HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Free
Message: Re: What’s next? Tar sands, oil sands, bitumen -OT
6
Jan 01, 2012 05:24PM
14
Jan 01, 2012 09:13PM
11
Jan 02, 2012 07:13AM
27
Jan 02, 2012 09:00AM
12
Jan 02, 2012 10:54AM
7
Jan 02, 2012 12:11PM
23
Jan 08, 2012 10:59AM
5
Jan 08, 2012 11:34AM
10
Jan 08, 2012 12:32PM
12
Jan 08, 2012 12:37PM
20
Jan 08, 2012 01:16PM
5
Jan 08, 2012 04:31PM
8
Jan 08, 2012 04:36PM

Some facts about viscosity of various types of hydrocarbon deposits might help to illuminate which designation is more accurate: Tar Sands or Oil Sands.

Viscosity is the primary measure of how petroleum deposits get classified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Listed from most viscous (liquid) to least viscous (apparently solid at room temperature), we have:

  1. conventional oil (including light sweet, light sour)
  2. heavy oil
  3. extra heavy oil
  4. bitumen. (technical designation of the Albertan deposits)

Bitumen, also known as pitch, appears to be a solid at room temperature (as does tar, but tar is considered to be more liquid than pitch). Pitch was the subject of one of the longest running known scientific experiments, started in 1927. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment , which proved that bitumen is not a solid, but a very, very, very thick liquid, producing drops at a rate of one drop every 8 years or so.

So, from the petroleum industry's own classification system and the pitch drop experiment, we can clearly see that "Tar sands" is the more accurate designation. Now if one had been subjected to one-sided and/or misleading news coverage, one might have been misled into thinking that "oil sands" is more accurate. Things that should make one wonder...

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply