Regulatory issues concerning In-situ uranium mining". I would be happy to contribute to that article...in an effort to help provide a balanced and neutral result. btw, I'm glad to see that your masters is in environmental science. We wouldn't get anywhere in this discussion if it had been in philosophy...Gulbenk (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I struggled whether I should put this in the current article or start a new one. I figured either way I went, I would be criticized by someone. I'm not highly experienced with these wikis and maybe it would have helped if I had a minor in politics. :)Bwtranch (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it gets easier as you go along. Please let me know if I can be of any help. I think you'll find there are quite a few decent folks in this community. Many are willing to offer suggestions (most of them good) as you build your article. And we all have critics... just support your statements with good citations, and (hardest part) maintain that neutral voice. Gulbenk (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, well I think if for nothing else the article is better. I think we struck a fair balance by hashing it out and getting rid of that tag. It's a good thing. Bwtranch (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Gulbenk, after looking at it again I really think you are right after all. It needs it's own topic and needs to be reduced. Maybe let me get that other page started and I'll cut this down. Or edit this down if you want. I wasn't exactly all that happy with it. Dr. Mudd needs at least a mention. He's done a lot of work in this area. Bwtranch (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Bwtranch I think it would be best for you to do the editing here, whenever you find the time. You would know best how to reduce, without losing essential information. Please let me know if I can be of help. Gulbenk (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In-situ leach vs. brine recovery

Someone has added a section on lithium brine mining. It is my understanding that this involves pumping up brines which naturally contain dissolved lithium. In-situ leach, on the other hand, involves dissolving substances which are naturally present in a solid state. Lithium brine recovery would seem not to belong here. Am I wrong in this? Plazak (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Plazak Yes, you are correct in principle, it's not exactly the same because the Li is already dissolved in the solution. So you are not really "leaching", the process would be better described as extraction. Bwtranch (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see this process as environmentally damaging like ISL is and we need the Li for science and electronics applications. Bwtranch (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

With "leach" in the title, I believe that this article is properly restricted to extraction which dissolves solid materials. Is there an article on recovery of substances naturally dissolved in solution? If not, there should be. Besides lithium, solution recovery is a source of bromine and iodine. Magnesiun, of course, is extracted from sea water. Plazak (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Plazak I certainly wouldn't trash the information on a technicality. We should find a way to use it. Bwtranch (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a place for it. Worked out well. Bwtranch (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to trash anything. The lithium section pointed out the need for a separate article on brine mining, and I still think it's a good idea. But what should it be called? Regards. Plazak (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Plazak I used it. I put it in Lithium -> Extraction -> Brine Evaporation and left a link to it on this page. Might want to make the link more specific though Bwtranch (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is now an article started on Brine mining, for extracting materials that exist naturally in the dissolved state. Plazak (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on In situ leach. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928141654/http://www.agapito.com/SolutionMiningofNahcolite.pdf to http://www.agapito.com/SolutionMiningofNahcolite.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714003133/http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/uisl.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/uisl.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831100653/http://www.heathgateresources.com.au/contentmine.jsp?xcid=113 to http://www.heathgateresources.com.au/contentmine.jsp?xcid=113

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fact-checking needed

Going into the sources, I found inconsistencies and was unable to locate primary sources.
I already fixed one typo in a year (977 AD -> 907 AD), but this is from a secondary source. I didn't get to the primary.
The rest would take me too long to check. IDon'tFindAName (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)