Talk:In situ leach

message: 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)
replies: text: Merged content here, as this had more stuff and refs. Vsmith 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to merge articles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Environmental Concerns: ISL Uranium Mining 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In-situ leach vs. brine recovery  

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fact-checking needed