Talk:Iron ore

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joey Stephenson 98. Peer reviewers: A8218054.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pyrite

I miss mention of pyrite and other sulfidic iron ores which have been used in iron processing in history.

Sulphur compounds are generally the worst ores to refine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simba541chui (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sulfides 2409:4042:6EC3:3C83:0:0:A9CA:F503 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Mining

The Mining section is too North America specific. An overview of iron ore producers would be helpful.

Environmental problems

These large tailings basins pose future environmental problems

This statement has been removed, the basins in MN have been regularly tested and shown not to pose any threat other than taking up large areas of land. The materials that make up the tailings are the same as what was mined less the iron. There is little added that is not removed before being deposited in the basin. The areas of land taken up by these basins have become animal sanctuaries. At HibbTac, a mine near the city of Hibbing there are 4 bald eagles living in the basin, as well as moose, deer, geese, duck, fox, and many wild animals from the area that have found a sanctuary from man, as trespassers are not aloud on property and guns are banned. The goose population out there right now is larger than most other groups of geese in the region. The size of the basin is roughly 16miles in diameter so well large in size the amount of wild life per acre is greater than most forest regions. In there testing process they have been found to contain no carcinogens, and minimal to no toxicity. The basins of the outher mines in the regons are very similer to this one. To say they pose an environmental problem seams to be an assumption based only on the fact that it is industry. Its just a place to store the remaining rock that didn’t get turned into pellets.

Hmm... got references to back that up? A 160 - 200 sq. mi. pond of ground up rock is going to have an environmental impact. Will it be a problem for ground water quality ...? I don't know. Was there an environmental impact study? Studies by non-industry scientists? Vsmith 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will contact the material testing firm that has dune much of the testing and see if I can get some results, I wont be able to do it right a way but shouldn’t take to long. I also will look into an environmental impact study. I guess mostly my point isn’t that it is a non threat, but more that its persons causing any damage is all the damage there ever will be.

The pond of ground rock is more water than rock. They use water to flow the tailings out into the basin from the mine. The flow enters onto a portion of the basin that has a 25 to 20 ft elevation difference than the rest. The water is then directed across a dame into a lower portion of the basin dropping in elevation around 5 ft. The Course tailings are filtered out at this point and let behind. They then use these course tailings to maintain the parameter damns. The water is then directed across another damn into another portion of the basin again at a lower elevation filtering out more materials. There are 4 such holding ponds with the last one containing a pumping station that pumps water back to the mine to repeat the process. Over time the water level rises and they use the course tailings to raise the dam. The final portion is 80ft deep of water that supports northern pike and walleye. This is only off of personal experience as I have worked on these damns. Ill look into getting some study data for you.

I must concede, I checked with the 2 engineering firms that do testing and such at the mine, and they both told me that the basin was grandfathered in and has had no environmental impact studies. They do routine water sampling of the basin and water that seeps out. Checking near by lakes and rivers, and they have never found anything. But alas the potential of environmental damage or impact of some sort can not be ruled out. I have a hard time saying that knowing what an animal sanctuary it is, granted the wildlife is not tested so there could be some kind of mutation growth or something I guess we just don’t know and therefore I put back the environmental risk statement.

Thanks for the update. Grandfathers win again :-) Probably not a lot to worry about, would've been nice to have had an impact study of some kind. Not much in the way of toxic metals & such, just silica & iron oxides mostly and the ground up rock will probably make soil a whole lot faster than the orig bedrock. My ancestors pioneered in N. Minnesota way back when so I'm just a bit interested in the area. Vsmith 03:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

An area of the basin we call the delta builds up a large quantity of the courser tailings, they have a consistency similar to sand, any ways they grow barley in it to keep erosion down. My ancestors also pioneered this area, and we still do I guess:).Zath42 23:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, iron ore tailings aren't a big problem; maybe you guys were thinking of the slag? But even then, most smelter slag is used in creative and environmentally friendly ways, typically for surfacing roads. Or at least over here in Australia. They, the smelters, have even had to modifty their fluxes to produce a less glassy slag to improve traction in roadbases.

In other news I have updated the article as best I can. I've only, as of a month ago, started iron ore geology. Let alone smelting. But at any rate, I hope this was a decent contribution. Rolinator 13:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Siderite

magnetite (Fe3O4), hematite (Fe2O3), limonite or siderite, all of which are iron oxides.

Siderite isn't oxide, it's iron carbonate. Siim 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

US Geological Survey 2004

Take a look at the ratings. How can the US (#6 with 54 mln tonnes) be ahead of Ukraine (#7 with 66 mln tonnes). Also look at Mauritania (#14 with 10 mln tonnes) and Mexico (#15 with 12 mln tonnes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.148.10 (talk • contribs)

just what i needed i finaly got my assiment done affer looking for ages this website had every thing thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.115.251 (talk • contribs)

Also about the survey, China is listed at number one, Australia and Brazil are tied for second, but this contradicts what is written in the statement directly above the table, which says that Brazil is the largest producer then Australia. Which is correct? --Colourblind 02:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... It does say the Brazilian company is the worlds largest producer - doesn't mean china's production is smaller - just many more smaller players involved!TheErrorEliminator 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am rather confused by the data in the table being from 2006 and the data in the footnote coming from 2004. Where did the updated 2006 data come from since the reference takes one to 2004 data? Zentime 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, would like to know where the revised figures for 2006 come from, as some are the same as the US GS, others are not. Also small point: table shows "tons" as unit, whereas US GS data is given in "tonnes" - ie metric, not imperial. MD 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mining section

The layout of the section on mining seems a bit awkward, my suggestion is:

•the paragraph on world production

•the US geological survey table

•the paragraph about production in Australia - it is more significant than production in the US or Canada

•the section on mining in US and Canada

Also, more could be added about Brazil and China since they are both major producers. If no one has any objections, I would do this myself, however I am a wiki-novice so help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, --Colourblind 02:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Will attempt it later. Also a point is needed for the FMGL paragraph as there is no discussion about tenements in this section, this combined with the terrible grammar and spelling ("forth"?) leads me to believe that this is actually a cheap plug for FMGL which is raising capital as we speak.TheErrorEliminator 13:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

chelsea rocks are only found in chelsea island

The comment about iron ore mining being low margin may have been true in the past...but, it has certainly changed since the emergence of Chinese consumption. The big 3 seaborne companies have margins well above 60% now. Also, the production table is misleading since the 880 mt production in China is of very low grade material (below 30% Fe content compared with over 60% in Brazil and Australia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eglotzer1122 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Failings and bias.

I have read the article and the discussion.

I have some reservations.

I will try in the coming months to complete the article.

My reservations are that the article is very biased to todays situation, only really concerns two areas (USA and Australia), contains some facts that may be correct just now but was not correct 50 years ago, and is partly not Iron Ore but iron making.

I confess that my wiewpont is biased to Kiruna mine competition. Seniorsag 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree with the above - much of the article seems (after only a very quick perusal, admittedly) to focus on ferrous metallurgy, rather than on the business of ore itself (geology, deposits, problems of recovery, preparation, etc., etc.). I'm all for a holistic approach, but you still have to draw the line somewhere. Also - my favourite quibble, I admit! - the English could be better. Maelli (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No discussion of depletion?

One of the most basic question that children ask has been left largely unanswered on the mineral resource wiki's. How many kids want to do a school assignment and answer the question, "How much is there?" Now adults might ask further questions, such as "How long will it last at current rates of consumption?" and "How long will it last at exponentially increasing rates of consumption?" and then "What are we going to do as this resource peaks and starts to become ever more expensive to extract?" These issues have largely been ignored. For quality control issues it is time to ask some experts in the various mineral resources the answers to these questions, especially how long a resource has against a low exponential increase (of say 2% a year) against a higher increase (say 10% a year).

Eclipsenow (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact answer to these questions world wide, however speaking with mining engineers on Minnesotans Iron Range, they consider the Mesabi Range to be a nearly endless supply, certainly cost will go up as material is extracted from deeper and deeper sources. I guess that as deep as they sample they find material. Of course this information is original research because I'm able to directly communicate with the mining engineers, and has no place in the article. It would be interesting to see something published about this... Zath42 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When the article says that somebody "suggested iron ore could run out within 64 years based on an extremely conservative extrapolation of 2% growth per year", it means best case scenario, right?190.31.3.6 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I think a discussion about iron ore exhaustion are a bit pointless, and at best misleading. About 5-6% of the earth's crust is composed of iron. However much we mine, we will never (at least not in scales less than a few million years) mine 5% of the crust. If we limit the discussion to iron ore resources and reserves, the message can be incredibly misleading as new resources and reserves are identified every year. For example, the "pilbara depletion" section of the article says that the pilbara has demonstrated resources of 24 billion tonnes of iron ore, and it could all be mined out within 50 years. This ignores the fact that long before it would be mined out, new resources will be identified. For example, the smallest of the "large" Pilbara producers, FMG, which didn't exist 10 years ago, and hadn't started mining 5 years ago has 20 billion tonnes of iron ore reserves and resourcesFMG Presentation 2011. While I don't know what reserves and resources BHP and Rio have, it is doubtless of a similar scale, which means that the 24 billion tonne value is very much out of date, and any calculation based on that number is meaningless. Any discussion of depletion of iron ore should be made in the context that new resources and reserves are identified every year, and generally the quantity of known reserves and resources grows each year --Blibbler (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hematite vs magnetite

Reading this article i came to wonder about the distinction between hematite ang magnetite that is made in the article. From the text, i get the impression that hematite would be the more valuable of the two, which seems to be totally wrong. The refining of magnetite is considerably much more energy efficient as it oxidates when burnt to pellets and thus contributes a great deal of energy to the process. The grinding cost is negligable by comparison. The only problem with magnetite is that it is not as abundant, and that the remaining deposits are increasingly hard to get to (scattered thinly, or lying deep underground). 90.225.95.17 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the amount of energy required to smelt eitehr mineral is the crucial factor. It is a matter of what ore isavailable and how much iron it contains, which these days may only be 5%. Peterkingiron (talk)

Maghemite - thoughts on commerciality

Was wondering what the author(s) opinion is on the iron ore mineral Maghemite. There is little information on the web about this mineral.

I do not want to turn this in a 'stock tip' dicussion so a very brief reason why I am asking.

There is a company in Australia (soon to list) that is currently espousing that they believe they may be able to commercially develop a maghemite resource in New South Wales, despite the ore being very low grade...typically 15%.

The core reason they believe it is feasible is due to maghemite being 'very easily' beneficiated to over 50% by magnetic separation. The other reasons given is that:

1. It is all from surface 2. Rail infrastructure and ports are a non-issue 3. The resource they eventually prove up will be VERY large (billion + tonnes)

They didn't even use the excuse 'higher iron ore prices'.

As far as I know, no maghemite deposits have ever been developed...and this maghemite resource has been known for a very long time (I believe BHP had but then they found the Pilbara...or could have been RIO, cant remember)...which begs the question why no one has ever done anything about it.

Would appreciate your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.11.24 (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rearrangement

In an effort to group related information together, I've unilaterally rearranged some of the content, and have renamed a couple of the sections. – Wdfarmer (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I wonder whether the smelting section would not be better being shorter, the remainder of the material being merged with blast furnace. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Magnetite ores

The article says that banded iron formations are composed of magnetite and silica, yet the article on Banded iron formation correctly notes that they can be either magnetite or hematite. This should be corrected. Plazak (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other iron minerals

Should this article not mention:

• Limonite - iron carbonate. Historically this was referred to as ironstone or iron mine (rather than iron ore), but argillaceous ironstone from coalfields was an important source of iron in the Industrial Revolution and before, though perhpas not today.
• Iron pyrites - iron sulphide. This is useless as an ore for the production of iron, but was formerly important as a source for iron compounds? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Limonite certainly. The last commercial use of limonite as ore in my neck of the woods was...*clickety-click*...1915 or thereabouts. And limonite beds were responsible for the Lehigh Valley's establishment as a seat of the American iron industry. As for pyrites, I'm not aware of any instance where a pure sulfide ore was mined solely for its iron content. However, pyrites cinder (the residue remaining after burning pyrites as a source of sulfur in sulfuric acid production) was frequently extracted for its content of copper and other metals, and the remaining powdered material, known as "purple ore" or "blue billy" (principally Fe₂O₃) has been used as an ore. I have some notes stashed away somewhere about the processing of pyrites cinder (Rio Tinto set up an American subsidary, The Pyrites Co., to do this c. 1912), and it seems I'll have to write an article about it sometime. Choess (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the article. Pyrites will not make good iron, as any significant sulphur content in iron makes it redshort hence unworkable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The roast to make acid, followed by livixiation to extract copper, precious metals, zinc, etc., seems to remove all the sulfur from the material. The problems with "purple ore" seem to have been, first, the presence of lead in the material, which, unless extracted by a second leaching, would damage furnace linings, and second, the fine consistency of the substance. A high ratio of surface area to weight is necessary for efficient leaching, but the residual iron oxide dust has to be sintered into briquettes to make it suitable for use in ironmaking. I suspect but cannot verify that the latter was the principal problem with purple ore; the Steel Company of Scotland was founded based on Siemens' misplaced assurance that he could smelt steel from purple ore alone. Edison's experiments with magnetic concentration encountered similar problems; the lean magnetite ores had to be ground very fine, and the initial shipments of concentrate blew out of the railcars, and what was left blew out of the stack when the furnace was charged. Anyway, after an extensive stoping operation, I have found my notes on the Pyrites Co. in the piles on my desk, so I'll be plotting out an article. Choess (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Iron content

Iron content I can see that there all authors have different types of iron content for Goethite, Magnetite, Hematite and Siderite. Do anyone know about any international classification standards on the different types? Or do anyone know about a book that has stated what the most common iron content is for the different types? Krosgaard (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosgaard (talk • contribs)

Iron ore as a commodity

These details were only recently added; prior, the article was stable as it was. Not that we shouldn't attempt to improve, but if the changes were objected to twice, the status quo should stand while the proposed changes are discussed. Here, at talk.

Most of the material has already been incorporated to "Iron ore market". To put it in the lede gives this topic undue weight. Iron ore may indeed be very important as a commodity to be traded. But we should not distract readers from what it is, what it is used for, where we get it from, etc. That information is definitely desirable, but is not worth more than a passing remark in the lede. The lede, afterall, is used to summarize key points in the article, not to discuss issues in detail. The proposed change to the lede is as long as the lede currently is. A good sign that it is being given more attention than it deserves. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Future Pilbara production capacity

It seems the recently added and unsourced section titled Future Pilbara production capacity is rather undue weight for this general article. It would be better used in an article on Pilbara#Iron ore section on iron mines rather than here. Vsmith (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

60% or 70%?

Someone recently changed a couple of ore contents from 60% Fe to 70% Fe. Correction or vandalism? I have no way of knowing because much of this article lacks any citations. All I can do is tag a couple of sections. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hematite vs Magnetite concentrations

The article states "With the chemical formula Fe3O4, magnetite ore has much lower iron content than hematite ore" (Fe2O3). Based on the formula, my maths has magnetite having the higher percentage of iron vs oxygen, and indeed this is what is stated in the introduction also. My guess is this sentence is supposed to mean something other than what is written, but I'm not sure what that might be. 218.185.0.10 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed that recently added, unsourced, redundant and error filled bit. Vsmith (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar error found in Production and consumption

In the sixth paragraph of the Production and consumption section starts with the following "In Australia iron ore is won from three main sources" I presume that "won" should be "one". I do not like changing pages that are not mine. Like tampering with someones hard work.

Peer Review Lots of useful information, great flow— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommytb05 (talk • contribs)

@Tommytb05: Hi. The phrase you point out is correct in its current form. "Iron ore is won" means "iron ore is extracted". If you changed it to "iron ore is one" it would mean "iron ore is singular" which is incorrect. As a side note, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Railfan23 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron ore. 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/20110322231042/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0580bf6-c220-11de-be3a-00144feab49a%2Cs01%3D1.html to http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0580bf6-c220-11de-be3a-00144feab49a%2Cs01%3D1.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) 01:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Spain and manganese

I'm trying to find out if Spanish iron ore was historically manganese-rich. The article begins to hint that it might have been, but where can I find out more? Vince Calegon 11:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs) Hmm, turns out Iberia was also a kingdom in the Caucasus! Not too difficult to find out that the Caucasus is a good source of manganese. Vince Calegon 14:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iron ore. 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/20060417160321/http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoiron.html to http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoiron.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121230204529/http://www.qrnational.com.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/QRNationalevaluatesindependentraillineforPilbara.aspx to http://www.qrnational.com.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/QRNationalevaluatesindependentraillineforPilbara.aspx

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) 19:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Mine Tailings

I have added a section called Mine tailings that is about the reclamation and production of iron from iron ore tailings. I have also added information about iron ore mining in the United States, Canada and Brazil. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to leave me a message. Joey Stephenson 98 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Brazil Section

Clearly the production numbers in the Brazil section are off. The.alex.orange (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What seems clear to you is less so to me. Do you have a more reliable source than the one cited in the current version of the article? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, but the two statements "In 2015 Brazil exported 397 million tons of usable iron ore" and "from December 2007 to May 2018 they exported a monthly average of 139,299 metric tons" are incompatible. It's like if I said that the average number of deaths per day to COVID from Jan 1 2020 - 2029 was 10. I don't know what the right answer is, but it's certainly not 10. Do NOT remove this tag until you have determined which source is incorrect (or has been incorrectly interpreted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.146.99 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

To make this even more clear "There are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.146.99 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now totally rewritten the contested section about Brazil's iron ore production, with three references, so the conflict should now be resolved. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Content from Iron ore article used in Mary River Mine article

I added several edits from this article to the Mary River Mine article.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Social science

What is iron ore 2401:4900:50A6:3711:9018:E440:F934:1123 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations not working

The link in citation no. 19 does not work. Is it just me or can someone replicate the issue and remove the now-dead link? (For reference: No. 19 is: "Graphic from The "Limits to Growth" and 'Finite' Mineral Resources, p. 5, Gavin M. Mudd") Thanks, Thelas Timpe Rathor (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)