Talk:Berkeley Pit

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

United States: Superfund Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Superfund (assessed as Mid-importance).

Montana Low‑importance

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

History?

It would be nice to have a history of this pit, for instance, how it got its name. Tmangray 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some; working on more. Geologyguy 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions, but how did the Berkeley Mine get its name? Was it named for the city or a person with the name Berkeley? Tmangray 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the MR acronym in the timeline? What does MR stand for? Always introduce acronyms.

Done. Geologyguy 13:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Closed?

I can't find an explanation of WHY the mine was closed anywhere. Is this known? Why did ARCO buy it only to close it down shortly after? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They just stop mining it. They no longer needed the spot, nor did they want to continue pumping out the water that was constantly coming in. --69.145.122.209 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARCO bought it because in the late 1970s, oil companies had lots of money and were expanding into all sorts of non-oil ventures (Mobil bought Montgomery Ward, Gulf Oil acquired the real estate development firm that was behind Reston, Virginia; others got into nuclear power and uranium mining). The purchase was probably poorly thought out. The mine was closed because of economics - after Chile nationalized Anaconda's properties, and given the costs of operating in the US (both direct costs and environmental issues), ARCO could not sustain the operation economically. Much of the properties and mineral rights (but not much of the environmental liability) were sold by ARCO to a Montana entrepreneur, Dennis Washington, whose company Montana Resources now operates a much smaller pit operation, the Continental Pit, just east of the Berkeley Pit. The Continental Pit has been mined since 1986 (with a hiatus in 2000-2003 because of low copper prices and high electricity costs) and is highly economical today (2006) thanks to the high prices of copper and molybdenum. These high prices are being driven largely by industrialization and increased demand by China. The mine is likely making more money on by-product molybdenum (about 1 pound per ton) than on the copper they produce (about 6 pounds per ton). --Geologyguy 14:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARCO intended to use the loss as a write-off against gigantic profits garnered from the manufactured oil crisis of the mid-1970s. ARCO purchased the Anaconda company for the loss the company sustained from Chile nationalizing its assets there. Anaconda could not sustain that financial blow and a significant plant failure in the town of Anaconda. The company had intended to increase production, but a freeze caused substantial damage to the plant in Anaconda. The cost of labor also played into the decision to close the mine and cease production.

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Superfund Site

Can the reference to the largest superfund site be verified, deleted or qualified. Tar Creek in Oklahoma also claims itself as the largest superfund site, encompassing 50 sq miles. The closest I've found is :http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/March/02_enrd_180.htm which indicates it is the superfund site with the largest body of contaminated water in the United States. However, as the Hudson River is also making that claim about a 200 mile stretch from Hudson Falls to the Battery, even this is a dubious claim.Bangfrog 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pumps

It's my understanding that the pumps keeping the mine dry were in the nearby Kelley mine, an underground mine. Sounds picky, but just from the article one might assume that the pumps were in the Pit itself. This kind of thing can probably be verified by checking old articles in the Montana Standard (not an easy thing come by in LA, or I'd do it). BSMet94 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For decades (from the 19-teens at least into the '40s) the primary pumping station for all the underground mines was at the High Ore mine. I suspect that the High Ore pumping system was used for the Berkeley Pit as well, inasmuch as the pit water drained into the underground mine system, which was all interconnected and ultimately drained to the High Ore. The Kelley was the last and most modern of the underground mines, and it may well have been used for pumping after it was closed (1975 or so) until the pit itself was shut down (1982-83). I will try to find out. Cheers Geologyguy 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I just seem to remember that when the pumps were finally shut down (late 80s), that the dewatering pumps active at the time were in the Kelley. I just don't have a hard reference handy.BSMet94 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

birkley pit

why did the bird that drank the water in the birkley pit melt from the inside out????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.51.87.130 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

birkley pit

how did the water in the birkley pit get that way??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.51.87.130 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Berkeley Pit. Geologyguy 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various metals rust when they get wet, and some of the rusted metal washes off into the water too. When there's a lot of metal and not a lot of water, the water can end up very dirty. Some of the kinds of metal that were being mined from this big hole in the ground are very poisonous, which caused the water to become poisonous too. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mining" the water

Is there a reference for who actually attempted "mining" the water from the Berkeley Pit? The article seems to suggest that someone was commercially trying to recover copper from the pit water. Playing with it in a lab is quite different than setting up a commercial operation. Furthermore, there was in fact failed commercial venture where someone actually built an ion exchange plant at the Kelley Mine and attempted to recover zinc oxide from the Kelley Mine water, but that's different. The chemistry in the Kelley mine water is much different than the pit. There's more dissolved iron in the pit water than any other metal. Despite it having formerly been a copper mine, there's relatively little copper in the pit water. Anyway, unless there's a reference for "mining" the pit for copper, then that bit should be deleted.BSMet94 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an WP:RS, but this web page documents this has been attempted at the Pit. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. These guys in Virginia City have some "proprietary" process that they claim can be used to mine the water of the pit. They've only done it in the lab. The main article implies that someone actually did it commercially. I'm not holding my breath.BSMet94 04:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually doing it. From "Pitwatch", the local Butte newsletter about the pit:

Q: Is Montana Resources "mining" the Berkeley Pit water?
A: Yes. The company is still recovering copper from the water in the Berkeley Pit.

Since February 2004, 13 million gallons of water per day are being pumped out of the Berkeley Pit and up to the precipitation plant. The water is collected at a depth of 150 feet from the far west side of the Pit below the viewing stand, and is pumped up and around the south and east walls of the Pit to the precipitation plant, north east of the Pit.

The "Precip Plant" uses a centuries-old technology operation where water flows through piles of recycled scrap iron. The process is known as "cementation." It occurs when copper-containing water flows into cells filled with scrap iron. The iron in the cells and the copper in the water trade places. The iron-rich water is returned to the Pit. The product, containing about 70% copper, is dried through a filter press and then sent to an off-site smelter.--Banjodog (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chronology

I'm not interested in fighting about it, but I was putting them in chronological order, I thought. The first paragraph deals with the beginning and first years of the pit; the communities were taken out in the 60s and 70s. Cheers Geologyguy 19:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the statements as written lent themselves to a different interpretation. I've restored your chronology and clarified. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berkelic Acid or Berkeley Acid

The source used as a reference for "Berkeley Acid" uses the name "Berkelic Acid" instead.

Can someone add this info to the article ?

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-09/ff_lagoon . tnx. Zeq 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is there already: "New fungal and bacterial species have been found to have adapted to the harsh conditions inside the pit. Intense competition for the limited resources caused these species to evolve the production of highly toxic compounds to improve survivability; natural products such as Berkeleydione, berkeleytrione [2] and Berkeley acid [3] have been isolated from these organisms which show selective actvity against cancer cell lines." The sources cited already are rather more reliable than wired.com, though the latter is based on the same research. Geologyguy 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the Pit Watch site ( https://pitwatch.org ), "your source for all things berkeley pit" is probably appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.232.227 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Berkeley Pit. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berkeley Pit. 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/20090428152420/http://rydberg.biology.colostate.edu/Phytoremediation/2003/Boczon/Berkeley_Pit_History.html to http://rydberg.biology.colostate.edu/Phytoremediation/2003/Boczon/Berkeley_Pit_History.html

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) 12:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]