JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MINING-HISTORY Archives


MINING-HISTORY Archives

MINING-HISTORY Archives


mining-history@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MINING-HISTORY Home

MINING-HISTORY Home

MINING-HISTORY  2003

MINING-HISTORY 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: mining-history Digest - 12 Mar 2003 to 13 Mar 2003 (#2003-69)

From:

JOHN BERRY <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The mining-history list.

Date:

Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:20:27 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (133 lines)

Dear Peter and John:
Two more case of local deposition of the majority of the metal dispersed into the atmosphere from a smelter:
1. Getchell Mine, N.C. Nevada, USA:  a smelter operated at this arsenical gold mine in the early part of the 20th century, and a narrow dark streak of metal-bearing soot can still be seen on satellite images extending 5-8 miles downwind.
2. Nkana Copper Smelter, Zambia.   Surface geochem samples (taken in the mid-sixties after less than 30 years of smelter operation) showed up to 5,000 ppm (0.5% Cu) at 10" (25 cm) depth in the soil over a limited area about 5 miles west of the smelter.  For the times, this was a highly efficient smelter, losing only about 0.5% of the copper in the ore as copper sulfate dust in the flue gas. it also had a very tall stack. However, production was 150,000 tons of finished copper per year, so at least 750 tons of copper was escaping from the chimney each year (I may be low on the volume of production - poor memory).
The anomalous area was over Basement schists, but was on a gentle hillside facing the smelter.   Pitting beneath the shallow anomalies showed typical basement values of 25 - 50 ppm Cu.  The  giveaway was that the sap of trees that had been axed crusted malachite green in a week or so, and there were also areas of malachitic crusts on the laterite outcrop at the edge of the dambo.  I washed the dust off some leaves and had it analysed: I've forgotten the results but I think that it was ore grade (>2% Cu).
This was a very local phenomenon - covering only about 1 sq.km. on a hillside facing the smelter:  elsewhere pollution was not apparent in our samples, in spite of a great deal of tailings dust blowing around - this ran 0.9% Cu but did not seem to release it readily to the soil.
If the average value of Cu in the top 25 cm of the soil in this 1 sq. km. area were 0.25%, for a soil bulk density of 1.25 we obtain a copper content of 750 tons, or 1 year's losses.  If the smelter production had remained constant in the 25 years (1937-1962)  between its construction and the soil sampling, 4% of its losses to the atmosphere would be on this hillside alone.  Since the smelter's production rate had increased almost continuously since it was built,  the actual figure would probably be closer to 10%.   What proportion of the remaining 90% could possibly end up in an ice core I don't know, but I suspect very little for a source in tropical Africa, because of the very dusty atmosphere in the dry season and the strong southern hemisphere circumpolar vortex.  For ancient smelters with no to low stacks, the local fall-out would be a much higher proportion than this, as has been said already.
John Berry

Date:    Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:54:56 +0000
From:    Peter Claughton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: lead production in the Roman period

>However, when it comes to trying to estimate how much lead will have
been
>smelted

George,

Estimating lead/silver production in antiquity is all it can be -
estimating
- with no written records we are largely reliant on the sort of
archaeological evidence you quote from the ice and peat data. Even when
documentation is available it is patchy and we are still reliant on
estimates for overall production.

By the late medieval period we are really looking at two processes, 1)
to
recover lead, non-argentiferous lead, for construction purposes, and 2)
to
recover silver, by smelting arentiferous lead and refining it by
cupellation
to recover the silver, the resulting litharge is then resmelted to
recover a
silver free, 'sterile' lead which is then used for construction
purposes.
Each stage in these processes resulted in losses.

The first was the most efficient - at around 45 percent for the wind
blown
bole or bale hearth. Not all the lead unaccounted for was lost in fume,
the
majority remain in the residues left after smelting.

With the second process, where the aim was silver recovery, much more
lead
was lost in supplementing the bole hearth with higher temperature
bellows
blown furnaces whose efficiency was around 38 percent - with the
majority of
the losses being through volatalisation in the fume. Quantifying the
'average' losses in refining and the subsequent recovery of sterile
lead
from the litharge is difficult. Looking at production from the Devon
silver
mines in the early 14th century - over a 13 year period losses would
appear
to be around 37.38 percent - but we cannot be sure that all the sterile
lead
recovered has been accounted for in the documentation.  Looking at
certain
years where we have good documentation, e.g. 1307/8, the figure is 32
percent loss, and for the following year 28 percent loss.

Not all the lead lost would end up in the upper atmosphere, and in the
ice
or peat remote from the smelting site, most would be dispersed on
adjacent
land leaving a useful marker for smelting locations - see Wild and
Eastwood
in L. Willies and D. Cranstone (eds.), Boles and Smeltmills, (Matlock
Bath,
1992).

Peter

______________________________________________

Peter Claughton, Blaenpant Morfil, Rosebush, Clynderwen,
Pembrokeshire, Wales  SA66 7RE.
Tel. 01437 532578; Fax. 01437 532921; Mobile 07831 427599

University of Exeter - School of Historical, Political and Sociological
Studies
(Centre for South Western Historical Studies)
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]

Co-owner - mining-history e-mail discussion list.
See http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/mining-history/  for details.

Mining History Pages - http://www.exeter.ac.uk/~pfclaugh/mhinf/

_____________________________________________

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:16:34 +0000
From:    John Mason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: lead production in the Roman period

Hi Peter,

Your comment "Not all the lead lost would end up in the upper
atmosphere,
and in the ice or peat remote from the smelting site, most would be
dispersed on adjacent land leaving a useful marker for smelting
locations"
reminded me of some work I did at Eglwysfach between Aberystwyth and
Machynlleth years ago. Someone wanted to start an organic veg
enterprise
and they asked me to look at soil geochem at some sites. One was NE
(ie.
upwind) of the old Ynyshir Smelter. Here are the soil data from OMAC
laboratories:

Pb - 3480ppm  Cu - 59ppm  Zn - 290ppm   Ag - 2.7ppm

Needless to say they decided to grow their carrots elsewhere!

Cheers - John


 Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:There are 12 messages totalling 1025 lines in this issue.


John Berry Associates
Geology & Remote Sensing
5000 Beverly Hills Drive
AUSTIN, TX 78731, U.S.A.
+1-512-452-8068 (Voice)
+1-512-413-9270 (cell)
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager