|WikiProject Elements||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Mining||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Discussion comments 2003-2008
- (per page history, seven comments were added to this discussion page in 2008 or before. This section heading was created in June 2009 to set those comments off from future discussion items. N2e (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
An earlier version of this article was adapted from the public domain USGS Minerals Information publication "Platinum-Group Metals Statistics and Information", available online at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/platinum/ Please update as necessary.
The section "Sources of platinum group metals" (taken from Wikipedia element articles) is unnecessarily repetitive, and could do with a good copyedit. -- The Anome 01:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Sources section is excellent.--McTrixie 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Relation to Iron group?
The non-similarity to the iron group metals (iron, cobalt, nickel) and its causes should be explained. Normally you'd expect them to be chemically similar, since they are located above the platinum group in the periodic system. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The article contains the following statement: "They have similar physical and chemical properties,...". This is repeated in the Palladium lede. In fact there are innumerable differences in reactivity and physical properties between these metals. Just for example, ruthenium and osmium form highly reactive volatile tetroxides, while the other four do not. Platinum is soluble in Aqua regia while iridium is not. Platinum is soft and the most ductile of metals while iridium and osmium are very hard and brittle. The melting point of Pd is an unremarkable 1555°C while that of Osmium is 3033°C, making it 4th highest element. What, then is the rationale for the statement that they are similiar. On the face of it their properties look very highly individualistic. Can we identify and state clearly which of their properties are similar enough to justify their grouping together as PGMs? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Mining platinum group metals from extraterrestrial resources
Looks like a company has been formed, backed by multiple billionaires and a few hundred-millionaires to mine platinum group metals from extraterrestrial resources, in particular near-Earth asteroids. (Mining Quarries Millions Of Miles From Earth, National Public Radio, 27 Apr 2012) If this were to work, we could see considerably different economics for platinum group metals after 2025–2035. N2e (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is certainly interesting, but I do not believe their production volumes will become significant any time soon (i.e. within the next 100 years). Billionaires have various quirks and motives, their support does not mean the enterprise will be practical for large-scale production of platinum group metals. Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, in the main; their production volumes will not become significant any time soon. But I would differ with you on the time frame and say that it will not be significant in the next 10 or 15 years. But that's just speculation. As is your 100 year number. Truth is, no one knows when asteroidal resources will become economically significant. That's why it called entrepreneurship; such folks undertake projects, at risk, and if they make profits, then that shows resources in their enterprise are being put to good use. If they make losses, then that would show they are wasting resources that could be put to better use by others. It will be quite some time before we know the answer on the outcome of that company, or should they get competition, of that "indusstry." Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)