Talk:Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am invoking Ignore all Rules here by closing the discussion, and redirecting BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project to Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine for the folowing reasons:

1. After a year and a half there has been no additional discussion, and it doesn't look like much more is going on. Keeping a merge tag on the top doesn't seem to be helping things.
2. The redirect target is sourced mainly using secondary sources, the page to be redirect was sourced from the BHP website (primary source), however now they are all broken and redirect to the BHP main page, so they are no longer verifiable (i.e there is no verifiable content to merge should the discussion end in merge).
3. The project is a component of the history of the mine (the construction period), so we are better off expanding the history section of the mine article with information about the project with proper secondary sources, rather than maintaining two articles in parallel.

If anybody thinks I am out of line for closing this, as I took part in the merge discussion a year and a half ago, feel free to revert my actions.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that the recently created article BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project be merged into this one as it is about the same subject. The title of BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel Project is also misleading as the project/mine is not owned by BHP Billiton anymore. Calistemon (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted, i suggest you wait a week or two until this article is completed. I am researching and adding content specifically to BHP Billiton's failed project. The article is not intended to be about the mine as such, but about the events that lead to the failure of the project and the causes. More content will come shortlyFunkywinders (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The mine and the BHP project are really the same, the project became the mine and operational as such for almost a year. I can't see a difference and therefore also no need to have two separate articles. I will list it under Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to allow a wider input to the matter. Calistemon (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears you disregarded my comments. I asked you to please wait a week or two while I finish the article. Then you can merge to your heart's content if the wider community of Wikipedia believe the project and project financing and mine are the same. Just have some patience man. Funkywinders (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are new to Wikipedia, so I'm just giving you a few hints. Firstly, proposing a merger does not automatically mean something is going to be merged and then not instantaniously either. This will remain open for discussion for at least a week. Secondly, contrary to common believe, you can not just create any article you want on Wikipedia, the subject has to fullfil notability guidelines. A separate article about just BHP's failed efforts at Ravensthorpe, consisting, so far, of information thats pretty much already present at the Mine article does probably not qualify. I find it hard to see how you will be able prove that the BHP project is completely separate subject from the current, reopening, mine. In the mean time, enjoy editing, Calistemon (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the article to gain an understanding that these are different topics, as the United States and North America are different topics so are these two. Some unoperational nickel mine is not the same as BHP's failed project which incorporated both Ravensthorpe and Yabulu and cost the company US$3.6 billion. The project is of interest and is noteworthy not just to the people of Ravensthorpe, but also to people reading about BHP Billiton, First Quantam, Yabulu, Project Finance, Joint Ventures the list goes on. The other article, which is of low quality 'start class' is merely about a mine that is not even operating. But I am happy to help you improve on the mine article, and it could even be incorporated into the wider discussion on the project. Funkywinders (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine There is no reason to maintain two seperate articles on virtually the same subject. If portions of the "project" article can be incorporated into the "mine" article than that is great, as it will add to the quality and content of the mine article. Funkywinders, a comment about article quality, the project article is of no better quality than the mine article, and is in fact, not as well referenced. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge: A reader of this article is likely, I think, to be interested in the material Funkywinders is adding at the other, so I would support their being merged so interested readers can easily access the content. Much of Funkywinders's content is well-cited and should be retained in this article after the merger. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything I believe the BHP Billiton Raventhorpe Nickel Project would be most suited to being merged with the BHP Billiton article. As the Project article is about BHP's operations, company strategy, and failures of the company. In addition the project also was vital to the ongoing profitability of the Yabulu refinery in Queensland, which I am not sure how you would discuss in an article solely on the mine. However the BHP Billiton article is currently under-developed. The reason I wrote the article is because it is a topic I am researching for a project finance subject as part of a masters and there was no article which suitably covered the topic, which went well beyond a nickel mine in WA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkywinders (talk • contribs) 09:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think, its way to detailed for the BHP article. Have you considered writting an article about BHP Billiton Nickel West, the sub-branch of BHP that carries out all Nickel operations in Australia? If anything, I think that would be the best home for all this information and certainly be notable enough? A move could be carried out to move BHP Billiton Raventhorpe Nickel Project to BHP Billiton Nickel West. Calistemon (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plant Under Care and Maintenance?

Ravensthorpe was acquired as a decommissioned nickel operation in February 2010. During the following 18 months, we made significant modifications to the processing plant focusing mainly on the redesign of the crushing, conveying, storage, reclaim and rejects areas. The achievement of commercial production and its internal performance benchmarks, ahead of schedule, is a major technical success for First Quantum.

• Ravensthorpe is on care and maintenance as of October 1, 2017 due to the persistently low nickel price.

http://www.first-quantum.com/Our-Business/operating-mines/Ravensthorpe/default.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourdeadin (talk • contribs) 07:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ravensthorpe - Mineral Reserves

Hello, I am an employee of First Quantum Minerals and I just wanted to highlight that Ravensthorpe comprises of five ore bodies with total proven and probable reserves of 189.6 million tonnes at a grade of 0.51% nickel and 0.03% cobalt (at 31 December 2022). Shoemaker-Levy, the largest ore body, contains 82% of the reserves. This information can be found in the Ravensthorpe Reserves & Resources section on the company website. 216.191.223.35 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)