Section 1 - Executive summary

Project purpose

To review ore beneficiation technologies and assess potential application to the Sulawesi
Nickel Project (SNP) in order to:

• Upgrade nickel in the limonite ore feed to High Pressure Acid Leaching (HPAL).

This was the principal goal, but it was also considered whether beneficiation could be
used to:

• Upgrade nickel in the saprolite ore feed to Atmospheric Acid Leaching (AAL), or

• Reject acid consuming or otherwise detrimental gangue from either the saprolite or
limonite feeds.

Major findings

Limonite

• Screening has been used at Ravensthorpe and Cawse to upgrade the limonite ore;
however this technique is not likely to provide significant upgrade of the SNP ores
due to different gangue mineralogy.

• Nevertheless, some screening is likely to be beneficial to remove particles that are

too coarse for leaching and to reject saprolite entrained in the limonite feed.

• In the event that chromite rejection is considered necessary, gravity separation is the
typical method.

Saprolite

• Upgrading of the nickel in saprolite might be achievable by screening, though a low

recovery is likely due to the nature of the mineralogy.

• Screening is also likely to be beneficial for the removal of entrained limonite and to
remove bedrock included in the ore feed (mining dilution).

• Magnetic separation may also be applicable for the removal of bedrock and
preliminary investigation should be undertaken.

Recommendations

When appropriate and representative samples are available, mineralogical and chemical
analysis on Sulawesi samples should be conducted and should include drill core and bulk
samples. Obtaining new samples, which have not dried or agglomerated, is important to
conclude the investigation. Future investigations should assess the range of potential
beneficiation strategies identified. In particular, a more thorough understanding of the
quantities of different gangue minerals present in the Sulawesi ore is necessary to
determine the potential for these options.

Report number 13074-2 Page 2 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

Contents page

Section 1 - Executive summary 2

Section 2 - Introduction 4

Section 3 – Limonite Beneficiation 5

3.1 Mineralogy of Limonite Ore 5
3.2 Screening of Limonite to Upgrade Nickel (Coarse Ore Rejection) 5
3.3 Screening of Limonite- Other Benefits 6
3.4 Chromite Rejection from Limonite Ore 7

Section 4- Saprolite Beneficiation 9

4.1 Screening of Saprolite to Upgrade Nickel 9
4.2 Screening of Saprolite- Other Benefits 10
4.3 Magnetic Separation of Bedrock from Saprolite Ore 10

Section 5- Conclusions and Recommendations 11

5.1 Conclusions 11
5.2 Recommended actions 11
2.9 References 12

Appendix 1 – Literature Review 14

Report number 13074-2 Page 3 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

Section 2 - Introduction

As part of the SNP Value Engineering Package 4, the potential application of

beneficiation technologies to the Sulawesi Nickel Project (SNP) has been reviewed. The
principal aim was to determine whether limonite ore feed to High Pressure Acid Leaching
(HPAL) could be upgraded. Other applications of beneficiation to be considered were the
upgrading of saprolite ore feed to Atmospheric Acid Leaching (AAL) and the rejection of
acid consuming or otherwise detrimental gangue from either the saprolite or limonite
feeds.

To keep the review broad, a range of Mineral Processing methodologies used in the
wider mining/metallurgy industry were considered and investigated for nickel laterites.
These included: Screening, Flotation, Magnetic Separation and Gravity Separation.

This document details the findings of the review, which entailed a literature search
covering conference proceedings, papers on projects and operations, and patents.
Information was sourced from T&I personnel with knowledge and experience in the area
of nickel laterite processing, mineral processing and mineralogy.

A table summarising the published information by technology type is included in

Appendix 1. A full list of references used is provided at the end of the document.

Currently, the only commercial beneficiation process operated to upgrade nickel laterites
is by screening. This has been used at Ravensthorpe and Cawse nickel operations (both
plants now closed). Other technologies considered do not have significant potential for
upgrading of laterite ores, though some have potential roles in rejection of specific
minerals. Screening and other potentially applicable beneficiation processes are
discussed in this report. For more information on the technologies that were reviewed but
not incorporated in the report due to their lack of relevance for the SNP, refer to
Appendix 1.

Mineralogical investigation of a number of SNP samples is currently underway and will

further contribute to our understanding of the potential benefit of beneficiation processes
for the SNP.

Report number 13074-2 Page 4 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

Section 3 – Limonite Beneficiation

3.1 Mineralogy of Limonite Ore

It is important to understand the mineralogy of limonite as it has significant implications

for potential beneficiation of the ore. The process of laterisation is explained briefly here
to provide context for later discussions.

The impact of laterisation, or weathering of ultramafic rocks, is that primary minerals

breakdown and release some of their chemical components into the ground water,
concentrating the insoluble or immobile components and forming new minerals which are
stable in the weathering environment. The net effect is a layer structure, or “laterite
profile”, in which the upper layers consist totally of alteration minerals, and the proportion
of surviving primary minerals increases down the profile.

The predominant bedrock minerals, olivine and serpentine, break down in the weathering
environment, releasing the Mg and Si ions to groundwater. Ferrous is also released but
is oxidised and precipitated as ferric hydroxide, initially amorphous or poorly crystalline
but progressively recrystallising to goethite. As for the nickel, it exists in solid solution in
the olivine and serpentine in the ultramafic bedrock, and as these minerals break down,
the released nickel (and cobalt) ions have a chemical affinity for the newly formed poorly
crystalline iron hydroxides and are incorporated into their structure by a combination of
adsorption and replacement of ferric iron1.

Therefore, nickel is atomically distributed through the goethite, contained within the
mineral structure, and cannot be readily separated from the iron bearing majority
mineralisation. A technique such as flotation is therefore unlikely to have significant
value. Rather the opportunity exists to reject primary minerals that have not weathered,
or which exist as intrusions into the laterite.

3.2 Screening of Limonite to Upgrade Nickel (Coarse Ore

Rejection)

Ravensthorpe and Cawse operations in Western Australia have both operated screening
beneficiation plants to upgrade nickel in the limonite feed to HPAL. In piloting,
Ravensthorpe ore showed typical upgrade ratios of 140-230%, at nickel recoveries of 53
to 67%2. This was achieved with a flowsheet entailing the following steps:

• Scrubbing

• Screening to reject +6 mm and to collect -75 µm as product.

• Attritioning of the -6 mm to +75 µm material

1
This description is summarised from : Elias, M. “Nickel Laterite Deposits- geological overview, resources and
exploitation”. in Giant Ore Deposits: Characteristics, genesis and exploration, eds DR Cooke and J Pongratz.
CODES Special Publication 4, Centre for Ore Deposit Research, University of Tasmania, pp205-220
2
Adams et al. “Piloting of the Beneficiation and EPAL Circuits for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations”.
International Nickel Symposium 2004.

Report number 13074-2 Page 5 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

• Screening of the -6 mm to +75 µm to reject +1 mm. Note that attritioning will have
produced material of -75 µm.

• Screening of -1 mm to reject +75 µm

Cawse achieved 30-50% upgrading during operation3, with the use of a drum scrubber,
screens to remove coarse rock, and then cyclone classification4.

The upgrading achieved at these two plants is due to the presence of coarser, iron-rich
quartz which is barren or low in nickel5. Attritioning ensures that coatings of the fine
nickel bearing limonite are removed from the coarse silica particles, and that
agglomerates of fine nickel bearing limonite are broken up.

Sulawesi limonite ore does not contain significant quartz. In the one sample
mineralogically analysed to date there was less than 5% quartz6 and geological advice is
that a low level is likely to be present throughout the orebody. It is therefore considered
unlikely that the Sulawesi limonite will show significant upgrading by screening.

This is validated by testwork for the Yerilla project7 which showed poor upgrading by
screening for two out of three of the “ferruginous” ore types (as opposed to the saprolite
ores which all showed reasonable upgradeability). The one ferruginous ore type that did
upgrade significantly was identified as “Ferruginous-Nontronite/quartz”. That is, the
presence of quartz enabled upgrading of this sample as opposed to other Ferruginous
ores.

Furthermore, testwork on Goro ore, a tropical laterite more likely to resemble the
Sulawesi ore than the Western Australian ores, indicated that the limonite was not
upgradeable by screening8.

Unless further mineralogical characterisation determines the presence of significant

quartz in the Sulawesi limonite, which is deemed unlikely, screening of the limonite for the
SNP will not be beneficial for the upgrading of nickel.

3.3 Screening of Limonite- Other Benefits

Despite the fact that screening of limonite will not result in a significant upgrade of the ore
feed to HPAL, there is still likely to be a requirement for some screening in the flowsheet.
Other plants for which ore is not significantly upgradeable, still use screening to reject
coarse material prior to the leach.

Firstly, screening allows size control into the leach, which is of particular importance for
the HPAL processes. The oversize can be milled and returned to the process, diverted to

3
Mayze, R. “ An Engineering Comparison of Three Treatment Flowsheets in WA Nickel Laterite Projects”. ALTA
1999
4
Mason et al. “Process Development and Plant Design for the Cawse Nickel Project”. ALTA 1997
5
Kyle and Corrans “Pilot Plant Testing of Nickel Laterites” ALTA 1998.
6
La Sampala Nickel Laterite Prospect- Order of Magnitude Study. TS Report: AR2302 2005.
7 nd
“Testwork confirms beneficiation for Yerilla Project”. Heron Resources ASX Release 22 May 2008
8
Bacon, WG et al. “Development of the Goro Nickel Process”. ALTA 2005

Report number 13074-2 Page 6 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

the saprolite ore stream, or rejected to waste, depending on the proportion of the ore it
makes up.

At Murrin Murrin, low grade scats are removed to provide this size control to the PAL
process and also to reduce acid consumption9.

At Moa Bay, coarse material (described as occasional chunks of un-decomposed

magnesium rich silicates) are rejected by passing the ore through a shaking grizzly10.
Grizzly undersize is dispersed in a log washer then successively passed through 1 cm
and 20 mesh screens. Oversize fractions are discarded. Grizzly oversize is fed to a
trommel and the fines are combined with the grizzly undersize.

In the limonite ore, saprolite can be present as coarse particles. This material will exhibit
higher acid consumption than the limonite, and good nickel extractions can typically be
achieved from it in the AAL process such that the higher capital HPAL processing is not
beneficial. Rejecting this material and adding it to the AAL feed stream is generally the
more cost effective option.

In summary, screening of limonite can achieve the following:

• Provide size control for the HPAL process. Oversize can be rejected, or milled and
returned to the process.

• Remove a small proportion of low grade, high acid consuming coarse particles, if
present.

• Remove entrained saprolite ore from the HPAL for processing in AAL, reducing acid
consumption in PAL.

The Sulawesi flowsheet incorporates screening of coarse ore to remove the ferrocrete
benchsheeting used in the mining, and to separate any large boulder material.

3.4 Chromite Rejection from Limonite Ore

Chromite rejection has been considered as necessary to protect ore slurry pipelines, the
autoclave and feed piping from damage by this abrasive material. The requirement for
this is not proven, and no reference has been found to such damage either in pilot or
commercial operation. Coral Bay and Ravensthorpe have operated without this step11.

However, when considered necessary, the removal of chromite is most commonly

undertaken by gravity separation which has been piloted on several ore bodies, and
operated commercially at Cawse.

In Ramu piloting12, a coarse fraction was rejected (+1.4 mm, 3.7% of the mass), fines
were collected as leach feed (-50 µm, 97% of the mass) and a middling fraction was

9
Project team discussion 19/03/2009- Godfrey,M. Goiny,M. Grocott,S. Hamilton,E. Hartley, M. Wilkie, G.
10
Queneau and Weir. “Control of Iron During Hydrometallurgical Processing of Nickeliferous Laterite Ores”. Iron
Control In Hydrometallurgy, 1986.
11 nd
Personal Communication from Mike Goiny to Mark Godfrey, 22 March 2009.
12
Mason and Hawker. “Ramu Nickel Process Piloting”. ALTA 1998.

Report number 13074-2 Page 7 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

separated by gravity for chromite rejection. In spirals, a chromite concentrate was
generated containing 4% of the feed mass, with a grade of 57% chromium and only 0.6%
nickel.

Several projects, including Ambatovy, Gladstone Nickel, Mindora and Weda Bay, have
included spirals in their flowsheet to remove coarse chromite ahead of pumping limonite
slurry from mine to process plant.

The Sulawesi Order of Magnitude flowsheet allows for rejection of chromite from the
limonite ore using spirals.

Magnetic separation is an alternative technology that has been suggested for the
separation of chromite from limonite ore. Some testwork was conducted for the US
Bureau of Mines13 to separate chromite from laterites or laterite leach residues, using
magnetic separation. It was reported that the chromite could be separated from
ferromagnetic iron oxides using low intensity magnetic separation on particles >100 µm.
However, in the finer size fractions, the chromite was coated in iron oxide surface films
which lead to overlapping magnetic susceptibilities. Unfortunately little information was
provided for nickel recovery as the focus of the report was the generation of a chromite
concentrate. The technique may be applicable for the clean up of a gravity chromite
concentrate.

Further published information on magnetic separation for chromite removal was not
uncovered in the review. It is thus expected that significant development would be
required for this process, which may not be necessary anyway.

Other gravity separation techniques such as jigging and dense media separation may be
appropriate, but little information has been found.

13
Kirby et al. . “Chromium Recovery from Nickel Cobalt Laterite” US Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Mines 1982.

Report number 13074-2 Page 8 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

Section 4- Saprolite Beneficiation

4.1 Screening of Saprolite to Upgrade Nickel

Screening of saprolite to upgrade nickel may be beneficial if there is significantly lower

grade in the coarser size fractions.

This was conducted at Ravensthorpe who used an identical flowsheet to that described in
Section 3.2 above for the processing of limonite ore, for their saprolite feed to an
atmospheric leach process14.

Piloting for the Goro project used a wobbler to reject the +150 mm material from the
saprolite ore feed, resulting in a typical upgrade from 1.25% nickel in ROM ore to 1.50%.

Development work for the Falconbridge ferronickel process also showed that upgrading
could be achieved for saprolite ore. Oversize from a 100 mm screen was attritioned (in
the “rubbler”) and screened on a trommel with 6 mm openings. The coarse reject
preferentially contained the low grade, high magnesia boulder core material. The
+100 mm material had a grade of 1.45% nickel, and the product, with 41% of the mass,
was upgraded to 1.85% nickel15.

Testwork on Yerilla saprolite samples also showed upgrades of 10-50% from three
samples.

Mineralogical characterisation of the 2005 composite saprolite sample prepared for

metallurgical testing showed more barren serpentine present in the coarser size
fractions16 and size by grade analysis17 showed that the nickel grade increased with
reducing particle size. The 52% of the ore at +10 mm had a grade of 1.23%, while the
48% below this size had an average grade of 1.82%. Significant upgrading potential
therefore exists for this sample, though the nickel recovery will be low due to the fact that
nickel is contained in different proportions in all the serpentine (which makes up most of
the ore). Characterisation of more samples will indicate whether this upgrading potential
is consistent across the orebody. The availability of a larger quantity of saprolite ore to
allow for rejection of a portion will need to be assessed by Mining.

14
Miller et al. “Ravensthorpe Nickel Project Beneficiation Prediction MLR and Interpretation of Results”.
International Laterite Nickel Symposium 2004.
15
Thornhill and Bergman “Development of the Falconbdrige Ferronickel Process” in International Laterite
Symposium 1979.
16
La Sampala Nickel Laterite Prospect- Order of Magnitude Study. TS Report: AR2302 2005.
17
Note that mineralogy and size by grade analysis was conducted on ore prepared to -25 mm (the material over
25 mm was crushed to -25 mm, then blended with the original -25 mm material).

Report number 13074-2 Page 9 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

4.2 Screening of Saprolite- Other Benefits

Again, whether or not the nature of the ore is favourable for upgrading, all nickel laterite
operations reject a certain coarse size. This is necessary because of the potential for
bed rock to intrude into the saprolite ore body, as well as the variation in the weathering
of the ores which can allow low grade coarse material to be rejected by screening.

The inclusion of coarse, barren material with the ore is due to entrainment in mining. The
use of screening to remove this material prevents a lowering of the ore grade through
mining dilution, and also reduces acid consumption per unit of nickel produced.
Furthermore, a plant capability to remove bedrock by size separation can simplify the
mining requirements. The success of this process is dependent on the size of the
bedrock boulders by comparison with the saprolite rocks in ROM ore.

This concept could be explored using photographs of the existing drill cores or by
microscope examination to assess the size of the bedrock material included with the ore.

For the fines, screening of saprolite may also be useful in the removal of limonite ore from
the AAL feed. The HPAL leach conditions are optimised for limonite processing and this
material is thus better fed to this circuit than to AAL. Some limonite however will
inevitably be entrained with the saprolite ore. Mineralogical characterisation of the 2005
SNP saprolite composite sample showed the -38 µm fraction (10.8% mass of the ore) to
contain around 37% goethite. This indicates a high proportion of limonite in this material.

Rejection of a fine size fraction of the saprolite ore, and diversion of this material to the
HPAL leach, may therefore allow more optimal processing of the two ore types in terms
of nickel leaching and acid regeneration.

The full value of this strategy depends on the proportion of limonite present in the
saprolite ore and needs to be assessed with bulk samples using ore preparation
techniques supported by mineralogical characterisation and the mine plan criteria.

4.3 Magnetic Separation of Bedrock from Saprolite Ore

As discussed above, mining dilution (bedrock) should ideally be removed from the
saprolite ore. A potential alternative process for the removal of bedrock from saprolite
ore is magnetic separation. This technology could be beneficial if the size of the bedrock
material is too similar to that of the saprolite rocks for effective size separation. For this
process to work however, the bedrock will need to contain sufficient magnetite for good
magnetic separation.

Report number 13074-2 Page 10 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

Section 5- Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

The established technique for upgrading limonite and saprolite ores is by screening. The
value of upgrading is dependent on the mineralogical characteristics of the ore.
Screening can be used to reject bedrock and entrained limonite with the saprolite ore,
and to control mining dilution in limonite ore.

The characteristics of the ore and the association of the nickel make flotation
inappropriate.

Gravity separation, using spirals, has been used in pilot and commercial operations to
remove dense fines. The technique would be capable of removing chromite, which has
been considered an abrasion risk to equipment, but no evidence has been found of
abrasion being encountered.

Rejection of magnetic low nickel minerals, while not known to be used, may have
potential application but would require significant technology development.

5.2 Recommended actions

Further mineralogical and chemical analysis on representative Sulawesi samples,

preferably including bulk samples, is required to assess the following:

• The potential for screening of limonite to reject mining entrainment and thus sustain
the grade of the ore.

• The potential benefit of screening of saprolite ore, to minimise limonite entrainment

and reject bedrock.

• The quantity of magnetite present in bedrock. If there is sufficient, magnetic

separation may be a process to investigate for the separation of bedrock from
saprolite ore (assuming size separation is not considered applicable).

• The quantity and distribution of chromite in the limonite ore. An understanding of the
quantity that makes rejection necessary is also needed.

Any beneficiation technique identified from mineralogical and chemical analysis will need
to be evaluated through testwork. The testwork should be undertaken on a several
samples, representing the early mine years for the project, and should be handled and
prepared to prevent drying or other degradation. It should also be conducted at a pilot
scale, therefore requiring tens of tonnes of ore.

Report number 13074-2 Page 11 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

2.9 References

• Adams, van der Meulen, Czerny, Adamini, Turner, Jaysekera, Amaranti, Mosher,
Miller, M, White and Miller, G. “Piloting of the Beneficiation and EPAL Circuits for
Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations”. International Nickel Symposium 2004.

• Agatzini-Leonardou, Zafiratos and Spathis. “Beneficiation of a Greek Serpentinic

Nickeliferous Ore” Hydrometallurgy 74, 2004.

• Bacon, Colton, Krause, Mihaylov, Singhal and Vahed.. “Development of the Goro
Nickel Process”. ALTA 2005.

• Burvill and White. “Engineering Aspects of the Cawse Nickel/Cobalt Laterite Project”.
ALTA 1999.

• Ferrera, Machiavekki and Bevilacqua. “New Developments in Multi-Stage and Multi-

Density Dynamic Dense Medium Separation Circuits” International Mineral
Processing Symposium held in Turkey Oct 1992.

• Grassi, White and Kindred. “Cawse Nickel Operations- Process Description and
Productions Ramp Up” ALTA 2000.

• Hellsten and Lewis. “Cawse Nickel Laterite Deposit” ALTA 1996.

• Kirby, George and Daellenbach. “Chromium Recovery from Nickel Cobalt Laterite”
US Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Mines 1982.

• Kyle and Corrans “Pilot Plant Testing of Nickel Laterites” ALTA 1998.

• Mason, Groutsch, Mayze and White. “Process Development and Plant Design for the
Cawse Nickel Project”. ALTA 1997.

• Mason and Hawker. “Ramu Nickel Process Piloting”. ALTA 1998.

• Mayze, R. “ An Engineering Comparison of Three Treatment Flowsheets in WA

Nickel Laterite Projects”. ALTA 1999

• Miller, G. “Beneficiation of Ravensthorpe Nickel Laterite Ore” ALTA 1999.

• Miller, Sampson, Fleay, Conway-Mortimer and Roche. “Ravensthorpe Nickel Project

Beneficiation Prediction MLR and Interpretation of Results”. International Laterite
Nickel Symposium 2004.

• Miller, James and Turner. “Recovery of Minus 100 um Hematite by Wet Intensity
Magnetic Separation”. International Mineral Processing Congress 1993.

• Onodera, Inoue and Imaizumi. “Attempts for the Beneficiation of Lateritic Nickel Ore”.
International Seminar on Laterite, Japan, 1985.

• Queneau and Weir. “Control of Iron During Hydrometallurgical Processing of

Nickeliferous Laterite Ores”. Iron Control In Hydrometallurgy, 1986.

• Rao and Sastri. “Novel Approach for Enriching Nickel Content in Lean Lateritic
Chromite Overburden”. Miner.Metall.Process. Vol 13 No2 May 1996.

• Song, Lu and Valdivierso. “Magnetic Separation of Haematite and Limonite Feins as

Hydrophobic Flocs from Iron Ores” Miner. Eng. Vol 15 No 6 June 2002.

• “Testwork confirms beneficiation for Yerilla Project”. Heron Resources ASX Release
22nd May 2008

Report number 13074-2 Page 12 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

• Thornhill and Bergman “Development of the Falconbdrige Ferronickel Process” in
International Laterite Symposium 1979.

• Torres, Carmo, Evelin, Rodrigues and Costa. “Niquel do Vermelho Project-

Prefeasibility Study”. International Nickel Symposium 2004.

• Torres, V. “Niquel Do Vermelho Project- Final Feasibility Study” ALTA 2005.

Report number 13074-2 Page 13 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

Appendix 1 – Literature Review

The following table summarises the information obtained in the review for each mineral processing technique
identified.

Mineral Processing Information Applicability

Technique

Screening 1. Ravensthorpe piloting18 - typical upgrade ratios of 140-230%, at nickel recoveries of 53-67%. Upgrade of 30-50% achieved for limonite, by
Produced a feed grade of 1.4-2.0%. Recoveries of the -75 um fraction to product were >95%. screening/scrubbing of ores from numerous
Attrition scrubbing proved beneficial, yielding an average 3.8% increase in -75 um mass
deposits - most notably Cawse and
recovery and a 5.8% overall increase in nickel recovery.
Ravensthorpe. This success is due to the
Pilot plant flowsheet - Scrubbing, screening to reject +6 mm and to collect –75 um as product. presence of nickel-free quartz in the coarse
Attritioning of -6 mm+75 um, then screening to reject +1 mm. Screening of -1 mm to reject +75 fractions. The probable absence of quartz in
um. the Sulawesi deposit means this is unlikely
to be applicable to the SNP.
(NB: all this information was provided in one paper which did not state whether they were
treating limonite or saprolite - it is assumed limonite)

The limonite and saprolite are treated identically in the RNP flowsheet, but separately in two
circuits19.

18
Adams, van der Meulen, Czerny, Adamini, Turner, Jaysekera, Amaranti, Mosher, Miller, M, White and Miller, G. “Piloting of the Beneficiation and EPAL Circuits for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations”.
International Nickel Symposium 2004.
19
Miller et al. “Ravensthorpe Nickel Project Beneficiation Prediction MLR and Interpretation of Results”. International Laterite Nickel Symposium 2004.

Report number 13074-2 Page 14 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 An earlier paper20 showed that 7 samples were tested, including “goethite”, “serpentine”
amongst others including “quartz” and “chlorite” - all treated the same way (scrubbing,
attritioning, screening). Upgrade ratio for goethite sample was 185%, for serpentine it was 215%
Nevertheless, most operations reject a
2. Pilot testing on Cawse limonite samples21 - slurrying of the ore through a drum scrubber and coarse size fraction to control leach top size
removal of coarse rock by screening followed by cyclone classification gave Ni upgrade of 40% and reject bedrock.
and recovery of 70% for an average grade composite. Upgrade of 30% and recovery of 85% for
a high grade composite. This success was due to removal of coarse silica fraction22.

In operation, the limonite ore underwent an upgrading step after primary crushing using a drum
scrubber, screens, cyclone and gravity spirals23. Ore was upgraded by 30-50%24.

More detailed process description25. Limonite ore is conveyed to a drum scrubber for liberation Some saprolites showed potential for
of the high-grade clays. The drum scrubber trammel removes +25 mm waste. Slurry is then upgrading, including Goro, Falconbridge and
pumped to a double deck screen for removal of +1.5 mm material. Screen undersize is fed to a Yerilla. Nickel contained in serpentine at a
cyclone cluster. Cyclone underflow travels through gravity spirals, where the heavier, coarse range of grades means that recovery is likely
fraction is rejected to waste. The lighter fractions are pumped to the siliceous cobalt Ball Mill.
to be low. But upgrading possible- need
After secondary and tertiary crushing, the siliceous cobalt ore is fed the Ball Mill circuit for
grinding and classification. further mineralogical samples to assess.
Cyclone overflows from both the beneficiation and ball mill circuits are combined and pumped to
the Leach Feed Thickener.

20
Miller, G. “Beneficiation of Ravensthorpe Nickel Laterite Ore” ALTA 1999.
21
Mason, Groutsch, Mayze and White. “Process Development and Plant Design for the Cawse Nickel Project”. ALTA 1997.
22
Hellsten and Lewis. “Cawse Nickel Laterite Deposit” ALTA 1996.
23
Burvill & White. “Engineering Aspects of the Cawse Nickel/Cobalt Laterite Project”. ALTA 1999.
24
Mayze, R. “ An Engineering Comparison of Three Treatment Flowsheets in WA Nickel Laterite Projects”. ALTA 1999
25
Grassi, White and Kindred. “Cawse Nickel Operations- Process Description and Productions Ramp Up” ALTA 2000.
26
Mayze, R. “ An Engineering Comparison of Three Treatment Flowsheets in WA Nickel Laterite Projects”. ALTA 1999
27
Project team discussion 19/03/2009- Godfrey,M. Goiny,M. Groscott,S. Hamilton,E. Hartley, M. Wilkie, G.

Report number 13074-2 Page 15 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 3. While Cawse limonite can be upgraded, the smectite clays of Bulong and Murrin Murrin do not
beneficiate appreciably although minor amounts of material are rejected26. Murrin Murrin
remove scats to reduce acid consumption and provide size control to the PAL process. This
provides a very minor nickel upgrade27.

4. Moa Bay28 - Coarse material (occasional chunks of undecomposed magnesium-rich silicates)

rejected by passing the ore through a shaking grizzly. Grizzly undersize is dispersed in a log
washer then successively passed through 1 cm and 20 mesh screens. Oversize fractions are
discarded. Grizzly oversize is fed to a trommel and the fines are combined with the grizzly
undersize.

5. Yerilla - Testwork on 33 bulk samples (limonite and saprolite) from the Jump-Up Dam and
Boyce Creek resources gave a range of performances. Upgrades of 40% reported from some
ores. Significant variability between ore types29. Note that the “ferruginous ores” showed poor
upgrading except for Type 3 described as “Ferruginous-Nontronite-Quartz”. The good upgrades
were for the saprolite ores.

6. Nicquel do Vermelho - piloting30. Crushing to -2 inches (presumably ‘as required’ given they
tested limonite and saprolite ores), followed by scrubbing and classification. Cut size
investigation indicated 0.15 mm as optimum. Upgrade ratio depended on silica content. Low
SiO2 ores (<20%), gave upgrade ratios of 1-1.2. Increasing SiO2 gave increasing upgradability,
with >50% SiO2 giving an upgrade ratio 1.5-1.8
7. Screening of limonite may also be conducted to remove any entrained saprolite, in order to
reduce acid consumption in the PAL circuit. This also removes the need to mill the autoclave
feed stream.

28
Queneau and Weir. “Control of Iron During Hydrometallurgical Processing of Nickeliferous Laterite Ores”. Iron Control In Hydrometallurgy, 1986.
29 nd
“Testwork confirms beneficiation for Yerilla Project”. Heron Resources ASX Release 22 May 2008
30
Torres, Carmo, Evelin, Rodrigues and Costa. “Niquel do Vermelho Project- Prefeasibility Study”. International Nickel Symposium 2004.

Report number 13074-2 Page 16 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 8. Screening of saprolite may enable removal of bedrock (mining dilution). The success of this will
depend on the size of the boulders relative to the size of the saprolite rocks.

9. It is believed that Coral Bay reject around 15% of the limonite ore (recovered from stockpiles at
100 mm, put through the drum scrubber and reject +25 mm, then after final de-agglomeration
the slurry is passed over screens to reject the +2 mm)31.
Coral Bay do not practise chromite removal32.

10. Goro - screening of early drill core samples showed that the limonite was not upgradeable and
that the saprolite was somewhat upgradeable, by screening out the coarse low Ni, High Mg
rocks33. The ROM saprolite ore contained 1.25% Ni, and the -50 mm (47% of the mass) had a
grade of 2.05%. The -150 mm (69% of the mass) had a head grade of 1.50%. In the pilot plant,
a wobbler removed the + 150 mm rocks.

11. Development work for Falconbridge34 (saprolite) showed that attritioning of primary screen
oversize (+100 mm) in an autogenous mill equipped with a discharge trommel having 6 mm
openings, resulted in significant upgrading. The feed (the oversize) contained 1.45% nickel and
the product, containing 41% of the mass, contained 1.87% nickel. The low grade, high
magnesia boulder cores were successfully rejected.

12. Ramu - piloting35. Ore preparation involved rejecting coarse oversize host rock (+1.4 mm, 3.7%
of the mass, 0.8% Ni), de-agglomerating the ore and removing the bulk of the chromite. 74% of
the chromite could be removed in testwork, with 1% loss of nickel. See gravity concentration
below.

31 nd
Personal Communication from Mike Goiny to Mark Godfrey, 22 March 2009.
32 nd
Personal Communication from Mike Goiny to Mark Godfrey, 22 March 2009.
33
Bacon, WG et al. “Development of the Goro Nickel Process”. ALTA 2005.
34
Thornhill and Bergman “Development of the Falconbdrige Ferronickel Process” in International Laterite Symposium 1979.
35
Mason and Hawker. “Ramu Nickel Process Piloting”. ALTA 1998.

Report number 13074-2 Page 17 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 Flotation Flotation of iron minerals May be able to float goethite from other
gangue minerals - value depends on the
Testwork showed that nickel could be floated from reject lateritic overburden of chromite mining at proportion of quartz and other barren
Sukinda, India. Nickel content upgraded from 0.55% (screening) and to 1.1% by flotation, with over gangue present. Certain to be too
70% recovery36. Nickel is associated with goethite, which is separated from gangue (mainly silica) expensive.
by flotation of iron minerals.

Flotation of Ni Serpentine
Unlikely to be able to sufficiently separate
37
Testwork performed on saprolite ore from Poya deposit of New Caledonia (identified as mainly barren serpentine from nickeliferous
serpentine and quartz). Range of collectors trialled. Sodium oleate showed some selectivity for serpentine unless a more selective reagent
nickel over silica. Approx 48% of the nickel in 32% of the mass. pH 11 required. is identified.

Furthermore, the nickel concentrations in

laterite ores are too low to give flotation
enough value.

Magnetic Separation
1. Testwork conducted for haematite and goethite iron ores to separate iron minerals from quartz Even with high intensity magnetic fields,
and other gangue38. Middle intensity magnetic separation will collect haematite but not goethite. response for goethite is not strong. Again,
Wet High Intensity Magnetic Separation may be able to separate goethite as well, though not as
absence of quartz in SNP ore means there is
effectively as for hematite.
unlikely to be significant benefit in separating

36
Rao and Sastri. “Novel Approach for Enriching Nickel Content in Lean Lateritic Chromite Overburden”. Miner.Metall.Process. Vol 13 No2 May 1996.
37
Onodera, Inoue and Imaizumi. “Attempts for the Beneficiation of Lateritic Nickel Ore”. International Seminar on Laterite, Japan, 1985.
38
Miller, James and Turner. “Recovery of Minus 100 um Hematite by Wet Intensity Magnetic Separation”. International Mineral Processing Congress 1993.

Report number 13074-2 Page 18 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 iron minerals to reject silica.
2. An alternative technique looked at for iron ore to improve magnetic response of limonite:39
Hydrophobic flocculation induced by sodium oleate and kerosene, then subject to a middle
intensity magnetic field. Greatly increased separation efficiency compared with conventional
magnetic separation. Upgraded iron (in limonite ore) from 38% to 51% with recovery of 82%.

3. Investigation of magnetic separation for a Greek serpentine40. Nickeliferous metals including

garnierite, limonite and serpentine are slightly magnetic while quartz and calcite are non- For saprolite, could potentially separate from
magnetic. Only a high intensity magnetic field would achieve separation. Calcite successfully calcite and quartz if present is sufficient
separated from serpentine with 37% removal and a 5% nickel loss. From finer size fractions
quantity. But unlikely to have applicability for
(already higher grade), less separation.
SNP saprolite given most of the gangue is
From size fractions +1 mm, increased grade from 1.5-1.6% up to 1.7-1.85% with 95-98% Ni serpentine with varying nickel content.
recovery. There is little calcite or quartz in the
Sulawesi saprolite.
4. Testing of Magnetic Separation for saprolite from the Poya deposit of New Caledonia showed no
upgrading41.

5. Magnetic Separation for removal of chromium42

• From “coarse” material (>100 um), some separation of chromite from ferromagnetic iron
oxides using low intensity magnetic separation.
• But could not remove chromite from slimes with magnetic separation due to iron oxide surface
films which lead to overlapping magnetic susceptibilities. Scrubbing in a 15% solution of HCl
removed coatings and rendered samples responsive to high-intensity magnetic separation.
A second opportunity for saprolites may be
• Laterite contained 25-33% iron, 0.7-1.1% Ni, 1.3-1.9% Cr, 9.6-13.2% MgO and 14.9-27.6%

39
Song, Lu and Valdivierso. “Magnetic Separation of Haematite and Limonite Feins as Hydrophobic Flocs from Iron Ores” Miner. Eng. Vol 15 No 6 June 2002.
40
Agatzini-Leonardou, Zafiratos, Spathis. “Beneficiation of a Greek Serpentinic Nickeliferous Ore” Hydrometallurgy 74, 2004.
41
Onodera, Inoue and Imaizumi. “Attempts for the Beneficiation of Lateritic Nickel Ore”. International Seminar on Laterite, Japan, 1985.
42
Kirby, George and Daellenbach. “Chromium Recovery from Nickel Cobalt Laterite” US Dept of the Interior, Bureau of Mines 1982.
43
Project team discussion 19/03/2009- Godfrey,M. Goiny,M. Groscott,S. Hamilton,E. Hartley, M. Wilkie, G.

Report number 13074-2 Page 19 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 SiO2. the rejection of bedrock, due to its magnetic
character from the presence of magnetite (if
6. Bedrock delivered with the saprolite ore (mining dilution) may potentially be removed by
sufficient magnetite is present).
magnetic separation if it contains sufficient magnetite. This would remove high acid consuming,
low nickel bedrock. This material may be difficult to remove by size due to the coarse saprolite
particles43.

Note that some pyromet operations (e.g. Falcondo, Sorowako) have bedrock dilution which can Chromite rejection by magnetic separation
be separated by use of a grizzly and screening of the coarse material. This bedrock material is may be applicable.
unserpentenised olivine. The geology of SNP saprolite is very different and this is not likely to
be applicable to the SNP.

Gravity Separation
1. General Mining and Metallurgical Company of Greece built a Dense Medium Separation pilot Gravity separation to upgrade nickel not
plant for their ferronickel plant44. Ore is 0.8-0.9% nickel high clay ore which contains around likely to be applicable given the low free
50% free silica. Rejected 40%of the free silica with 96% nickel recovery.
silica in the SNP deposit.
45
2. Gravity separation can usually partly remove chromite . This is proposed for the Ramu project
to minimise erosion during transport of the beneficiated slurry via pipeline to the treatment plant.

Gravity rejection of coarse chromite particles is practiced at several operations to protect Ti Use of gravity separation to remove chromite
piping from abrasion wear. However, the necessity of this step is not proven for SNP. The may be beneficial. Value is not likely to be in
associated upgrade is expected to be minor. This same aim is achieved at Ravensthorpe with a
upgrading or reduction of acid consumption
trommel screen46.
but in removal of potentially abrasive

44
Ferrera, Machiavekki and Bevilacqua. “New Developments in Multi-Stage and Multi-Density Dynamic Dense Medium Separation Circuits” International Mineral Processing Symposium held in Turkey Oct
1992.
45
Kyle and Corrans “Pilot Plant Testing of Nickel Laterites” ALTA 1998.
46
Project team discussion 19/03/2009- Godfrey,M. Goiny,M. Groscott,S. Hamilton,E. Hartley, M. Wilkie, G.
47
Mason and Hawker. “Ramu Nickel Process Piloting”. ALTA 1998.

Report number 13074-2 Page 20 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited

 3. Mark Nott looked into the use of DMS for a New Caledonian laterite in the past, though material which can damage equipment.
commented that the use of jigs may be more viable.

4. Patent issued in 2000 for gravity process for saprolite (after screening)

Process - a) Screening of ROM ore at 300 mm, b) washing of undersize to separate fine
particles from the coarser particles or break up clumps of fine material c) washed pulp is sized
(screens, cyclones, screw-type sizers etc) to a desired mesh size such that no more than 10% of
the fine fractions ends up in the coarse fraction. Mesh size is 80um - 3 mm. d) Coarse fraction is
subjected to gravity separation to obtain a Ni-enriched light fraction and a barren heavy fraction.

Different options investigated for the gravity separation - a separator comprising a bath of high
density medium, or a centrifugal separator. It is also mentioned that jigs, cones or spirals may
be an alternative method.

5. See also comments under Screening for Cawse operations - used gravity spirals as part of
limonite upgrading circuit.

6. Ramu-piloting47. Gravity Separation for chromite removal.

After rejecting coarse, collecting fines with minimal chromite, a middling was tested for spiral
concentration of chromite. The chromite concentrate from limonite ore contained 57% Cr and
only 0.6% Ni in 4% of the mass. It was noted that a large part of the chromium was not present
as discrete chromite but locked in goethite, and as such, these results were considered
excellent.

Ore Sorting No information was found on the application of ore sorting to nickel laterite ores. The technique
may have advantages in controlling ore grade and should be considered in future work.

Report number 13074-2 Page 21 of 21

Date 25-May-09 ©2008 Technological Resources Pty Limited