Talk:Copper Queen Mine

Mining Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arizona Low‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona 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.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2008 comments[edit]

I see that "purest and richest" has been cut to "richest". I am by no means an expert on this subject, but the source cited says "purest and richest". Is there a source that gives a contrary opinion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who deleted "purest". Some of the native copper-filled fissures in Michigan were, although much smaller than the Copper Queen deposit, essentially pure copper. I'll get you a reference. There is no way that a sulfide orebody such as Copper Queen, even if pure chalcocite, could come close. Also, the same source uses the vague term "richest". By richest, does the author mean having the largest deposit in terms of total copper? Does the author mean richest in terms of total profitabilty or profitability per ton of ore? Please explain exactly what does the author means by this? Imprecise superilatives and "puff" statements have no place in an encyclopedia. Plazak (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I'm no expert on the subject, and even less an expert on what the author means by the word "richest". I simply put in the article what the sources that I could find say. As a layman my interpretation of "richest" would be that it produced more copper than any other mine. Do you know of any other mine that has produced over 8 billion pounds? I have no particular emotional attachment to the article or the precise wording - I simply came across it with a proposed deletion tag on it and decided it needed rescuing with some sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a deal: we will use your common-sense interpretation. If another mine is well documented to have made more copper than the Copper Queen, then the statement goes. If can't come up with a well documented contrary case, then the statement stays. Plazak (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be easy. According to the wiki article on the Bingham Canyon Mine, that mine has made 17 million tons of copper. Assuming short tons, that means that it has made 34 billion pounds of copper. But as we know, not everything in Wikipedia is reliable, so I'll have to find a more reliable source. Plazak (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears doubtful that the Copper Queen ever produced 8 billion pound of copper. According to the latest from the Arizona Dept. of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona's Metallic Resources Trends and Opportunities - 2008 (cover page), the entire Warren (Bisbee) mining district has produced 7.916 billion pounds of copper. The Copper Queen may have produced most of that, but you have to subtract from the 7.916 billion the production from the Lavender Pit and other mines. Plazak (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Lavender Pit wiki article, that mine produced 1.2 billion pounds of copper. If that number is true, then the Copper Queen could not have produced more than 6.7 billion pounds. Plazak (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thru 1980, the Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah produced 13 million metric tons of copper, which is more than 28 billion pounds (Edwin W. Tooker and Ralph J. Roberts, 1988, Preliminary Geologic Map, Cross Sections, and Explanation Pamphlet for the Bingham Canyon 7 1/2-Minute Quadrangle, Salt Lake and Tooele Counties, Utah, US Geological Survey, Open-File report 88-699, p.9.). This is far greater even than the exaggerated claim that the Copper Queen made 8 billion pounds. So what makes the Copper Queen the "richest" mine? Plazak (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did in the article was use information from the sources that I could find, as referenced in the article. If you have better sources then please update the article accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I jumped on you. It's just that when I see "purest", "greatest", "richest", or "biggest" in wiki articles on old mines or mining towns, my b.s. detector goes off, and often rightfully so. I've hung around enough bars in old mining towns to know that orebodies grow in size and richness in the retelling - and sometimes the exaggerations find their way into books. The Copper Queen was certainly a great mine, and needs no embellishment.

I promised you a source for purer ore bodies than the Copper Queen: in 1856, in the Minesota Mine in Michigan found a 527-ton (1.054 million-pound) mass of native copper; a nearly 600-ton (1.2 million-pound) mass of native copper was found in the Phoenix mine, also in Michigan (Horace J. Stevens, 1902, The Copper Handbook, p.194, 233.). In contrast, the high-grade part of the Copper Queen orebody, although much larger, ran 23% copper. Plazak (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copper Queen Mine. 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/20150923004442/http://tomrizzo.com/wager-of-lifetime/ to http://tomrizzo.com/wager-of-lifetime/

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) 00:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]