In response to my comment that "The product of mining is a
material which is of no use until smelted or treated chemically,
to extract some valuable constituent", Richard Kelham asks
"Er, what about coal?".
Coal is either burnt (thus extracting its valuable calorific value)
or heated out of contact with air, in coke ovens, yielding coke,
gas, tar and other useful chemicals.
I regard the burning of coal, in which its carbon content combines
with oxygen, or its alteration in a coke oven, as "being treated
chemically", if anything ever was. Thus, coal is mined.
Those who have raised the question regarding limestone have
a very valid point. As with all definitions, there will be grey areas.
I actually raised the point regarding the definition of mining versus
quarrying in a postal discussion following a paper on the definition
of ore put to the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy in 1953 or 1954.
Somewhere in the published proceedings of the Institution for one
of those years, there is a contribution from "Lance-Corporal" Brewis
putting forward the views I have just expressed on the mines versus
quarry debate, about the chemical property use versus the
physical property use, and the example quoted to show me the
error of my ways was exactly that -- limestone!
Those who have raised the questions of legal definitions have
valid points also. The same hole in the ground can be a mine
to a lawyer or mines inspector, while the quarryman winning stone
from it will call it a quarry.
"Quot homines, tot sententiae" (Terence)
Tony Brewis
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|