Re: Mines - surface versus deep


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Previous # Next ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Andy Clayton on July 24, 2002 at 20:51:57 from 195.93.49.186 user cousin_jack.

In Reply to: Re: Mines - surface versus deep posted by Jock on July 23, 2002 at 18:22:58:

'Below surface level' in terrain like the mountainous lake district can lead to allsorts of confusion.( on the side of a hill it's a meaningless statement). Surely the mines should be measured 'below addit level', the lowest point to which a mine is self draining. Usually near the valley floor, but then a valley has a drop so different mines would have varying elevations of addit...
On the spying controversy, are we confusing AR with the classic cloak and dagger individual, beloved of fiction. When really he was a journalist at the right place when momentous events were unfolding, taking advantage of his position to gather and forward information. I believe from Brogan's biog. that he was quite keen to use his influence to get Britain's sympaties behind the revolution. Imay be wrong it is about 10 years since I read it!


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
Eel-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first

Before posting it is necessary to be a registered user.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]

Courtesy of Environmental Science, Lancaster

space