Talk:Sand mining

Untitled
Can someone post insight to North American sand mining and discuss how aggregate mining is used to create concrete for infrastructure? Also, I discussion on dredging, washing, separation, and drying would be nice. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.206.34 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

POV
Clearly quite a biased article. Sandmining on Stradbroke Island is supported by the vast majority of Queenslanders and the miners over there do a pretty good job of rehabilitation.

Here is the response to the Greenie wiki editors POV: http://www.sustainablestradbroke.com.au/

If you use and iPad you are enjoying the silica of Stradbroke island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimonster9 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
I came to this article expecting to read about the sand mining process (and, in particular, the sand quarry at Bawsey in Norfolk), and got a load of rant about how sand mining is destroying picturesque beaches and causing disastrous environmental consequences. Uh-huh. Kinitawowi 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you could come to this subject and realize it gave you a little more than what you expected, but this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Sand mining is a huge problem in coastal dwelling communites as it is depleting necessary habitats AND should be included in this article. Get over it- Chris Sullivan (UCSD)
 * It didn't give me more than I expected, though. It gave me less than I expected. It gave me nothing that I expected. What it gave me was a POV-based rant that said nothing about sand mining. If I'd wanted Ecological consequences of sand mining I'd have gone there. I fully agree, a discussion of those consequences should be included in this article - having been born and raised in a coastal dwelling community I'm aware of the issues involved. I don't think that should be at the expense of an article about what sand mining actually entails. And I really don't think that telling someone to get over it is a good way to win friends and influence people. WP:NPA. Kinitawowi 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. Sure the negative impact of sand mining is eminently important and should be included. However an encyclopedia entry on sand mining should explain, more-or-less, the process of sand mining, shouldn't it? Chops79 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC) If you think it is important, you could report the content to one of the Wikipedia notice boards and get opinions from other people. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the NPOV tag got taken out of this without my noticing back in October - I'm *sorely* tempted to put it back. Kinitawowi (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed forn article.
I removed this from the article: "An interesting example to how the practise of sand mining is destroying the habitats of important wild animals is of vanishing Gharial populations from the Chambal River." -- Alan Liefting- talk - 11:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah it's pretty obvious this article has been written or edited by a reasonably green minded individual. Perhaps they should examine the guidelines before creating or editing further articles 58.104.136.3 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased the first paragraph
Just finished editing some parts of the introduction. I am hoping to up the neutrality in this article as I get more time. The4815162342th (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality for this article
I have noticed that this page is in need of some more information. I am an undergraduate student in my junior year and I recently conducted research on silica sand mining in the state of Wisconsin. I wrote a 2500 word paper on the subject and used many authoritative, reliable and neutral sources including the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Adminstrative Code. Currently, I am looking to improve Wikipedia entries for a class. I will be adding some information to this page over the next few weeks under the United States section. I would appreciate any feedback.Kristinakarim (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the addition of resources to various items. Wisconsin and Minnesota section would be a sub-section under United States. You might want to look at the repetition of the phrase "quality of life" in several sentences in the WI and MN section. Will you be adding more information to the paragraph under United States? N r davisUSA (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some recommendations.


 * Consider making this a sub-heading -- Wisconsin and Minnesota


 * Where are these facts from? I think it needs a citation. -- Silica sand mining business has more than doubled since 2009 because of the need for this particular type of sand for a process known as hydraulic fracturing. Wisconsin is one of the five states that produce nearly 2/3 of the entire nation’s silica. Right now, Wisconsin along with other northern states, are facing an industrial mining boom, being dubbed the “sand rush” because of the new demand from large oil companies for silica sand.


 * Grammar - Remove the ; between verb and list (include;). -- The recent boom in silica sand mining has caused concern from residents in Wisconsin that include quality of life issues and the threat of silicosis. Focus from residents has been on issues in which the state has no authority to regulate, mainly quality of life concerns. According to the WDNR (2011) these issues include; noise, lights, hours of operation, damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic, public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic, possible damage and annoyance resulting from blasting and concerns regarding aesthetics and land use changes.[13]


 * The information and sources are mostly from Wisconsin. The article leans more Wisconsin than being about Wisconsin and Minnesota. Can you pull in more sources and direct information regarding Minnesota as heading is Wisconsin and Minnesota.

N r davisUSA (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Article definitely needs the help of a good editor. Some basic things that are missing:
 * Uses - not sure how you can have an article on sand mining that doesn't mention glass and foundry operations, which are the top two users of industrial silica globally.
 * Doesn't seem to talk about the shale boom in the US in the header - I think virtually all the growth in us mining in the past 5 years has been from proppant usage (come to think of it, I don't think the article mentions proppants?)
 * Endangering sea turtles is interesting, but a highly regional concern - most sand that is mined is not coastal - for instance in the US, most of the sand is mined in Wisconsin and Texas and not near the gulf coast in Texas.
 * Virtually no discussion of the mining and manufacturing process - technology, etc.
 * Almost no mention of the major companies engaged in sand mining

In short, I'm not sure what this article is, but it isn't an encyclopedia article on sand mining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.208.196.35 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sand mining. 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/20081014144109/http://arc.govt.nz/environment/coastal-and-marine/coastal-projects/sand-mining-on-the-east-coast-and-in-the-kaipara-harbour.cfm to http://www.arc.govt.nz/environment/coastal-and-marine/coastal-projects/sand-mining-on-the-east-coast-and-in-the-kaipara-harbour.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There are Two Sections on Sand Mining in India
I noticed that there two slightly different versions of a section about sand mining in India currently in the article. Either one version needs to be removed or they need to be combined into a single section by a person knowledgable in this topic. Paul H. (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. I kept the one I liked better and deleted the other. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ecological production for certain elements ?
This page currently focuses on the detrimental effects of (beach or open pit) mining (ie flooding of beachside communities) but really, isn't it (for any of these specific elements: rutile, ilmenite and zircon, garnet, leucoxene, sillimanite monazite perhaps more ecologic compared to other (perhaps more conventional ways) of industrial production of these elements ?

I'm not an expert on this, and haven't looked into how each element is normally produced (different ways of production) but water elutriation seems quite harmless and doesn't pollute the environment (I assume). So it may be a more ecological way to produce these elements compared to other ways. Can't this be looked into and further described ?

The negative ecologic effects noted (flooding of beachsides) may be prevented by simply bringing in additional (or just the filtered) sand, gravel, ... to repair the seaside. I assume this isn't being done currently (probably the sand is just extracted, and filtered sand may be dumped inland) but if done (regulation), that would solve this issue. --Genetics4good (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)