Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review

An International Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gmpr20

The Direct Leaching of Nickel Sulfide Flotation

Concentrates – A Historic and State-of-the-Art
Review Part I: Piloted Processes and Commercial
Operations

Nebeal Faris, Mark I. Pownceby, Warren J. Bruckard & Miao Chen

To cite this article: Nebeal Faris, Mark I. Pownceby, Warren J. Bruckard & Miao Chen (2022):
The Direct Leaching of Nickel Sulfide Flotation Concentrates – A Historic and State-of-the-Art
Review Part I: Piloted Processes and Commercial Operations, Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy Review, DOI: 10.1080/08827508.2022.2070617

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08827508.2022.2070617

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with Published online: 16 May 2022.

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4520

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gmpr20
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.1080/08827508.2022.2070617

The Direct Leaching of Nickel Sulfide Flotation Concentrates – A Historic and State-of-
the-Art Review Part I: Piloted Processes and Commercial Operations
Nebeal Farisa,b, Mark I. Pownceby a
, Warren J. Bruckarda, and Miao Chen a,b

a
CSIRO Mineral Resources, Private Bag 10 Clayton South, Victoria 3169, Australia; bSchool of Science, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne,
Victoria 3001, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The extraction of nickel (Ni) from sulfide resources commences with flotation to produce a concentrate Nickel; cobalt; pentlandite;
which is then smelted to produce a nickel-enriched phase called matte, and further refined to produce nickel sulfides;
pure Ni products as well as by-products, such as cobalt (Co), copper (Cu) and precious metals. However, hydrometallurgy
the traditional concentrate smelting-matte refining process, whilst technologically robust, is capital
intensive and suffers from several environmental and technical issues such as sulfur dioxide emissions,
poor recovery of cobalt and difficulty processing concentrates high in magnesia and arsenic without
appropriate blending with high grade concentrates to dilute the concentration of these species. The direct
hydrometallurgical processing of nickel sulfide concentrates and whole ores may be a remedy to these
issues and hydrometallurgy offers several advantages over pyrometallurgy such as potentially lower
capital costs, the ability to process lower grade materials and produce marketable metals or compounds
directly from ore/concentrate. Despite the advantages of hydrometallurgy over traditional base metal
sulfide smelting, the hydrometallurgical processing of nickel concentrates has been limited to a small
handful of commercial operations, some of which only produce an upgraded intermediate for pyrome­
tallurgical processing. In Part I of this three-part series, a comprehensive review of piloted processes for
direct hydrometallurgical processing of nickel sulfide concentrates is presented, followed by a survey of
industrial operations which have carried out direct leaching of nickel sulfide concentrates. A review of
research activities and challenges/opportunities in the direct hydrometallurgical processing of nickel
sulfide concentrates are presented in Part II and Part III of this series.

1. Introduction
Nickel (Ni) is an essential metal for society with stainless steels
being its major end use, though high purity nickel sulfate, a key
raw material for production of lithium-ion battery (LIB) cath­
odes essential for electric vehicles (EVs) is a rapidly growing
market (McRae 2020a). Nickel demand has traditionally been
driven by stainless steel production, either in the form of class 2
(<99.8% Ni) nickel products such as nickel oxide, ferronickel
and nickel pig iron (NPI), or higher purity class 1 (>99.8% Ni)
nickel such as nickel powder, briquettes or electrowon cathode
(Campagnol et al. 2017). Campagnol et al. (2017) have indi­
cated that demand for class 1 nickel in the form of high purity
nickel sulfate for lithium-ion batteries is expected to reach
570,000 tonnes (Ni metal basis) in 2025.
Terrestrial nickel resources are contained in sulfide and
lateritic deposits, with 30–40% of the land-based nickel
resources being contained in sulfide deposits with the balance
in laterite deposits (Dalvi, Bacon, and Osborne 2004; Hoatson,
Jaireth, and Jaques 2006; Mudd 2010). Major nickel sulfide
deposits are in Australia, Canada, Russia and Southern Africa
whilst most nickel laterite deposits are located in Indonesia,
New Caledonia, Brazil and the Philippines (Hoatson, Jaireth,
and Jaques 2006). Despite laterites being more abundant than
sulfide deposits, Ni production has historically been derived
from sulfides due to these resources being more amenable to
beneficiation and less challenging to process, resulting in lower
costs relative to Ni production from laterites (Elias 2002; Mudd
2010). However, recent data from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) show that Ni production from laterite ores has
overtaken sulfide resources over the 2011–2016 period (McRae
2018, 2020b). The key driver appears to be Chinese stainless-
steel producers using NPI rather than class 1 nickel to reduce
manufacturing costs (Campagnol et al. 2017); Ni production
data from China show that approximately 60% of Ni produc­
tion in 2016 was in the form of ferronickel and NPI (McRae
2020b). Since 2014, NPI production has also expanded in
Indonesia, coinciding with the ban by the Indonesian govern­
ment on the export of direct shipping nickel laterite ores
(McRae 2020b).
Lateritic ores are not typically amenable to beneficiation and
therefore direct processing of whole ore using hydrometallur­
gical or pyrometallurgical techniques is necessary with the
choice of processing method being dependent on the type of
ore (Dalvi, Bacon, and Osborne 2004; Elias 2002; Marsh,
Anderson, and Gray 2013). High pressure acid leaching
(HPAL) is the preferred method for the extraction of Ni and
Co from oxide (limonite) and clay silicate type ores to produce
a diverse range of products (i.e. mixed sulfide precipitate,
mixed hydroxide precipitate, metal powder, cathode) whilst
saprolitic ores are generally processed via pyrometallurgy to

CONTACT Miao Chen Miao.Chen@csiro.au CSIRO Mineral Resources, Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Victoria 3169, Australia
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 N. FARIS ET AL.
produce either ferronickel or sulfide matte (Dalvi, Bacon, and
Osborne 2004; Elias 2002; Marsh, Anderson, and Gray 2013).
Nickel laterite projects employing hydrometallurgical or pyr­
ometallurgical processing have often suffered from high capital
expenditure and cost blowouts, have required long ramp up
times, suffered from technical issues relating to commissioning
and ramp up, and in the case of HPAL, have at times failed to
achieve nameplate capacity (Jones et al. 2010; McDonald and Li
2020; Oxley, Smith, and Caceres 2016). The extraction of Ni
from sulfide ores is much simpler relative to laterites and is
dominated by pyrometallurgical processing. This typically
involves comminution and flotation to produce a nickel con­
centrate which is subsequently smelted and converted to pro­
duce a sulfur-deficient, metal-enriched phase termed matte,
which is then refined to produce pure Ni, Cu, Co metal pro­
ducts and precious and platinum group metals (PGMs) where
applicable (Crundwell et al. 2011b). A simplified flow chart of
the flotation-smelting-matte refining process for treatment of
nickel sulfide ores is presented in Figure 1. There is great deal
of variation in the standard flow sheet with respect to flotation
practice (i.e. mineralogy, liberation size, reagents, etc.) and
converter matte refining, however concentrate smelting is
dominated by either flash smelting or roasting-electric furnace
Figure 1. Simplified traditional process flowsheet for the extraction of Ni, Cu and
Co from nickel sulfide resources.
smelting technology whilst matte converting is almost exclu­
sively done using Peirce-Smith converters (Moskalyk and
Alfantazi 2002; Warner et al. 2007).
The objective of concentrate smelting is to remove part of
the sulfur and iron present in the concentrate by oxidation;
sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2) whilst iron forms iron
oxide which is fluxed by reaction with silica to form an iron
silicate slag (Crundwell et al. 2011f). This iron silicate slag also
removes any non-sulfide gangue present in the concentrate
which dissolves into the molten slag (Crundwell et al. 2011f).
Typical base metals content of concentrates utilized for smelt­
ing contain a combined Ni, Cu and Co grade of 8% to above
20%, though lower grade concentrates having a combined base
metal concentration of 3–4% are smelted in Southern Africa
due to the high PGM content of these materials (Warner et al.
2007). Concentrate smelting is carried out either by roasting-
electric furnace smelting or via flash smelting and the key
process steps in both processes are presented in Figure 2; the
key principles of both methods are covered in detail elsewhere
(Crundwell et al. 2011c, 2011f). The production details of both
pyrometallurgical processing routes are presented in Table 1
including typical Ni and Cu grades in the concentrates, mattes
and slags. It can be seen from Table 1 that either pyrometal­
lurgical route is very efficient at recovering Ni, Cu and precious
metals to the matte. Base metal contents in slags produced
from flash smelting are generally higher and recoveries are
lower relative to the electric furnace route due to the more
oxidizing conditions employed, however slags are processed to
recover base metals through slag cleaning operations. Cobalt
recoveries are poor by either route (Matousek 1982; Warner
et al. 2007).
The final product from nickel concentrate smelting by
either route is a molten nickel sulfide enriched phase (matte)
which typically contains 15–40% Ni, 20–40% Fe, and 20–25%
S as well as Cu, Co and any PGMs (Crundwell et al. 2011a). The
molten matte is transferred to a converter where iron is oxi­
dized using air or oxygen and removed from the matte as an
iron silicate slag; the final product, termed converter matte,
typically contains 40–70% Ni, 0.5–4% Fe, 21–24% S as well as
Cu and Co (Crundwell et al. 2011a; Warner et al. 2007). There
is a great deal of variation with regards to the processing of
nickel converter matte to recover base and precious metals,
with direct hydrometallurgical processing of granulated con­
verter matte being practiced at some refineries (Warner et al.
2007). In other instances, such as mattes arising from smelting
of nickel-copper concentrates and concentrates high in PGMs,
slow cooling of the converter matte is carried out to enable
copper and nickel phase separation and the formation of coarse
sized crystals of chalcocite (Cu2S), heazlewoodite (Ni3S2) and
a metallic alloy phase enriched in precious and platinum group
metals; the cooled matte is beneficiated to produce separate Cu
and Ni-sulfide concentrates and a PGM-enriched concentrate
for further processing (Bulatovic 2007; Crundwell et al. 2011e;
Warner et al. 2007). Magnetic separation is carried out at
Anglo American Platinum’s refinery in Rustenburg, South
Africa, on slow-cooled mattes to recover the PGMs, with the
non-magnetic fraction (nickel-copper matte) being processed
via hydrometallurgy in a dedicated base metals refinery produ­
cing copper cathode and metallic nickel and cobalt powders
 MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 3

Figure 2. Process steps during the pyrometallurgical processing of nickel sulfide concentrates to produce nickel converter matte via flash smelting or the roasting-
electric furnace melting route. Adapted from Crundwell et al. (2011f).

Table 1. Production details of nickel concentrate smelting via the roasting-electric ● Starting from a nickel flotation concentrate of grade 5–
furnace smelting route and the flash smelting route. Data for roasting-electric 20% Ni, smelting and converting produces a nickel matte
furnace smelting and flash smelting adapted from Crundwell et al. (2011c, 2011f). containing 40–70% Ni, resulting in a considerable reduc­
Roasting-electric furnace Flash smeltingb,c tion in size of downstream leaching and refining equip­
Smelting process meltinga (Outotec & Inco)
ment relative to direct leaching of flotation concentrates,
Typical concentrate 5–14% Ni, 0.3–4.5% Cu, 5–15% Ni, 0.3–12%
grades 0.2–0.5% Co, 31–43% Fe Cu,
● Precious metals report to the matte and are more con­
0.2–0.4% Co, 30– centrated relative to the original flotation concentrates
43% Fe
%Ni recovery to matte 98 95
Ni grade in matte (wt%) 13–36 17–65 Against these advantages are several drawbacks such as:
Ni grade in slag (wt%) 0.1–0.4 0.2–4
%Co recovery to matte 50–80 26–70 ● Difficulty processing nickel concentrates high in arsenic
Co grade in matte (wt%) 0.7–1 0.4–0.8
Co grade in slag (wt%) 0.1–0.2 0.1–0.5 (As) and magnesia (MgO), which can render many con­
%Cu recovery to matte 98 80–93 centrates, particularly those produced from disseminated
Cu grade in matte (wt%) 1–11 1.5–25 sulfide ores and talc-carbonate ores, unsuitable if they
%Cu grade in slag (wt%) – 0.1–1.3
Recovery of precious 98–99 95 cannot be blended with higher quality concentrates to
metals (%) reduce the concentration of the deleterious species,
Based on production details of three Ni smelters – Falconbridge (Canada), ● Poor recovery of cobalt to the matte phase during smelt­
Thompson (Canada) and Norilsk (Russia). ing and converting, where typically 30–50% of cobalt is
Based on production details of seven Ni smelters – Kalgoorlie (Australia), Selebi
Phikwe (Botswana), Gansu (China), Norilsk (Russia), and Harjavalta (Finland), and lost to the metallurgical slag (Matousek 1982; Warner
two Ni smelters in Sudbury (Canada). et al. 2007),
Figures do not consider slag cleaning which is typically performed either ex-situ in ● High capital cost associated with concentrate smelting
a separate furnace or as an extension of the flash smelter.
and matte converting, including the capture of SO2 and
its conversion to sulfuric acid. The latter can only be
justified where there is a market for the sulfuric acid
(Crundwell et al. 2011d). Processes for the smelting of nickel that is produced (Lu et al. 2000),
flotation concentrates to produce matte followed by matte ● Plant hygiene issues relating to the use of ladles and
refining to produce Ni, Co and Cu products are well estab­ launders during pyrometallurgical processing (Dutrizac
lished. The primary advantages of nickel sulfide concentrate 1992).
smelting are the following (Crundwell et al. 2011b, 2011c,
2011d, 2011f): Elevated MgO grade (as talc, orthopyroxene etc.) in nickel
smelter feeds cause operational problems for the smelter due to
● Combustion of part of the sulfur and iron in the concen­ MgO raising the slag liquidus temperature and viscosity, lead­
trate can supply most of the energy requirements for smelt­ ing to poor slag-matte separation and higher metal losses due
ing (flash smelting only) and converting, with the added to entrainment (Eksteen, Oraby, and Nguyen 2020; Lotter et al.
advantage of removing a large part of the iron and sulfur 2008). This necessitates furnace operation at higher tempera­
from the concentrate as slag and sulfur dioxide (SO2), ture, which shortens the life of the furnace refractories. The
respectively, simplifying downstream matte refining, MgO content in the flotation concentrate(s) must be limited to
4 N. FARIS ET AL.

below 7–10% to prevent operational problems during smelting
(Feng et al. 2012; Senior and Thomas 2005). Arsenic in the
smelter feed is also problematic both from an environmental
and operational perspective. Toguri, Babaie, and Sridhar
(1995) has shown that the presence of As complicates the
refining of Cu-Ni mattes, leading to a decrease in grain size
of chalcocite and alloy phases during cooling and altering the
morphology of chalcocite (from dendritic to spherical in the
presence of As). Whilst As can sometimes be rejected at the
concentrator, this can be an issue when the As is present as
niccolite (NiAs) and gersdorffite (NiAsS), which will result in
nickel losses to the mill tailings.
Other situations where smelting may be unjustified include
if the size of the resource to be processed is too small to justify
the high capital cost associated with a dedicated smelter and
matte refining facility, or when the transport cost to ship nickel
concentrate(s) to a toll smelter is prohibitively high (Fleming
et al. 2000). Under these circumstances, direct hydrometallur­
gical processing of nickel sulfide concentrates can be a viable
alternative, and many of the technical, economic and environ­
mental challenges imposed on smelting have spurred research
and development activities around hydrometallurgical pro­
cesses for the extraction of Ni, Co and other base metals (Cu,
Zn) from sulfide concentrates. Direct hydrometallurgical pro­
cessing of whole nickel sulfide ores has also received consider­
able attention, particularly bioleaching, which was the subject
of a review by Watling (2008). Despite the level of research and
development over the years on nickel concentrate hydrometal­
lurgy, the adoption of hydrometallurgical processes for the
extraction of Ni, Co and Cu from nickel flotation concentrates
remains low, particularly given several operations utilize some
form of hydrometallurgical processing to produce an upgraded
sulfide product for smelting, or the operation originally built
for processing sulfide concentrates has switched over to other
nickel sulfide feedstocks.
The purpose of Part I of this three-part series is to review
and summarize piloted leaching processes as applied to the
direct hydrometallurgical processing of nickel sulfide flotation
concentrates and secondly, to survey commercial nickel opera­
tions which have implemented hydrometallurgical processing.
An overview of the geology and mineralogy of nickel sulfide
deposits, as well as current beneficiation practice is also pro­
vided. Following an examination of pilot plant developments
and commercial operations concerning the hydrometallurgy of
nickel sulfide concentrates, laboratory research activities con­
cerning direct leaching of nickel sulfide concentrates are
reviewed in Part II and Part III of this series and the challenges
and research opportunities relating to nickel sulfide concen­
trate hydrometallurgy are discussed.
2. Nickel sulfide deposits
Nickel sulfide deposits are found on most continents, however
major deposits are found in Russia, Australia, Canada, and
Southern Africa (Hoatson, Jaireth, and Jaques 2006). Canada
and Russia possess the largest resources of nickel sulfides,
followed by Australia and South Africa; however, Australia
has the largest nickel resources when laterites are also consid­
ered (Hoatson, Jaireth, and Jaques 2006). All nickel sulfide
deposits are magmatic in origin and are broadly characterized
as either sulfide rich (>5%) or sulfide poor (<5%); for sulfide
rich deposits, Ni and Cu are of primary economic interest
whilst for sulfide poor deposits, generally PGMs are of eco­
nomic importance (Naldrett 1999; Song, Wang, and Chen
2011). The major nickel sulfide deposits including the nickel
grade, contained nickel metal and year of discovery are pre­
sented in Table 2; typical Ni and Cu concentrations in mag­
matic Ni-Cu sulfide deposits are 0.7–3% Ni and 0.2–2% Cu
(Eckstrand and Hulbert 2007); the deposits of the Bushveld
Igneous Complex (South Africa) are lower grade but possess

Table 2. Nickel grade, contained nickel metal (in tonnes) and year of discovery of major nickel sulfide deposits across the globe; data adapted from Hoatson, Jaireth,
and Jaques (2006) unless stated otherwise.
Nickel grade Contained Ni metal
Deposit (% Ni) (tonnes) Year of discovery
Australia
Kambalda, WA 3.30% 1,388,820 1966
Honeymoon Well, WA 0.75% 1,011,000 1973
Perseverance, WA 1.05% 2,480,640 1971
Mt Keith, WA 0.57% 3,411,420 1968
Yakabindie, WA 0.58% 1,682,000 1970
Nebo-Babel, WA* 0.47% 1,200,000 2000
Canada
Voisey’s Bay 1.59% 2,173,530 1993
Thompson 2.32% 3,486,960 1956
Sudbury 1.20% 19,776,000 1856
Russia
Noril’sk – Talnakh 1.84% 23,128,800 Noril’sk discovered in 1926, Talnakh in 1960
Pechenga 1.18% 4,000,200 1912
South Africa
Merensky reef, Bushveld complex 0.15% 6,313,500 1924
Platreef, Bushveld complex 0.41% 6,547,700 1925
China
Jinchuan, Gansu province 1.06% 5,459,000 1958
USA
Duluth complex, Minnesota 0.2% 8,000,000 1948
*Based on mineral resource and ore reserves estimate by OZ Minerals (2020).

high concentrations of PGMs for which they are primarily
mined. The variation in Ni grade among some of the major
deposits is indicative of the proportion of high-grade massive
sulfide ore to low grade disseminated sulfide ore (Barnes,
Barnes, and Perring 2007). It can be seen from Table 2 that
the Sudbury complex (Canada) and the Noril’sk-Talnakh
deposits (Russia) are the largest sulfidic nickel deposits, being
far larger than the other listed deposits based on contained Ni
metal alone. Whilst Australia possesses significant reserves of
sulfidic nickel and is ranked after Canada and Russia, the
deposits are much smaller.
2.1. Sulfide mineralogy
A list of economically important nickel sulfide and
arsenide minerals, as well as common sulfidic gangue in
nickel sulfide deposits is presented in Table 3. Pentlandite
is the most important nickel sulfide mineral and com­
monly occurs with pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite. Other
nickel sulfides listed in Table 3 can be important where
alteration has taken place. Violarite is a supergene altera­
tion product of pentlandite and typically occurs in pyrite-
violarite and transition zones above the primary zone
(massive pentlandite-pyrrhotite ore) (Marston et al. 1981;
Nickel, Ross, and Thornber 1974) and can be economic­
ally important during the mining of some massive nickel
sulfide ores. Millerite forms as an alteration product of
pentlandite (Bide, Hetherington, and Gunn 2008; Holwell
et al. 2017) and is an important nickel sulfide mineral in
some deposits such as Mt Keith, Black Swan and the Otter
Shoot, Kambalda (Dowling et al. 2004; Grguric et al. 2007;
Keele and Nickel 1974). Niccolite and gersdorffite can
occur in nickel sulfide deposits as a result of hydrothermal
alteration; their presence in nickel concentrates is unde­
sirable due to the deleterious effects of As during smelting
and typically requires dilution to an acceptable level by
blending with low As concentrates (Grguric et al. 2007).
Pyrrhotite, an iron sulfide, is the primary gangue sulfide
that occurs in nickel sulfide deposits though it typically
Table 3. Economically important nickel sulfide and arsenide minerals and their mode of occurrence in nickel sulfide deposits listed in terms of increasing Ni content (wt
%) and sulfidic gangue typically present in nickel sulfide deposits.
Chemical
Name formula
Nickel sulfide minerals
Pentlandite (Fe, Ni)9
S8
Violarite FeNi2S4
Millerite NiS
Nickel arsenide minerals
Gersdorffite NiAsS
Niccolite (nickeline) NiAs
Sulfidic gangue
Pyrrhotite Fe(1-x)S
Pyrite FeS2 Variable, secondary pyrites can have Ni contents as high as 12%*. Primary
pyrites can have Co contents as high as 2.37%† and can be an important
host for this element.
*Nickel, Ross and Thornber (1974).
†Watmuff (1974).
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 5
contains Ni, either in solid solution or as fine pentlandite
intergrowths (Rezaei et al. 2017; Toguri 1975). Typically,
the Ni concentration in solid solution in pyrrhotite is 0.4–
0.6% and the presence of micron-size inclusions of pen­
tlandite can raise the nickel content even higher (Rezaei
et al. 2017; Toguri 1975). Hence during beneficiation of
nickel sulfide deposits, nickel loss due to pyrrhotite rejec­
tion is inevitable.
2.2. Ore textures
Nickel sulfide ores are broadly classified into the following
categories: massive sulfide ore, matrix ore (also termed
net-textured ore) and disseminated sulfide ore, the distinc­
tion being based on the sulfide content and silicate texture
(Barnes and Lightfoot 2005). Massive sulfide ores consist
of 75–100% sulfides as pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalco­
pyrite, with or without minor pyrite (Barnes et al. 2018;
Barnes, Barnes, and Perring 2007). Where silicate inclu­
sions are present in massive ores, they are generally dis­
persed and isolated (Barnes et al. 2017; Jones 1996).
Matrix sulfide ores comprise silicate inclusions in
a matrix of sulfide, the sulfide making up 30–70% of the
ore (Barnes et al. 2017). Disseminated sulfide ores contain
between 1% and 33% sulfides dispersed in a silicate
matrix, the sulfides are not interconnected and are present
as patches in the silicate interstices or as globules (Barnes
and Lightfoot 2005). The presence of multiple ore tex­
tures/types in a single deposit is not uncommon; for
example, the Jinchuan deposit (Gansu province, China)
contains both disseminated and matrix ore (Naldrett
2004) whilst all three ore textures are found at the
Noril’sk-Talnakh camp (Barnes et al. 2018; Eckstrand
and Hulbert 2007). The massive sulfide ores at Noril’sk-
Talnakh are high grade, containing 3.42% Ni and 5.38%
Cu, but are of lower tonnage (88.7 Mt) relative to the
lower grade disseminated ore (1706.3 Mt) which grades
0.51% Ni and 1.02% Cu (Eckstrand and Hulbert 2007).
Consequently, different flotation regimes have been
Ni content (wt%) Mode of occurrence
34.21 Mafic intrusions
38.93 Supergene alteration of pentlandite-
pyrrhotite assemblages
64.67 Replacement product of pentlandite
35.42 Hydrothermal replacement of pentlandite
43.93
0.4–0.6 Mafic intrusions
Mafic intrusions (primary), supergene
alteration of pentlandite-pyrrhotite
assemblages (secondary)
6 N. FARIS ET AL.
employed for processing the various types of Ni-Cu sulfide
ores present at the Noril’sk-Talnakh camp (Kozyrev et al.
2002).
2.3. Beneficiation practice
Nickel sulfide ores are subjected to mineral beneficiation to
reject sulfidic and non-sulfidic gangue and produce a nickel
concentrate grading from 5% to 25% Ni suitable for smelting
(MäKinen and Taskinen 2008). Beneficiation is accomplished
through comminution and froth flotation (refer to Figure 1);
in some instances, magnetic separation is employed before
or after flotation to reject monoclinic pyrrhotite which is
ferromagnetic (Agar 1991; Bulatovic 2007). The choice of
unit operations and operating parameters is largely dictated
by the type of ore being processed i.e. massive sulfide ore vs
disseminated sulfide ore which subsequently influences the
liberation size and choice of flotation collectors and depres­
sants for separation of the values from the gangue. Other
factors to consider include if the ore has been altered, which
can bring about mineralogical and textural changes; the
effects of supergene alteration and serpentinization on nickel
sulfide flotation have been well documented (Eltham and
Tilyard 1973; Kerr 2002; Mani et al. 1997; Mishra, Viljoen,
and Mouri 2013; Sizgoric 1981). Flotation practice differs by
geographical location. Bulk sulfide flotation is generally car­
ried out on Western Australian nickel ores which tend to be
low in copper and contain substantial concentrations of
magnesium bearing minerals and hydrophobic gangue such
as talc (Bulatovic 2007; Eltham and Tilyard 1973; Pietrobon
et al. 1997). Bulk sulfide flotation is also carried out on ores
from the Merensky Reef and UG-2 chromitite in South
Africa due to the association of PGMs with base metal
sulfides in these ores (Xiao and Laplante 2004); the concen­
trates are lower grade (3–4% combined base metals) but
possess high concentrations of PGMs (100–400 g/t)
(Warner et al. 2007). Flotation practice in Russia and
Canada differs from Western Australia where the deposits
tend to be massive copper-nickel sulfide ores. In these ores,
pyrrhotite is the major gangue mineral and flotation is
carried out to reject pyrrhotite and produce separate copper
and nickel concentrates. Magnetic separation is generally
incorporated in the flowsheets to remove monoclinic pyr­
rhotite (Agar 1991; Bulatovic 2007). Pyrrhotite rejection is
necessary as the smelting of pyrrhotite generates large quan­
tities of SO2 but yields very little nickel (Senior, Shannon,
and Trahar 1994). Pyrrhotite rejection however must be
balanced against Ni losses during beneficiation since pyrrho­
tite contains Ni in solid solution or as exsolved pentlandite
that is too fine to liberate (Bulatovic 2007; Kerr 2002; Senior,
Shannon, and Trahar 1994). Sequential flotation is employed
to process massive sulfide ore from the Noril’sk-Talnakh
deposit in Russia and produce separate copper, nickel and
pyrrhotite concentrates (Bulatovic 2007; Kozyrev et al. 2002);
the pyrrhotite concentrate has a high concentration of Ni,
Cu and PGMs and is processed further in a dedicated hydro­
metallurgical facility to recover the contained metals (refer to
Section 3.2.2).
3. Piloted processes and commercial operations
In response to the technical and environmental hurdles
presented by the traditional concentrate smelting-matte
refining route, the direct leaching of nickel sulfide flota­
tion concentrates has been intensely researched and
a number of these processes have been piloted and, in
some cases, have seen commercial implementation.
Several nickel processing operations have practiced hydro­
metallurgical processing of nickel sulfide flotation concen­
trates or whole ore at commercial scale and these are
summarized in Table 4. It can be seen in Table 4 that
there is wide variability in terms of the feedstocks pro­
cessed, finished nickel products and leaching technology
employed. A number of these operations are now closed
or no longer process flotation concentrates, having under­
gone modifications to the original refineries to accommo­
date changes in feedstock (i.e. Kwinana, WA and Fort
Saskatchewan, Canada). Other operations such as the
Nadezhdin mill (Russia) and the Cosmic Boy nickel con­
centrator (West Australia) carry out hydrometallurgical
processing to produce upgraded intermediates which are
blended with flotation concentrates destined for smelting.
The processing of nickeliferous pyrrhotite concentrates is
practiced at the Nadezhdin mill (Russia) whilst historic
production took place in Canada (refer to Table 4). The
Canadian operations are unique in that roast-leach type
processes were utilized to extract base metals from the
pyrrhotite and produce an iron oxide residue suitable for
production of iron ore pellets destined for steel making.
The purpose of this section is to summarize piloted pro­
cesses that have been developed to extract Ni directly from
flotation concentrates and review several commercial
operations that have practised direct hydrometallurgical
processing. While a number of these operations are now
closed or no longer process flotation concentrates,
a description has been provided for historical purposes.
3.1. Ammoniacal leaching processes
The ability of ammonia to selectively dissolve Cu, Ni, Co and
Zn from their ores and concentrates has formed the basis for
several commercially developed leaching processes. The first
commercial operations utilizing ammonia-ammonium carbo­
nate solution as a lixiviant were deployed to extract Cu from
mill tailings by Kennecott in Alaska, and Calumet and Heca in
Michigan, USA (Forward and Mackiw 1955; Meng and Han
1996). Anaconda’s Arbiter process and BHP’s Escondida pro­
cess were developed to extract copper from sulfide flotation
concentrates utilizing ammonia-ammonium sulfate as
a lixiviant (Duyvesteyn and Sabacky 1993; Kuhn, Arbiter, and
Kling 1974). Ammonia-ammonium lixiviants have been uti­
lized for the extraction of Ni and Co from lateritic ores via the
Caron process, which involves reduction roasting followed by
ammonia-ammonium carbonate leaching (Caron 1950) and
was in use at the Yabulu refinery in Queensland for processing
laterite ores (now in care and maintenance) and by Inco (now
Vale) until 1982 for treating pyrrhotite concentrates via
a modified process (see Section 3.6.2). The only
Table 4. Commercial nickel operations that have processed nickel-bearing sulfide concentrates via hydrometallurgical methods.
Leaching
Operation Location Operator process employed Feed to refinery Final Ni products Operational status Reference(s)
Ammoniacal pressure leaching
Fort Canada Sherritt Sherritt-Gordon Concentrate from Lynn Lake; 1954 –1970s, mix of Nickel briquettes and powder Still operating Forward (1953); Forward and
Saskatchewan International Limited ammonia pressure concentrate and matte; 1970–1980s mixed Mackiw (1955); Kerfoot
leach sulfide precipitate from Moa Bay (Cuba); 1991– (1989); Kerfoot and
present Cordingley (1997)
Kwinana Western Australia BHP Ni West Sherritt-Gordon Concentrate(s); 1970 – 1975, Nickel briquettes and powder; plan to Still operating Deng (1993), Wishaw (1993);
(formerly owned by ammonia pressure Concentrate(s) + flash smelter matte; 1975–1985, produce battery grade nickel sulfate Woodward (2014);
WMC leach matte only; 1985 – present after completion of brownfield Woodward and Bahri
Resources) expansion (2007); Anon (2021)
Sulfuric acid pressure oxidation
Garfield cobalt refinery USA Calera Mining Co. Sulfuric acid pressure Cobaltite concentrate from the Blackbird mine, Co-Ni granules grading 95.6% Co and Plant shut in 1959 due to Fassell (1962); Meddings and
oxidation Idaho (USA) 3.9% Ni shortage of ore Evans (1971); Berezowsky
(2000)
Fredericktown refinery USA National Lead Co. Sulfuric acid pressure Pyritic concentrate produced as a by-product of Nickel powder Plant shut in 1960 due to Fassell (1962); Meddings and
oxidation copper-lead mining shortage of feed Evans (1971); Mitchell
(1957); Berezowsky (2000)
Long Harbor Canada Vale Limited Sulfuric acid pressure Concentrate from Voisey’s Bay (Canada) Nickel cathode Still operating Crundwell et al. (2011b);
oxidation preceded Stevens et al. (2009)
by atmospheric
chlorine leach
Kokkola works Finland Outokumpu Oy Sulfuric acid pressure Ni concentrate from the Hitura mine (Finland, now Nickel chemicals Site is operating as a cobalt Nyman et al. (1992),
oxidation (HIKO) closed) refinery by Umicore. Status of Berezowsky (2000), Cooke
the pressure leach plant (2021); Törmänen and
unknown. Tuomela (2021)
Nadezhdin mill Russia Nornickel Sulfuric acid pressure Pyrrhotite concentrates from the Talnakh deposit(s) Non-ferrous metals precipitated from Still operating Deng (1992, 1993); Berezowsky
(Formerly known as oxidation grading 2–5% Ni, 1–2% Cu and up to 15 g/tonne solution after leaching and a Ni-Cu-Co (2000); Kitay, Mechev, and
Noril’sk Mining PGMs -PGM concentrate is recovered for Volkov (1991)
and Metallurgy smelting
Corporation)
Bioleaching
Talvivaara Finland Terrafame Ltd Heap bioleach Black schist ore from Sotkamo deposit, grading Mixed nickel-cobalt sulfide precipitate; Still operating Riekkola-Vanhanen (2007,
0.27% Ni, 0.56% Zn, 0.14% Cu MSP is being processed further to 2013); Watling (2008);
produce Ni and Co sulfates Törmänen and Tuomela
(2021)
Vuonos Finland Elementis (formerly Stirred tank bioleaching Nickel concentrate by-product from talc mining at Ni-Co mixed hydroxide precipitate (MHP) Plant only periodically Laukka et al. (2018); Neale et al.
Mondo Minerals) Sotkamo and Vuonos operational according to (2016, 2015), Törmänen and
Törmänen and Tuomela Tuomela (2021)
(2021)
Cosmic Boy nickel concentrator Western Australia Western Areas Stirred tank bioleaching Cleaner tailings stream from flotation grading Ni recovered from solution by Still operating Fewings and Seet (2014);
Limited (BioHeapTM) 18.3% Ni precipitation as a sulfide and blended Fewings et al. (2015, 2016)
into final flotation concentrate
Roast-leach
Falconbridge iron ore plant Canada Falconbridge Ltd. Sulfation roasting Pyrrhotite concentrate (1.13% Ni) from Ni (& Cu, Co) recovered from solution by Plant shut in 1972 Rezaei et al. (2017), Thornhill
Falconbridge operations precipitation as a sulfide (1954, 1961)
Inco iron ore recovery plant Canada Inco Ltd. (now Vale Modified Caron process Pyrrhotite concentrate (0.75% Ni) from Copper Cliff Nickel oxide product grading 77% Ni, Reduction roast-leach section of Conard (2013)’; Inco Staff
(IORP) Ltd) or Clarabelle operations 0.15% Co and 0.15% S the plant shut in 1982. (1956); Rezaei et al. (2017);
Oxidizing roaster closed in Queneau, Sproule, and Illis
1991. (1949)
Kokkola works Finland Outokumpu Oy Sulfation roasting Pyrite-pyrrhotite concentrate from Outokumpu Mixed Cu-Ni-Zn sulfide precipitate fed to Roaster operated between Deng (1992); Palperi and
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW

copper mine grading 0.67% Co and 0.37% Ni the smelter at Harjavalta (Finland); 1966–1987. Co and Ni Aaltonen (1971); Sauni et al.
cobalt metal produced production continued after (2010)
roaster shutdown
7
 8

Table 5. Summary of hydrometallurgical processes developed for the direct leaching of nickel sulfide flotation concentrates and status of the technology.
Typical Ni
grade in Operating Total oxidation of sulfide to
Process Developer feed Lixiviant Operating Pressure (absolute) temperature sulfate (Y/N) Commercial status Remarks Reference(s)
Pressure oxidation processes
Sherritt-Gordon Sherritt International 10–16% 801–1101 kPa 70–95°C Y In operation at Fort Both refineries no Deng (1993); Forward
N. FARIS ET AL.

NH3-(NH4)2SO4-air
Saskatchewan longer treat (1953); Forward and
(Canada) and flotation Mackiw (1955)
Kwinana (WA) concentrates
CESL Teck Resources Limited 2–20% H2SO4-O2 +8–12 g/L 1481 kPa 115–175°C N Has not been Feed ground to Defreyne et al. (2006);
chloride & 5–10 g/L commercially a P80 of 45 µm Jones (1996); Jones,
Cu(II) deployed for Hestrin and Moore
processing Ni (1998); Jones, Mayhew
concentrates and O’Conner (2009);
Jones et al. (2010);
Jones, Moore and
Stocker (2003)
Activox® Western Minerals Technology Pty 4–12% H2SO4-O2 +4 g/L 500–1100 kPa 80–110°C N Demonstrated at the POX preceded by Adams and Johnson
Ltd chloride Tati Nickel Project ultra-fine (2001), Corrans,
(Botswana), full grinding (P80 of Johnson and Angove
scale plant never 5–15 µm) (1993); Johnson and
built Evans (1998), Johnson,
Evans and Turner
(2000); Palmer and
Johnson (2005); Robles,
Cronje and Nel (2009)
PLATSOLTM International PGM Technologies 3–15% H2SO4-O2 +5–20 g/L 790 kPa 225°C Y Developed to treat Flotation Dreisinger et al. (2005);
Ltd NaCl polymetallic concentrate Ferron and Fleming
concentrates from ground to P80 of (2001); Ferron and
Duluth complex 15 µm Fleming (2002); Ferron
(Minnesota); has et al. (2000, 2002);
not been Fleming et al. (2000)
commercially
deployed
Kell Process Lifezone Limited – H2SO4-O2 500–3000 kPa 170–230°C Y Process developed to PGM-enriched leach Adams, Liddell and
treat PGM-bearing residue Holohan (2011); Adams,
sulfide processed Liddell, and Smith
concentrates; has further via (2015); Liddell (1999);
not been a roast-chlorine Liddell and Adams
commercially leach process (2012, 2013); Liddell
deployed et al. (2011, 2019)
Voisey’s Bay Vale Limited 5–25% 1st stage; Cl2-O2 1st stage – atmospheric 1st stage; N In operation at Long Concentrate ground Crundwell et al. (2011b);
Process 2nd stage; 2nd stage – 40–90°C Harbor (Canada) to 20 µm prior to Kerfoot et al. (2001);
H2SO4-O2 601–1101 kPa 2nd stage; leaching Stevens et al. (2009)
100–150°C
HIKO Outokumpu 5–7% H2SO4-O2 601 kPa <110°C N Developed to treat – Nyman et al. (1992),
Hitura Berezowsky (2000)
concentrate
(Finland)
(Continued)
Table 5. (Continued).
Typical Ni
grade in Operating Total oxidation of sulfide to
Process Developer feed Lixiviant Operating Pressure (absolute) temperature sulfate (Y/N) Commercial status Remarks Reference(s)
IGO Process IGO Limited – H2SO4-O2 +1–5 g/L 800–1200 kPa O2 pressure (Low 100–120°C (Low N (Low temp. POX) Has not been Main feature of IP is Grassi et al. (2019)
chloride temp. POX) temp. POX) Y (High temp. POX) commercially a method for
300 kPa O2 pressure (High temp. T > 200°C (High deployed production of
POX) temp. POX) nickel sulfate
hydrate from
leach liquor via
SX. Ultra-fine
grinding for low
temperature POX
Bioleaching processes
BioNIC® BHP 3–15% Mesophiles in acid- Atmospheric 30–45°C N Successfully Stirred tank Cole et al. (1997); Dew
Limited ferric sulfate media demonstrated but bioleach process et al. (1999); Gilbertson
using air as the not commercially (2000); Heinzle, Miller
oxidant deployed and Nagel (1999);
Norton, Coetzee, and
Barnett (1998); Rorke,
Basson, and Miller
(2001)
BacTech BacTech Limited 3–7.5% Thermophiles in acid- Atmospheric 45–55°C N Successfully Stirred tank Fewings and
ferric sulfate media demonstrated but bioleach process Wilathgamuwa (1998);
using air as the not commercially King and Budden
oxidant deployed (1996); Miller et al.
(1999); Miller (1997);
Taylor, Fairley, and
Winby (1997)
BioHeapTM BioHeap Limited (subsidiary of – Proprietary bacterial Atmospheric 15–95°C N Process is in use at Bacterial cultures Fewings and Seet (2012);
Western Areas Limited) culture in a sulfate (Temp. range Western Areas can be used for Fewings and Seet
medium above pH 2 microbes are Limited’s Cosmic heap, column (2014); Fewings et al.
tolerant to) Boy nickel and stirred tank (2015, 2016)
concentrator to leaching of
treat flotation whole ores and
cleaner tailings concentrates
Atmospheric pressure chemical leaching processes
HydroNic Outotec 13–32% 1st stage; CuCl2-HCl- Atmospheric 90–110°C N Has not been Either O2 or Cl2 can Haavanlammi et al. (2006),
brine commercially be used as the Karonen, Tiihonen, and
2nd stage; HCl-brine-O2 deployed oxidant in Haavanlammi (2009)
or Cl2 the second stage
leach
Intec Intec Limited 3–6% 1st stage; H2SO4-brine- Atmospheric 1st stage; N Successfully tested Concentrate ground Moyes and Houlis (2003)
Nickel air 80–90°C on a Ni-Cu-PGM to P80 of 25 µm.
Process 2nd stage; brine-BrCl2- 2nd stage; concentrate, not Brine in both
100°C commercially leach stages
deployed contains Cl− &
Br−
Albion ProcessTM Glencore (formerly Xstrata) – O2 + H2SO4 ± ferrous Atmospheric 93–98°C Sulfide oxidation can be Process in use for Concentrates Hourn and Turner (2012);
and ferric sulfate controlled by varying pH processing zinc, ground to P80 of Hourn, Turner, and
gold and copper 10–12 µm using Holzberger (1996),
concentrates; has an IsaMillTM Stieper (2018)
not been
commercially
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW

applied to the
processing of
nickel sulfide
9

concentrates
10 N. FARIS ET AL.
commercialized ammonia leaching process to date for the
direct treatment of nickel sulfide concentrates is the Sherritt-
Gordon ammonia pressure leaching process which is currently
in use at Fort Saskatchewan, Canada, and Kwinana, Western
Australia. The Sherritt-Gordon process is essentially a pressure
oxidation process carried out in aqueous ammonia-
ammonium sulfate at elevated temperature using air as an
oxidant; the key operating characteristics and features of the
process are listed in Table 5 and compared against other
piloted and commercialized processes. The leaching technol­
ogy was developed to process nickel concentrate from Lynn
Lake (Canada) grading 10–16% Ni, 1–2% Cu and 0.3–0.4% Co,
where a hydrometallurgical process was deemed to be more
cost effective than concentrate smelting and matte refining
(Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955; Kerfoot 1989).
In the Sherritt-Gordon Process, base metals are dissolved
from the sulfide mineral particles by reaction with oxygen,
water and ammonia; ferrous iron is oxidized and precipitated
as hydrous ferric oxide (Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw
1955). Sulfidic sulfur (S2-) is oxidized to thiosulfate (S2O32-)
which then undergoes further oxidation by dissolved oxygen in
solution to ultimately form sulfate (SO42-) and sulfamate (NH2
SO32-) via a series of sequential reactions involving intermedi­
ates such as trithionate (S3O62-) (Forward 1953; Forward and
Mackiw 1955). Dissolved copper in solution is believed to play
a catalytic role in oxidation of thiosulfate to trithionate, sulfate
and sulfamate (Forward 1953). Batch leaching tests by Forward
(1953) showed that the nickel dissolution rate was influenced
by factors such as temperature, oxygen partial pressure and free
ammonia concentration; 95% of Ni could be extracted in under
an hour by leaching at 220°F (104.4°C). Higher leaching tem­
peratures and oxygen partial pressures, and longer retention
times favor the oxidation of thiosulfate and trithionate to
sulfate and sulfamate, however, a key aspect of the Sherritt-
Gordon process is the retention of a portion of the unsaturated
sulfur containing ions in solution for subsequent copper
removal (Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955). Copper
removal is achieved by boiling the solution (termed “copper
boil”), where Cu(II) ions react with thiosulfate and trithionate
in solution, precipitating copper as covellite (CuS) and chalco­
cite (Cu2S) (Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955).
Precious and platinum group metals present in nickel matte
are reported to be partially extracted during ammoniacal pres­
sure leaching and are subsequently precipitated during the
“copper boil” stage, reporting to the copper sulfide precipitate
(Wishaw 1993). The copper-free solution produced from the
‘copper boil’ is treated in an autoclave at 245°C and air pressure
of 4100 kPa to destroy residual unsaturated sulfur compounds
and ammonium sulfamate present in solution (termed oxydro­
lysis) prior to metallic nickel recovery by pressure hydrogen
reduction (Forward 1953; Wishaw 1993). The oxydrolysis step
is necessary to prevent sulfur contamination in the final nickel
product and to remove sulfamate, which is a herbicide and
would not be permissible in the final ammonium sulfate by-
product if used as a fertilizer (Wishaw 1993). The final pro­
ducts from the Sherritt-Gordon process are metallic nickel
powder or briquettes, cobalt metal powder, briquette or sulfide
precipitate, and ammonium sulfate (Forward 1953; Wishaw
1993).
The operations at Fort Saskatchewan and Kwinana have
demonstrated the adaptability of the Sherritt-Gordon ammo­
nia pressure leach technology to processing different nickel
sulfide feedstocks (flotation concentrates, matte or mixed sul­
fide precipitate). A significant advantage of the leach process
for concentrates is its selectivity toward Ni, Cu and Co, with
iron present in pentlandite, chalcopyrite and pyrrhotite being
converted to a hydrous ferric oxide residue (Forward and
Mackiw 1955). Pyrite present in the concentrate does not
react in the ammoniacal solution and reports to the residue;
this does however mean that any Ni and Co present in pyrite
are not dissolved during leaching (Forward and Mackiw 1955).
Other advantages of the Sherritt-Gordon ammonia leach pro­
cess are that metallic nickel can be recovered directly from
solution by hydrogen reduction, and part of the ammonia
can be recovered for re-use in the leaching stage. The main
disadvantages of the Sherritt-Gordon ammonia leach process
are the high cost of ammonia relative to sulfuric acid, though
this is partially offset by recovery and recycling, the generation
of ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] as a by-product, which
requires disposal if there is no market for it, and cobalt recov­
ery and refining is considerably more complex relative to acid-
based leaching processes. Cobalt refining at Fort Saskatchewan
involves complex multi-stage processing of cobalt intermedi­
ates (MSP or Co(III) hexamine sulfate) via leaching, recrystal­
lization and hydrogen reduction; by contrast cobalt recovery is
simpler in acid sulfate systems where cobalt separation from
nickel is well established and is achieved by conventional
solvent extraction and electrowinning (SX-EW).
3.1.1. Fort Saskatchewan, Canada
The ammonia pressure leach process was originally developed
to treat Ni-Cu-Co flotation concentrate from Sherritt-Gordon
Mines’ Lynn Lake concentrator in Canada (Deng 1994;
Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955; Kerfoot 1989).
Once the Lynn Lake Mine became exhausted (mid 1970s) the
refinery continued to operate, processing pentlandite concen­
trates from across Canada and nickel mattes from overseas
(Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). The Fort Saskatchewan nickel
refinery continues to operate to this day, still employing
ammonia pressure leaching; however, since 1990 mixed Ni-
Co sulfide precipitate produced as an intermediate from nickel
laterite processing at Moa Bay (Cuba) is the primary feed to
this refinery (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997; Kofluk and
Freeman 2006). The flowsheet for the original refinery opera­
tion at Fort Saskatchewan for concentrate processing is pre­
sented in Figure 3 and involved ammonia pressure leaching in
a train of autoclaves operating at a temperature range of 80–
95°C and used compressed air as the oxidant at a pressure of
800 kPa (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). Nickel, cobalt and
copper are leached into solution as their ammine complexes
whilst sulfur is oxidized to sulfate, sulfamate and unsaturated
sulfur compounds such as trithionate, thiosulfate etc (Forward
1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955). Iron present in the concen­
trate is oxidized and precipitates as a hydrous ferric oxide
residue (Forward and Mackiw 1955). Copper is removed
from the leach liquor by precipitation as its sulfide by reaction
with unsaturated sulfur compounds present in the liquor
(Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955). An interesting
 MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 11

Figure 3. Simplified process flowsheet of the Sherritt-Gordon ammonia pressure leach process for leaching of Ni sulfide concentrates and recovery of Ni via pressure
hydrogen reduction; refining of the mixed sulfide precipitate has been omitted. Typical operating conditions of some unit operations in the Sherritt-Gordon process are
presented along with overall metal recoveries during processing of a nickel concentrate grading 10–14% Ni. Adapted from Forward (1953), Forward and Mackiw (1955),
Kerfoot and Cordingley (1997) and Wishaw (1993).

feature of the Sherritt-Gordon ammonia leach process is con­
trol of the degree of sulfur oxidation in the autoclaves to ensure
there is sufficient unsaturated sulfur compounds present in the
liquor for subsequent copper sulfide precipitation. Following
on from copper precipitation, further removal of residual
unsaturated sulfur compounds and sulfamate in the Ni-Co
leach liquor is carried out by boiling in an autoclave
(Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955). The process
chemistry of the copper removal and oxydrolysis stages are
discussed in detail by Forward (1953) and Forward and
Mackiw (1955).
Metallic Ni powder is produced via hydrogen reduction of
the copper-free solution in an autoclave at elevated tempera­
ture and pressure and the resultant powder is briquetted
(Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955). The solution
from Ni reduction is treated with H2S to precipitate Ni and
Co as a mixed sulfide precipitate (MSP) and the barren solution
is then processed further to recover ammonium sulfate as a by-
product (Forward 1953; Forward and Mackiw 1955; Mackiw
et al. 1958). The MSP product is further processed in a cobalt
refinery, the main process steps of which are depicted in
Figure 4; leaching is carried out via sulfuric acid pressure

Figure 4. Cobalt recovery from mixed sulfide precipitate (MSP) as originally practiced at Fort Saskatchewan (Canada) prior to 1990. Adapted from Forward (1953) and
Mackiw et al. (1958).
12 N. FARIS ET AL.
oxidation in an autoclave at 121°C and pressure of 790 kPa
(absolute) using air as an oxidant (Mackiw et al. 1958). The
leach solution is purified to remove dissolved iron by adjusting
the pH to 4.9–5.1 using ammonia and sparging air to oxidize
any ferrous iron to the ferric state (Mackiw et al. 1958). After
iron removal, solid ammonium sulfate is added to increase the
concentration of (NH4)2SO4 in solution to the level required
for cobalt reduction, and to remove Ni from solution as nickel
ammonium sulfate which is recycled to the nickel reduction
circuit (Forward 1953; Mackiw et al. 1958). Cobalt is recovered
from solution by hydrogen reduction at elevated temperature
and pressure in an autoclave to form cobalt powder (Mackiw
et al. 1958).
The refinery at Fort Saskatchewan has undergone significant
modifications to the leaching and cobalt refining circuit due to
changes in the feed, with the refinery switching over to the
processing of MSP from Moa Bay, Cuba. The MSP grades 55 wt
% Ni and contains high concentrations of cobalt (5 wt%) and
could not be processed satisfactorily in the original refinery
(Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). Mixed sulfide precipitate from
Moa Bay comprises 80% of the feed to the refinery, the balance
being nickel matte and nickel sulfate by-product from copper
refineries (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). Nickel and cobalt are
dissolved from the MSP by pressure leaching in aqueous
ammonia using air as an oxidant; nickel matte (70 wt% Ni) is
dissolved in a separate autoclave train also via ammonia pres­
sure leaching (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). The combined
Ni-Co leach liquor is subjected to Ni-Co separation by pre­
cipitating cobalt as a Co(III) hexamine salt, which has a low
solubility in saturated ammoniacal solution, through the addi­
tion of anhydrous ammonia (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997).
The Ni-rich solution is processed in the exact same sequence of
operations previously described i.e. copper sulfide precipita­
tion, oxydrolysis and hydrogen reduction (Kerfoot and
Cordingley 1997). Copper sulfide precipitation is however
achieved through the addition of elemental sulfur and SO2,
rather than relying on unsaturated sulfur compounds present
in the leach liquor (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). The cobalt­
(III) hexamine sulfate is processed in a separate circuit which
involves repulping in water to dissolve any precipitated nickel
hexamine sulfate; the purified cobalt(III) hexamine sulfate is
re-dissolved in ammonium sulfate solution followed by Co(III)
reduction to Co(II) using metallic cobalt powder and finally
hydrogen reduction in an autoclave at high temperature and
pressure to produce high-grade metallic cobalt powder
(Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997). A portion of this metallic
cobalt powder is recycled to the Co(III) reduction stage with
the balance being briquetted (Kerfoot and Cordingley 1997).
3.1.2. Kwinana, Western Australia
The Sherritt-Gordon ammonia pressure leach process is
employed at BHP Nickel West’s refinery in Kwinana, WA
(formerly owned by WMC Resources) and was originally
built to process nickel flotation concentrates from Kambalda.
The plant was commissioned in 1970, however, with the com­
missioning of the Kalgoorlie nickel smelter in 1973, co-
processing of matte and concentrate commenced, with the
refinery switching to an all-matte feed in 1985 (Deng 1994;
Wishaw 1993). Some advantages of switching to all matte feed
were stated to be higher Ni tenors in the leach liquor, an
increase in Ni throughput, reduced cooling requirements in
the autoclaves due to the lower sulfur content of the matte feed,
and generation of a smaller volume of leach residue (Deng
1993, 1994; Wishaw 1993). The operating conditions of the
autoclave train at the Kwinana refinery processing flash fur­
nace smelter matte grading 66 wt% Ni (ground to a P90 of 106
µm), are a temperature range of 85–95°C and a pressure of
750–1000 kPa using compressed air as the oxidant (Wishaw
1993; Woodward 2014; Woodward and Bahri 2007). The Ni-
Cu-Corich ammoniacal solution is processed in a similar man­
ner to the original Sherritt-Gordon process at Fort
Saskatchewan which was previously described (refer to
Figure 3). The primary difference is that further processing of
the MSP product for recovery of cobalt values does not take
place (Wishaw 1993). The refinery at Kwinana has undergone
an expansion with the addition of a plant to produce 100,000
tonnes per annum of nickel sulfate (Anon, 2021) , a key ingre­
dient in LIB cathodes used in electric vehicles.
3.2. Sulfuric acid pressure oxidation processes
Sulfuric acid pressure oxidation processes have been commer­
cially employed since the 1980s for processing of Ni-Cu mattes,
zinc concentrates and refractory gold concentrates
(Berezowsky et al. 1991) and have seen limited use in the
processing of nickel sulfide concentrates. The sulfuric acid
required for oxygen pressure leaching can be introduced
through recycling of raffinates from solvent extraction-
electrowinning circuits and/or can be generated in-situ during
leaching from hydrolysis of ferric iron and oxidation of part or
all the elemental sulfur. Oxygen pressure leaching processes are
characterized according to the operating temperature at which
leaching is performed which has an effect on sulfur speciation
and oxygen consumption during leaching; low-temperature
oxidation (100–110°C) takes place below the melting point of
elemental sulfur (113–119°C), intermediate temperature oxi­
dation (120–180°C) takes place above the melting point of
elemental sulfur but below a temperature at which majority
of the sulfur is further oxidized to sulfate whilst high-
temperature pressure oxidation is typically carried out at
180–220°C where sulfur is fully oxidized to sulfate
(Berezowsky 2000; Honey, Muir, and Hunt 1997). Further
details of the process chemistry during oxygen pressure leach­
ing of nickel sulfide concentrates are discussed by Berezowsky
(2000). Sulfuric acid pressure oxidation processes for the treat­
ment of nickel flotation concentrates are by far the most
numerous and advanced with respect to pilot plant develop­
ment and commercial deployment. The key features of the
piloted processes are presented in Table 5. Several nickel pro­
cessing operations have practiced pressure oxidation which are
presented in Table 4. Two of these operations have been closed
(Fredericktown and Garfield, both in the USA) but have been
briefly described for historical purposes.
3.2.1. Piloted pressure leach processes
3.2.1.2 Activox®. The Activox® process was originally devel­
oped by Western Minerals Technology (WMT) for oxidative
leaching of base metal sulfide concentrates (Johnson, Evans,

and Turner 2000) and has also been applied to treatment of
refractory gold ores (Corrans, Johnson, and Angove 1993). The
Activox® process is essentially a low temperature (80–110°C),
pressure oxidation process utilizing oxygen gas as the oxidant,
whereby base metals are leached from the concentrate whilst
sulfide is oxidized to elemental sulfur, thus reducing the oxy­
gen requirement for leaching versus high temperature, high
pressure oxidation processes (Corrans, Johnson, and Angove
1993; Johnson, Evans, and Turner 2000). Elemental sulfur
reports to the leach residue and since the leaching process
operates below the melting point of sulfur (approximately
120°C), there is no need for the addition of a sulfur dispersing
agent during leaching. The leaching media is an acid-sulfate
system, with the sulfuric acid being generated in situ by oxida­
tion of sulfide minerals in the feed (Johnson, Evans, and
Turner 2000). The concentrate to be leached is subjected to
ultra-fine milling down to a P80 of 10 µm, thereby improving
leaching kinetics in subsequent pressure oxidation (Corrans,
Johnson, and Angove 1993; Johnson, Evans, and Turner 2000;
Palmer and Johnson 2005). Chloride addition during Activox®
leaching has been stated to be beneficial for copper extraction
(Adams and Johnson 2001) which is consistent with the find­
ings by Subramanian and Ferrajuolo 1976) and McDonald and
Muir (2007). Typical residence times for leaching nickel sulfide
concentrates are reported to be 1–2 hours (Johnson, Evans, and
Turner 2000), chalcopyrite being refractory requires longer
times (up to 5 hours) (Corrans, Johnson, and Angove 1993).
Precious metals are not leached in the process and report to the
leach residue from which they are recovered by conventional
means (Johnson, Evans, and Turner 2000; Palmer and Johnson
2005). Iron is initially leached from the concentrate but under­
goes hydrolytic precipitation, forming goethite and hematite
(Corrans, Johnson, and Angove 1993; Palmer and Johnson
2005). There is no guarantee of goethite formation and the
study by McDonald and Muir (2007) on chalcopyrite leaching
under Activox® conditions (108°C 700 kPa O2 pressure) found
that goethite formation only occurred during leaching with 10
g/L Cl−. Leaching with sulfuric acid and chloride resulted in
formation of natrojarosite and poorly crystalline iron oxyhydr­
oxides such as 2-line ferrihydrite (McDonald and Muir 2007).
Metal recoveries during the leaching of a range of sulfide
concentrates using the Activox® process have been reported
to be greater than 95% for Ni and Co, and 75–90% for Cu, with
40–80% conversion of sulfidic sulfur to elemental sulfur
(Palmer and Johnson 2005). Activox® leaching technology has
been applied to the treatment of a variety of nickel sulfide
concentrates from Western Australia and Africa (Corrans,
Johnson, and Angove 1993; Johnson, Evans, and Turner
2000), and was the chosen leaching technology for the
Yakabindie Nickel Project, Western Australia, and the Tati
nickel project, Botswana (Johnson, Evans, and Turner 2000;
Palmer and Johnson 2005; Robles, Cronje, and Nel 2009). The
technology has not been applied commercially for the proces­
sing of nickel flotation concentrates.
3.2.1.2. CESL process. The CESL process was originally
developed by Cominco (now Teck Resources Limited) for the
hydrometallurgical processing of copper sulfide concentrates,
as an alternative to smelting, but was also adapted for the
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 13
processing of nickel sulfide concentrates (Jones, Hestrin, and
Moore 1998). The CESL process is a medium temperature
pressure oxidation process taking place under an oxygen pres­
sure of 1379 kPa (gauge) and temperature above the melting
point of sulfur (120°C) but below 160°C to limit oxidation of
elemental sulfur to sulfate. The first step in the CESL process is
re-grinding of flotation concentrate(s) in a ball mill to a P95 of
45 µm to liberate the sulfide minerals and improve leaching
kinetics (Jones, Hestrin, and Moore 1998; Mayhew et al. 2013).
Oxidative dissolution of concentrates takes place in an acidic
sulfate solution containing up to 60 g/L H2SO4, 12 g/L chloride
and 5–10 g/L Cu(II), the role of chloride being to limit oxida­
tion of elemental sulfur to sulfate (Jones, 1996; Jones, Hestrin,
and Moore 1998). Brown and Papangelakis (2005) have also
shown that chloride ions have a dispersing effect on elemental
sulfur and it is possible that chloride in the CESL process serves
an additional function as a sulfur dispersing agent during
leaching. In the absence of any suitable sulfur dispersing
agent, sulfide mineral dissolution kinetics would likely be
inhibited due to encapsulation of unreacted sulfides by molten
elemental sulfur (Brown and Papangelakis 2005; Tong and
Dreisinger 2009). The specific role of copper ions in the
CESL process is not stated, however WMC Resources pre­
viously recognized the benefits of copper ions in combination
with chloride during pressure oxidation of nickel sulfide con­
centrates which formed the basis for a patent (Crossley et al.
1998). It may be that in the presence of sufficient chloride ions
in solution, the Cu(II)/Cu(I) couple functions as a redox med­
iator during oxygen pressure leaching. Iron sulfides in the
concentrate(s) are oxidized and precipitated as hematite; in
the case of pyrrhotite, oxidation also produces elemental sulfur
whilst sulfide in pyrite is oxidized to sulfuric acid (Defreyne
et al. 2006). Whilst only 50% to 75% of the pyrite is reported to
undergo oxidation in the CESL process, its presence in con­
centrates is stated to be undesirable as it increases oxygen
consumption and heat generation during pressure oxidation
and generates sulfuric acid which must be neutralized down­
stream (Defreyne et al. 2006). The heat generation due to pyrite
oxidation may not be an issue if the process can be operated
autogenously whilst the acid generation from pyrite might also
not be a problem if a use can be found for the acid such as in
a heap leach operation.
Once the base metals have been leached into solution, the
autoclave leach slurry is subjected to solid–liquid separation
and the leach liquor is neutralized with limestone to remove
iron and aluminum from solution (Jones et al. 2010; Mayhew
et al. 2013). Copper can be recovered as cathode via solvent
extraction and electrowinning (SX-EW) whilst Ni and Co can
be recovered as a mixed hydroxide precipitate (MHP), mixed
sulfide precipitate (MSP), or separated via SX to produce
individual products (Jones et al. 2010; Jones, Mayhew, and
O’Conner 2009; Mayhew et al. 2013). The CESL process has
been tested on a range of nickel concentrates ranging in Ni
grade from 2.1 to 20.4 wt% at bench and pilot plant scale,
including concentrates high in MgO arising from the flotation
of disseminated Ni sulfide ores which are not suitable for
smelting (Jones et al. 2010; Jones, Hestrin, and Moore 1998;
Jones, Mayhew, and O’Conner 2009; Mayhew et al. 2013). High
Ni and Co recoveries have been reported for a range of
14 N. FARIS ET AL.
concentrates leached using the CESL process, being above 95%
for both elements (Jones, Hestrin, and Moore 1998; Jones,
Mayhew, and O’Conner 2009). Despite being tested at bench
and pilot plant scale, the CESL process has not been deployed
commercially for the processing of nickel sulfide concentrates.
3.2.1.3. PlatsolTM. PLATSOLTM leaching technology was ori­
ginally developed by International PGM Technologies Limited
at SGS Lakefield Research (Canada) for processing bulk poly­
metallic sulfide flotation concentrates containing Cu, Ni, Co,
gold (Au) and PGMs from the NorthMet deposit (Duluth
Gabbro, Minnesota), owned by Polymet Mining Corporation
(Dreisinger et al. 2005; Ferron et al. 2002; Fleming et al. 2000).
The bulk sulfide concentrates were considered uneconomical
for smelting and hence a hydrometallurgical process was an
attractive alternative to development of a dedicated smelting
facility or shipping flotation concentrate to toll smelters
(Fleming et al. 2000). The leaching technology was also tested
on a range of different base metal sulfide concentrates contain­
ing a range of Ni grades from 3 to 15 wt% as well as Co, Cu and
PGMs (Ferron et al. 2000, 2002; Fleming et al. 2000). The
leaching process is essentially a high-temperature pressure
oxidation process carried out at 225°C utilizing oxygen gas as
the oxidant in sulfuric acid media containing dissolved chlor­
ide (Dreisinger et al. 2005; Ferron and Fleming 2001); base and
precious metals are dissolved from concentrates under the
conditions employed and total oxidation of sulfidic sulfur to
sulfate takes place (Fleming et al. 2000). Most of the iron
(>90%) in the concentrate reports to the leach residue as
hematite (Ferron et al. 2000; Fleming et al. 2000). Key features
of the process are the addition of an ultra-fine milling stage
(P80 15–20 µm) and chloride addition (5–20 g/L NaCl) which
facilitates dissolution of Au and PGMs during leaching via
formation of soluble chloro complexes (Ferron et al. 2000;
Fleming et al. 2000). Base metals recovery during leaching
was reported to be unaffected by fine grinding or chloride
addition, however recoveries of Au, Pt and Pd were improved
both when ultra-fine milling and chloride addition were
employed (Fleming et al. 2000). Gold recoveries during leach­
ing were also reportedly affected by the grinding media, with
ceramic media giving the best results during leaching versus
steel grinding media, which was believed to be due to cementa­
tion of dissolved gold onto iron powder produced during
attrition grinding using steel media (Fleming et al. 2000). At
the high temperatures employed, leaching kinetics were very
rapid with more than 95% of the Ni, Cu and Co being leached
from concentrates in the first 20 minutes with longer retention
times (up to 180 min) being necessary to dissolve the precious
metals (Dreisinger et al. 2005; Ferron and Fleming 2002;
Ferron et al. 2000). A demonstration plant utilizing
PLATSOLTM leaching technology was built at SGS Lakefield
for processing bulk sulfide flotation concentrate produced
from the NorthMet deposit (Ferron and Fleming 2001, 2002);
however, the leaching technology does not appear to have been
industrially implemented.
3.2.1.4. Kell process. The Kell process is a multi-step
hydrometallurgical process that has been developed for
the extraction of base metals, gold, silver and PGMs
from flotation concentrates as an alternative to smelting.
The first stage in the Kell Process is high-temperature
pressure oxidation (170–230°C) in a sulfate medium
using oxygen gas to dissolve base metals and oxidize
sulfidic sulfur to sulfate; precious and platinum group
metals are retained in the leach residue (Liddell and
Adams 2012; Liddell et al. 2019). By comparison, PGMs
are intentionally dissolved in the PLATSOLTM process,
also utilizing high-temperature pressure oxidation, via
the addition of 5–20 g/L NaCl. The leach liquor arising
from the pressure leaching stage (Kell process) is pro­
cessed to recover base metals whilst the leach residue is
further processed to recover Au, Ag and PGMs (Liddell
and Adams 2012; Liddell et al. 2019). The leach residue
may be subjected to a HCl leach at ambient pressure to
dissolve silver and residual base metals retained in the
residue followed by roasting of the residue at 500–
1000°C to convert PGM minerals to a readily leachable
form (Liddell et al. 2019). Test work performed by Adams,
Liddell, and Holohan (2011) found that reducing condi­
tions during roasting are ideal for subsequent PGM recov­
ery. Recovery of precious and platinum group metals from
the roasted leach residue takes place via an ambient pres­
sure oxidative leach in a chloride medium using chlorine
gas as an oxidant (Liddell et al. 2019). The process has
been tested on a range of PGM bearing sulfide concen­
trates, primarily from Southern Africa and average base
metals (Ni, Cu, Co) recoveries are 96–98% whilst Pt and
Pd recoveries are 98% (Liddell et al. 2019).
3.2.1.5. IGO processTM. IGO Limited, an ASX listed nickel
miner, has recently patented a process for production of
high purity/battery grade nickel sulfate directly from nickel
sulfide concentrates via oxygen pressure leaching, solution
neutralization and purification, and solvent extraction to
produce nickel sulfate hydrate crystals (Grassi et al. 2019).
The main feature of the invention is the stripping of nickel
from the loaded organic phase using a sulfuric acid solution
saturated in Ni such that nickel sulfate hexahydrate crystals
are immediately precipitated from solution (Grassi et al.
2019). Nickel dissolution from the concentrate is proposed
to take place either via low temperature (100 – 120°C) or
high temperature (>200°C) pressure oxygen leaching. For the
former case, ultra-fine grinding (P80 6.6 µm) improved nickel
leaching from the concentrate (Grassi et al. 2019) just like in
Activox®. Grassi et al. (2019) reported near complete extrac­
tion of base metals within 60 min during high-temperature
pressure leaching; however, the resultant leach liquors con­
tained high concentrations of dissolved iron (up to 22 g/L
total Fe, mostly as Fe(III)) and free acid (up to 78 g/L H2
SO4) which would increase limestone consumption in down­
stream neutralization. The high iron and acid concentrations
in the leach liquor is not necessarily an issue if a use can be
found for them, such as leaching nickel sulfide flotation
tailings or nickel oxide ores, though this is not mentioned
in the invention. The IGO ProcessTM has not been commer­
cially deployed; however, IGO Limited has indicated that
they are assessing opportunities for partnership/collaboration
to leverage the technology (IGO Limited 2020).

3.2.2. Commercial operations
3.2.2.1. Garfield Cobalt Refinery, USA. The Garfield cobalt
refinery in Utah, USA, operated by Calera Mining Company
was the first application of sulfuric acid pressure oxidation to
the processing of nickel-bearing sulfides (Berezowsky 2000).
The plant was operational from 1953 to 1959 and shut down
due to a shortage of ore (Meddings and Evans 1971). The plant
processed a sulfide concentrate from the Blackbird Mine in
Idaho (USA) grading 17.5% Co, 1.0% Ni and 0.5% Cu; major
sulfide minerals in the concentrate were cobaltite (CoAsS) and
pyrite with minor gersdorffite, chalcopyrite and arsenopyrite
(Berezowsky 2000). The pressure leaching process in use at the
refinery involved total pressure oxidation at 375°F (190.6°C)
and a total pressure of 3600 kPa using air as the oxidant in
a lead and brick lined autoclave (Berezowsky 2000). Under
these conditions, 95–97% of the Co was leached (Berezowsky
2000); the extraction efficiencies for Ni and Cu have not been
stated. Majority of the iron and arsenic in the concentrate was
precipitated as basic iron sulfate and ferric arsenate (Meddings
and Evans 1971). The leach slurry from the autoclave was
neutralized to remove residual arsenic and iron, and copper
was recovered by cementation with cobalt powder (Meddings
and Evans 1971). Cobalt and Ni recovery was via pressure
hydrogen reduction to produce an impure product after
adjustment of the solution with ammonia to produce the
desired ammonia to metal ratio in solution (molar ratio of 2)
for reduction (Meddings and Evans 1971). Construction and
operation of the plant was rushed, and no piloting of the
process occurred, as such the plant was plagued with numerous
issues due to the abrasive and corrosive nature of the slurry
(Berezowsky 2000).
3.2.2.2. Fredericktown metals refinery, USA. The
Fredericktown refinery in Missouri, USA, operated by
National Lead Company was the second commercial plant to
utilize sulfuric acid pressure oxidation in the processing of
nickel-bearing sulfide concentrates (Berezowsky 2000). The
plant was operational between 1954 and 1960 and like the
Garfield refinery was closed due to lack of feed (Meddings
and Evans 1971). The feed to the leach plant was a flotation
concentrate grading 5.0% Ni, 4.2% Co and 4.8% Cu, as siegen­
ite and chalcopyrite, produced as a by-product of copper-lead
mining (Berezowsky 2000; Meddings and Evans 1971). The
pressure leaching process in use at the refinery involved total
pressure oxidation at 232°C and a total pressure of 5300 kPa
using air as the oxidant (Berezowsky 2000). Most of the iron
was precipitated in the autoclave as basic iron sulfate and
further removal of iron post-pressure leaching took place
through pH adjustment and aeration to oxidize residual fer­
rous iron (Meddings and Evans 1971). Metallic Ni, Cu and Co
products were recovered by pressure hydrogen reduction
(Meddings and Evans 1971).
3.2.2.3. Kokkola refinery, Finland. There has been a long
history of Ni/Co refining at Kokkola by Outokumpu Oy, start­
ing with Ni and Co extraction from pyrite-pyrrhotite concen­
trate from the Outokumpu copper mine via sulfation roasting
between 1966 and 1987 (refer to Section 3.6.3). From
December 1991, the Kokkola refinery began processing a low
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 15
grade, high magnesia (10% MgO) nickel sulfide flotation con­
centrate from the Hitura mine (Finland) grading 5–7% Ni. The
plant used a pressure oxidation process (HIKO process – refer
to Table 5) in autoclaves at temperatures below the melting
point of sulfur (<120°C) with oxygen gas at 500 kPa pressure
(Berezowsky 2000; Nyman et al. 1992). Additional details of the
HIKO process such as acid addition to the leach charge, con­
centrate feed particle size, leaching time and degree of sulfide
conversion to elemental sulfur are unknown (Berezowsky
2000). The leach solution was subjected to iron precipitation
using limestone followed by copper precipitation as a sulfide
using H2S (Nyman et al. 1992). Following on from iron and
copper removal, the solution was subjected to SX using di-
2-ethylhexyl phosphoric acid (D2EHPA) to remove calcium
followed by separation of cobalt (and magnesium) from nickel
using Ionquest 801, an organophosphorus-based extractant
(Nyman et al. 1992). The raffinate from Co/Mg SX was then
sent to Ni SX; the final products were purified Ni and Co
chemicals (Nyman et al. 1992); no details however are given
of the Ni SX circuit i.e. type of extractant used, nor the Co
refining circuit after Co/Mg SX. The status of the pressure
leaching plant is unknown though the refinery has changed
ownership a number of times and is currently a cobalt refinery
operated by Umicore (Cooke 2021; Törmänen and Tuomela
2021) and the nickel mine that supplied concentrate to the
leaching plant has been closed since 2015 (Björkman 2019).
A simplified process flow diagram of the HIKO process used at
the Kokkola refinery is presented in Figure 5.
3.2.2.4. Long Harbour, Canada. Hydrometallurgical proces­
sing of nickel flotation concentrate is carried out by Vale
Limited at Long Harbor using nickel concentrate produced
from the Voisey’s Bay nickel deposit; the first shipment of
metallic nickel produced from the plant occurring in 2015
(Anon 2015). A simplified flowsheet of the Voisey’s Bay
Process is presented in Figure 6 and the key features of the
leaching stages are summarized in Table 5. The process com­
mences with regrinding of the flotation concentrate to below
20 µm followed by a first stage leach in sulfuric acid (return
electrolyte from Ni-electrowinning) at ambient pressure using
a mixture of chlorine gas and oxygen as the oxidant (produced
from the Ni-electrowinning circuit). This is followed by
a second stage leach at elevated pressure using oxygen as the
oxidant in an autoclave (Crundwell et al. 2011b; Kerfoot et al.
2001; Stevens et al. 2009). The clarified leach solution produced
from the two-stage leach process undergoes a first stage of iron
removal where 95% of the iron is removed by raising the pH to
3 using limestone and aerating with oxygen to oxidize any
ferrous iron in the solution to the ferric state (Stevens et al.
2009). Following on from the first iron removal stage, copper is
recovered from the solution via solvent extraction-
electrowinning (SX-EW) using LIX 84, a commercially avail­
able hydroxyoxime extractant (Stevens et al. 2009). The raffi­
nate from Cu SX undergoes a second stage of iron removal,
followed by cadmium removal (by sulfide precipitation) and
finally an impurity SX stage using D2EHPA to remove calcium,
magnesium and other impurities (Fe, Pb, Zn, Mn) prior to
cobalt solvent extraction (Crundwell et al. 2011b; Stevens et al.
2009). The purified raffinate is then subjected to Co SX-EW
16 N. FARIS ET AL.

Figure 5. Simplified process flow diagram of the Outokumpu HIKO process used at the Kokkola refinery (Finland) for processing of nickel sulfide concentrates via low
temperature pressure oxidation and recovery of nickel and cobalt chemicals. Operating conditions of the leaching process and metal extractions during leaching for
a given nickel concentrate are presented. Adapted from Nyman et al. (1992) Honey, Muir, and Hunt (1997) and Berezowsky (2000).

Figure 6. Simplified process flow diagram for the hydrometallurgical processing of nickel concentrate from Voisey’s Bay (Canada) at Vale’s Long Harbour operations to
produce Ni, Cu and Co cathode via a combination of pressure oxidation, solvent extraction (SX) and electrowinning (EW). Some unit operations such as hydroxide re-
leaching after solid/liquid separation and cadmium removal prior to impurity SX have been omitted for simplicity. Adapted from Crundwell et al. (2011b), Kerfoot et al.
(2001) and Stevens et al. (2009). Conditions utilized in atmospheric pre-leach and pressure oxidation and extraction efficiencies are based on the original patent filed by
Kerfoot et al. (2001) and may not reflect actual conditions in current use.

using Cyanex 272, an organophosphinic acid extractant. The
raffinate from Co SX is sent to the Ni electrowinning circuit;
the final products produced at Long Harbor are nickel cathode,
copper cathode and cobalt rounds (Crundwell et al. 2011b;
Stevens et al. 2009).
3.2.2.5. Nadezhdin mill, Russia. Flotation of massive sulfide
ores from the Noril’sk-Talnakh ore field (Siberia) produces
three products, copper concentrate, nickel concentrate and
pyrrhotite concentrate (Bulatovic 2007; Kozyrev et al. 2002).
The pyrrhotite concentrates produced typically contain 2–5%
Ni, 1–4% Cu and up to 15 g/t of PGMs (Berezowsky 2000;
Deng 1992, 1993; Klyushnikov et al. 2021). Nickeliferous pyr­
rhotite concentrates are processed to recover the base and
platinum group metals content via a combination of autoclave
pressure leaching and residue flotation at the Nadezhdin mill,
operated by Noril’sk Mining and Metallurgy Corporation (now
Nornickel) (Deng 1992, 1993). The autoclaves were commis­
sioned in 1979 and involved leaching pyrrhotite concentrates
at 125–135°C and pressure of 1.5 MPa, using 80% O2 as the
oxidant with addition of 4 kg/t of lignin sulfonic acid salts as
a sulfur dispersing agent (Berezowsky 2000; Deng 1992, 1993).
The leaching process results in oxidation of 96% of the pyr­
rhotite in the concentrate and conversion of 65% of sulfidic

sulfur in the feed to elemental sulfur; 67% of the Ni is initially
leached into solution but is subsequently precipitated from the
leached slurry as a sulfide (Deng 1992, 1993). Precipitation of
dissolved base metals is carried out by treating the leach pulp
with metallic iron at 90°C which together with elemental sulfur
present in the leach slurry precipitates the dissolved metals as
their sulfides (Berezowsky 2000).
The precipitated base metal sulfides along with
unreacted sulfides and PGMs are separated from elemental
sulfur and iron oxides via sequential flotation (Deng 1992,
1993). Firstly, flotation is carried out to reject iron oxides
formed during pressure oxidation and recover an elemen­
tal sulfur-metal sulfide flotation concentrate (Berezowsky
2000). The concentrate is then treated in an autoclave at
110–130°C and pH 9–10 with addition of 5–7 g/L Na2S to
disintegrate the concentrate into a mixture of elemental
sulfur and metal sulfides; the pulp is then subjected to
flotation to produce a sulfide concentrate and an elemental
sulfur product (Berezowsky 2000). The final nickel grade
in the concentrate is 8–10% with an overall recovery of
base and platinum group metals to the final concentrate of
80–85% (Berezowsky 2000). The base and platinum group
metal enriched product is then combined with the nickel
concentrate produced from the beneficiation circuit and
processed further via flash smelting (Berezowsky 2000;
Klyushnikov et al. 2021). A simplified process flow dia­
gram is presented in Figure 7. The pressure oxidation
autoclaves at the Nadezhdin mill do not have sufficient
capacity to process all the nickeliferous pyrrhotite concen­
trate produced and as such, a large proportion of the
concentrate is diverted to stockpile (Klyushnikov et al.
2021; Moskalyk and Alfantazi 2002).
Figure 7. Simplified process flow diagram for the hydrometallurgical processing of nickeliferous pyrrhotite concentrates from Talnakh (Russia) at the Nadezhdin mill via
a combination of pressure oxidation, non-ferrous metal sulfide precipitation and flotation to recover a sulfide concentrate for flash smelting and elemental sulfur.
Operating conditions of major unit operations and overall nickel recovery and final nickel product grade during processing of a pyrrhotite concentrate grading 2.2% Ni
are presented (from Berezowsky 2000). Adapted from Kitay, Mechev, and Volkov (1991) and Berezowsky (2000).
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 17
3.3. Atmospheric sulfuric acid leaching
The only processes developed to date employing chemical leach­
ing of nickel concentrates in a sulfate medium at atmospheric
pressure are the Intec Nickel Process developed by Intec Limited,
and the Albion ProcessTM developed by Glencore (formerly
Xstrata). Neither of these processes have been deployed commer­
cially for the processing of nickel sulfide concentrates though the
Albion ProcessTM has been commercially deployed for processing
gold, copper and zinc concentrates and may therefore be suitable
for leaching of nickel flotation concentrates. The key features of
both processes are presented in Table 5 and are briefly described
below.
3.3.1. Intec Nickel Process
The Intec Nickel Process is a two-stage atmospheric leaching
process developed for processing base metal sulfide concen­
trates containing precious metals and PGMs. Much of the
development work for the Intec Process focused on copper
extraction from copper sulfide concentrates (Moyes and
Houlis 2003; Palmer and Johnson 2005). The first stage leach
involves carrying out oxidative dissolution of reground flota­
tion concentrate (ground to P80 25 µm) at 80°C in a sulfuric
acid solution containing halides (Cl-, Br-) using air (21% O2) as
an oxidant (Moyes and Houlis 2003). Nickel, copper and cobalt
dissolution efficiencies in the first leaching stage were reported
to be greater than 95%, with approximately 50% of the Au and
PGMs dissolving in this leaching stage (Moyes and Houlis
2003); the residence time for the first leaching stage was not
stated. The second leaching stage, termed the “Halex leach”,
involves the extraction of un-leached Au, Pt, Pd and remaining
base metals from the first stage leach residue. Leaching is
carried out at 100°C using spent electrolyte from the Cu- and
18 N. FARIS ET AL.
Ni-electrowinning circuits, where electrogenerated BrCl2-
serves as the oxidant (Moyes and Houlis 2003). Base metal
recoveries in the second stage leach were again reported to be
greater than 95%, with 86% of the Au, and 87% of the Pd also
being leached; Pt recoveries were poor however with only 54%
extraction (Moyes and Houlis 2003). Recovery of precious
metals post-leaching is by precipitation using either sodium
hydrogen sulfide (NaHS) or pyrrhotite-rich nickel concentrate,
and copper and nickel are recovered in separate electro-
winning circuits as cathode.
3.3.2. Albion ProcessTM
The Albion ProcessTM is an atmospheric oxidative leaching
process which is preceded by an ultra-fine grinding stage.
The process was developed to treat a range of sulfide concen­
trates containing base and precious metals and was originally
developed by MIM Holdings/Xstrata (Hourn and Turner 2012;
Hourn, Turner, and Holzberger 1996) with Glencore
Technology (a subsidiary of Glencore) being the licensor of
the process/technology after the purchase of Xstrata. The ori­
ginal patent for the Albion ProcessTM covered the ultra-fine
grinding of base metal sulfide concentrate or ore to a P80 of 20
µm or less followed by leaching in a sulfuric acid medium
containing dissolved ferric and ferrous iron with sparging of
air, oxygen-enriched air or pure oxygen at temperatures
between 60°C and the boiling point of the solution (Hourn,
Turner and Holzberger 1996). The first step in the Albion
ProcessTM is the fine grinding of the sulfide-bearing material
in an IsaMillTM to a P80 of 10–12 µm followed by leaching of
the milled material in specially designed agitated leaching tanks
at 93–98°C with oxygen injection using Hypersparge™ technol­
ogy which can deliver oxygen at supersonic velocities (450–
550 m.s−1) (Hourn and Turner 2012). No external heating or
cooling requirements are required for the leaching process, the
heat being generated from oxidation of sulfidic sulfur and
cooling being achieved via water evaporation. Sulfidic sulfur
is oxidized to elemental sulfur and sulfate, with the degree of
elemental sulfur oxidation to sulfate being controlled by the
pulp pH. Processing of base metal sulfide concentrate via the
Albion ProcessTM is carried out under acidic conditions whilst
the processing of refractory gold concentrates is carried out
under neutral conditions (pH 5–7) to oxidize elemental sulfur
to sulfate. The Albion ProcessTM has been commercially
deployed for the processing of sphalerite, refractory gold con­
centrates (Hourn and Turner 2012) and most recently, chalco­
pyrite concentrate at Sable Zinc (Zambia) (Stieper 2018). The
process has not been industrially applied to the processing of
nickel sulfide concentrates and information on processing of
nickel sulfide concentrates is limited; the original patent by
Hourn, Turner, and Holzberger (1996) only had one applica­
tion of the Albion ProcessTM to the processing of a low-grade
nickel concentrate (1.7% Ni as pentlandite) which was milled
to a P80 of 5 µm prior to leaching at atmospheric pressure.
3.4. Chloride-based leaching processes
Chloride leaching involves the dissolution of base metal
sulfide concentrates, ores or mattes exclusively in chloride
media as opposed to sulfate-media with the addition of
halide ions such as in the CESL, Voisey’s Bay or Intec
processes which were previously described. Advantages of
chloride lixiviants have been stated to be a high recovery of
metals during leaching, ability to regenerate and recycle the
lixiviants, inertness of pyrite in chloride media and reduced
formation of sulfate during leaching (Dutrizac 1992).
Against these advantages however are several limitations
such as the lack of selectivity of chloride lixiviants during
leaching which can complicate downstream liquor purifica­
tion and lixiviant regeneration/recycling and the corrosivity
of chlorides toward many common materials of construc­
tion (Dutrizac 1992; Forward and Warren 1960; Honey,
Muir, and Hunt 1997). Despite the disadvantages, chloride-
based leaching processes have been successfully utilized for
processing nickel mattes with these processes in current use
at the Falconbridge Nikkelverk refinery (Norway), the
Niihama nickel refinery (Japan) and Sandouville-Le Havre
(France) (Kerfoot and Weir 1988; Makino et al. 1996;
Stensholt, Zachariasen, and Lund 1986). A common theme
to all three matte leach processes is the use of chlorine gas
as an oxidant in conjunction with either Cu(II)
(Falconbridge, Niihama) or Fe(III) (Sandouville) (Muir
and Ho 2006).
Despite the successful application of chloride leaching in
nickel matte refining, the only chloride-based leaching pro­
cess developed at scale for processing nickel sulfide concen­
trates is the HydroNic process developed by Outotec Oyj
(Karonen, Tiihonen, and Haavanlammi 2009) and key details
of the process are summarized in Table 5. HydroNic
employs a two-stage leaching process to dissolve Ni, Co
and Cu from base metal sulfide concentrates. In the first
stage, nickel is leached from pentlandite by reaction with
copper(II) chloride dissolved in a sodium chloride solution
recycled from the second leach stage, with Ni and Fe being
leached into solution (as their chlorides) whilst copper is
precipitated as copper(I) sulfide (Cu2S). This leaching stage
is non-oxidative and is a cementation process. In the second
stage of leaching, the concentrate is leached under oxidative
conditions using oxygen or chlorine gas as the oxidant. Iron
is hydrolyzed and precipitated from solution during leaching
whilst sulfide in the concentrate is oxidized to elemental
sulfur and sulfate. The solution from the second leaching
stage is recycled to the first stage to remove copper from
solution via cementation as Cu2S. After copper removal, the
solution is treated further with caustic (NaOH) and lime­
stone to precipitate iron (as oxyhydroxide) and sulfate (as
gypsum) from solution. After iron/sulfate removal, Ni and
Co are precipitated from solution as a mixed hydroxide by
neutralization with MgO. The patent for the HydroNic pro­
cess was filed by Outotec Oyj in 2006 (Haavanlammi et al.
2006). Interestingly, another patent was filed by Outotec Oyj
in the same year for a chloride leach process for treatment of
nickel sulfide ore and concentrates, key differences in this
process were the absence of a non-oxidative leaching step,
copper(II) was precipitated from the leach liquor as ataca­
mite (Cu2(OH)3Cl) which was returned to the leaching stage
and copper recovery after nickel hydroxide precipitation in
the form of cuprous hydroxide (CuOH) from which copper
metal was recovered via hydrogen reduction (Krebs et al.,

2006). The hydronic process has been tested on a range of
nickel concentrate grades; however, it does not appear to
have been implemented at an industrial scale.
3.5. Bioleaching processes
Bioleaching generally involves the dissolution of sulfide ores/
concentrates in an acidic sulfate medium where ferric ions act
as an oxidant, oxidizing the sulfide minerals to elemental sulfur
with release of metal ions into solution (Watling 2006). The
microorganisms in bioleaching serve a dual purpose of regen­
erating ferric ions by oxidation of ferrous iron and generation
of sulfuric acid via oxidation elemental sulfur (Watling 2006).
Some reasons for considering bioleaching for the processing of
sulfide ores/concentrates stated by Miller (1997) are simple
equipment requirements and flexibility of bioleach processes
with respect to variation in concentrate/ore head grade and
mineralogy (Miller 1997). Potential disadvantages of bioleach­
ing are the slow reaction kinetics and sensitivity of the micro­
organisms to temperature, mineral pulp density, agitation rate
and chloride concentration in process water (Astudillo and
Acevedo 2008; Bailey and Hansford 1993; Honey, Muir, and
Hunt 1997; Nemati and Harrison 2000). Many of these limita­
tions are dependent on the bacterial strain and in the case of
chloride concentration, can be addressed through the develop­
ment of halotolerant bacterial strains such as in the BioHeapTM
process described below (Section 3.5.2.3). A summary of
piloted bacterial leaching processes and commercial operations
employing bioleaching for processing of nickel sulfide flotation
concentrates is described. After sulfuric acid pressure oxida­
tion, bioleaching processes are second with respect to the
number of developed technologies and industrial deployment.
The key features of the piloted processes are presented in
Table 5 whilst a summary of commercial operations utilizing
bioleaching technologies are presented in Table 4.
Figure 8. Simplified process flow diagram for the hydrometallurgical processing of black schist ore from the Sotkamo deposit at the Talvivaara heap bioleaching
operation (Finland) including expected leaching recoveries for the base metals and product grades. a copper product had not been produced at the time of reporting by
Riekkola-Vanhanen (2013). Adapted from Riekkola-Vanhanen (2013).
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 19
3.5.1. Piloted processes
Three bacterial leaching processes have been developed for the
processing of nickel sulfide bearing material; the processes are
BioNIC® (BHP Limited), BacTech (BacTech Limited) and the
BioHeapTM process (BioHeap Limited, a subsidiary of Western
Areas Limited). The BioNIC® and BacTech processes are stirred
tank bacterial leaching processes that have been successfully
piloted on a range of nickel concentrates and a review of these
processes and pilot plant operations has been covered by
Watling (2008) in a review on the bioleaching of nickel-copper
sulfides. Neither of these processes progressed beyond pilot plant
scale. The BioHeapTM process developed by BioHeap Limited,
a subsidiary of Western Areas Limited, is in current use at
Western Areas Limited’s Cosmic Boy nickel concentrator in
Western Australia and the process and operations are described
below.
3.5.2. Commercial bioleach operations
3.5.2.1. Talvivaara heap bioleaching operation, Finland.
The operation at Talvivaara is the only Ni sulfide heap bioleach­
ing operation, processing a black schist ore from the Sotkamo
deposit (Finland), containing 0.23–0.27% Ni, 0.5–0.56% Zn,
0.13–0.14% Cu and 0.02% Co (Crundwell et al. 2011b; Riekkola-
Vanhanen 2013; Watling 2008). The principal sulfide minerals in
the ore are pyrrhotite, pyrite, sphalerite, pentlandite, violarite
and chalcopyrite whilst non-sulfidic gangue phases are graphite,
quartz, mica, anorthite and microcline (Riekkola-Vanhanen
2007, 2013; Watling 2008). Ore from the mine is subjected to
four stages of crushing to a P80 of 8 mm followed by agglomera­
tion with bacteria and sulfuric acid, stacking of the agglomerates
to form heaps and leaching of the heaps with a sulfuric acid
solution at pH 1.8 (Crundwell et al. 2011b; Riekkola-Vanhanen
2007, 2013; Watling 2008). Metal values (Zn, Ni, Co, Cu) are
recovered from the pregnant leach solution by sequential pre­
cipitation as their sulfides using H2S (Crundwell et al. 2011b;
20 N. FARIS ET AL.
Riekkola-Vanhanen 2013). A simplified process flow diagram of
the Talvivaara heap bioleaching operation is presented in
Figure 8. The mine is still operational and is currently being
run by Terrafame Limited, a Finnish state-owned mining com­
pany which purchased the operation from the parent company
(Talvivaara Mining Company) after declaring bankruptcy
(Sairinen, Tiainen, and Mononen 2017). Recently, Terrafame
plans on exploiting another nearby black schist ore body
(Kolmisoppi) which is currently undergoing environmental
assessment (Törmänen and Tuomela 2021). Terrafame intends
to begin production of battery grade Ni and Co sulfates starting
from the MSP produced from the heap leach operation, with
pressure oxidation of the MSP being the first step in the process
(Törmänen and Tuomela 2021). Based on a recent company
announcement, production ramp-up of the battery chemicals
plant started in June 2021 and first delivery of products to
customers in July 2021 (Anon 2021).
3.5.2.2. Mondo nickel project, Finland. Talc processing
operations at Sotkomo and Vuonos in Finland operated by
Mondo Minerals (now Elementis) produce nickel sulfide con­
centrate grading 8.70% Ni as a by-product (Neale et al. 2015).
The primary sulfide minerals in order of decreasing abundance
in the concentrate are pyrrhotite, pentlandite, pyrite and gers­
dorffite (Neale et al. 2015). In the past the concentrate was
typically sold to toll smelters, however the high arsenic content
(1.56% As) had made this option less feasible (Neale et al. 2015).
To produce a more valuable product and increase revenue,
a hydrometallurgical plant was built to process 12,000 tonnes
per annum of concentrate and recover nickel and cobalt as
a mixed hydroxide precipitate (Neale et al. 2015); a simplified
process flow diagram of the hydrometallurgical process in use is
depicted in Figure 9. Nickel concentrate from both operations is
combined and processed in a beneficiation circuit where feed is
re-ground to a P80 of 30–40 µm followed by magnetic separation
to reject pyrrhotite, and flotation to remove talc and magnesite,
to produce an upgraded concentrate containing 12.4% Ni
(Laukka et al. 2018; Neale et al. 2015, 2016). The nickel
Figure 9. Simplified process flow diagram for the bioleaching of nickel concentrate produced as a by-product of talc mining at Mondo Minerals (now Elementis) Vuonos
talc concentrator operations in Finland. the beneficiation circuit has been omitted for simplicity. Operating conditions of major unit operations and final nickel product
grade during processing of nickel concentrate grading 10.49% Ni are presented. Adapted from Neale et al. (2015), Neale et al. (2016).
concentrate is subjected to a bioleaching process which was
developed in conjunction with Mintek; the leaching conditions
are a temperature range of 41–49°C pH range of 1.3–1.6 and
a pulp density of 15–17% solids (Laukka et al. 2018; Neale et al.
2015). The overall residence time in the bioleaching circuit is 9.5
days and nickel and cobalt extractions are reported to be 87.8%
and 90.7%, respectively (Laukka et al. 2018). The leach slurry is
neutralized to pH 3.5 using limestone to precipitate iron and
arsenic from solution followed by solid–liquid separation
(Laukka et al. 2018; Neale et al. 2015). The nickel-rich solution
is subsequently treated with magnesia (MgO) slurry to precipi­
tate Ni and Co as a mixed hydroxide precipitate (MHP) (Neale
et al. 2016). The raffinate produced from MHP precipitation is
treated with lime (CaO) to precipitate residual Ni and the pre­
cipitate is recycled to iron-arsenic precipitation circuit to re-
dissolve residual Ni (Neale et al. 2016). Törmänen and
Tuomela (2021) have indicated that the bioleach plant has only
been operational periodically with the nickel sulfide concentrate
by-product presumably being sold on the market at other times.
3.5.2.3. Cosmic boy nickel concentrator, Western Australia.
The Cosmic Boy nickel concentrator in Western Australia is
owned and operated by Western Areas Limited (Fewings and
Seet 2014). The concentrator batch processes high grade nickel
sulfide ore from the Flying Fox (5.1% Ni grade) and Spotted
Quoll (5.6% Ni grade) underground nickel mines in Western
Areas Limited’s Forrestania operations (Fewings and Seet 2014;
Fewings et al. 2015). The output from the concentrator is sold
to nickel smelters; however, the processing of ore from the
Spotted Quoll mine presents challenges as the ore has a high
arsenic content and the arsenic is present as niccolite and
gersdorffite (Fewings and Seet 2014; Fewings et al. 2015).
Niccolite and gersdorffite are rejected during flotation using
cyanide as a depressant at pH 9.8 to 10.5, though this results in
a loss of Ni to the tailings (Fewings et al. 2016). The cleaner
tailings arising from processing Spotted Quoll ore grade 18.3%
Ni and 6.4% As (Fewings et al. 2016). To recover Ni values
from the cleaner tailings, Western Areas Limited has

implemented a bioleach process based on proprietary
BioHeapTM technology, whereby Ni is leached from the flota­
tion cleaner tailings whilst As and Fe are rejected as an envir­
onmentally stable precipitate (Fewings and Seet 2014; Fewings
et al. 2015, 2016).
A key feature of the BioHeapTM process is the use of pro­
prietary bacterial cultures which are tolerant to arsenic and
high concentrations of total dissolved salts (TDS) (up to 200 g/
L TDS) with a wide temperature range of operation (15–95°C)
(Fewings and Seet 2012). Leaching using proprietary
BioHeapTM cultures is reported to take place at elevated pH
(above pH 2) (Fewings and Seet 2012) unlike the more com­
mon acid ferric sulfate leaching processes utilizing mesophilic
and thermophilic microorganisms. The reported benefits of
bioleaching above pH 2 is lower acid consumption and simpler
downstream neutralization due to reduced dissolution of
gangue minerals and rejection of iron during leaching
(Fewings and Seet 2012). The operating conditions of the
leach circuit are reported to be a pH between 2.8 and 3.5 at
55°C in stirred tank reactors using treated process water con­
taining 50 g/L TDS (Fewings et al. 2016); the residence time in
the bioleaching circuit is reported to be 5–7 days (Fewings et al.
2015). The process water is treated with Caro’s acid (H2SO5) to
destroy cyanide which was reported to cause some retardation
of Ni leaching (Fewings et al. 2015). The Ni is subsequently
recovered from the leach liquor by precipitation using sodium
sulfide (Na2S) to produce a nickel sulfide precipitate grading
45–65% Ni, which is blended with the final flotation concen­
trate (Fewings et al. 2016). A process flow diagram of the
BioHeapTM leach process implemented at the Cosmic Boy
nickel concentrator is presented in Figure 10.
3.6. Roast-leach processes
Roasting of nickel bearing sulfide concentrates followed by
leaching has been practised at two operations in Canada, the
Falconbridge iron ore plant and the Inco iron ore recovery
plant, both treating nickeliferous pyrrhotite concentrates from
Figure 10. Simplified process flow diagram for bacterial leaching (BioHeaptm) of high arsenic nickel flotation cleaner tailings at the Cosmic Boy nickel concentrator,
Forrestania Nickel Project (western Australia), owned and operated by Western Areas Limited. Adapted from Fewings et al. (2016).
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 21
their mill operations and one operation in Finland, the
Kokkola refinery, treating pyrite-pyrrhotite concentrates. It
appears there was an economic incentive at the time for these
operations to extract iron and base metal values from iron
sulfide concentrates produced as a by-product of copper/nickel
mining, rather than diverting them to tailings. The
Falconbridge and Inco pyrrhotite processing plants have been
closed since 1972 and 1982, respectively (Rezaei et al. 2017),
whilst the pyrite roaster at the Kokkola refinery in Finland shut
in 1987 (Sauni et al. 2010), however brief descriptions are
provided for historical purposes. Since the closure of the
Canadian plants, nickeliferous pyrrhotite is rejected to the
tailings at Canadian mill operations and there is
a considerable amount of pyrrhotite in tailings storage areas,
where it is a potential source of acid mine drainage but is also
of potential economic value due to the contained Ni (Peek,
Barnes, and Tuzun 2011; Rezaei et al. 2017).
3.6.1. Falconbridge iron ore plant
The Falconbridge iron ore plant was operated between 1955
and 1972 and processed pyrrhotite concentrate via a sulfation
roast-leach process to recover Fe in the form of a hematite
product and base metals (Ni, Cu, Co) as a sulfide precipitate
which is subsequently smelted (Rezaei et al. 2017). Pyrrhotite
concentrate was subjected to oxidative roasting in the pre­
sence of Na2SO4 (4–5% by weight of the pyrrhotite feed) at
680°C (Rezaei et al. 2017; Thornhill 1961) which converted
the base metals to their respective sulfates and iron to hema­
tite. There were no provisions to capture SO2 from the roast­
ers which was discharged directly into the atmosphere (Rezaei
et al. 2017). The calcine from the roasters was leached in water
to dissolve the base metal salts and recover an iron oxide leach
residue which was dried and pelletized, producing an iron
oxide product grading 66% Fe, 0.1% Ni, 2.2% SiO2 and 0.5%
S (Rezaei et al. 2017). The leach liquor is treated with pyr­
rhotite concentrate to reduce ferric iron in the liquor to the
divalent state, followed by precipitation of base metals as their
sulfides via addition of elemental sulfur, Na2S and iron
22 N. FARIS ET AL.
borings which produces a sulfide precipitate typically grading
20.28–20.91% Ni, 1.85–2.30% Cu and 0.44–0.49% Co at an
overall Ni recovery of 82.2% (Thornhill 1961). The plant was
shut in 1972 due to the introduction of environmental reg­
ulations which imposed annual limits on SO2 emissions from
smelters (Potvin and Negusanti 1995). Further operational
details of the Falconbridge iron ore process are provided by
Thornhill (1961) whilst technical details of the roasting pro­
cess and sulfide precipitation method are provided in the
relevant patents (Thornhill 1954, 1960; Thornhill and
Coulter 1966).
3.6.2. Inco iron ore recovery plant
Inco (now Vale) operated a modified Caron process between
1956 and 1982 and extracted iron, sulfur, Ni and Cu from
pyrrhotite concentrate recovered from the Copper Cliff or
Clarabelle mills in the form of iron oxide pellets, sulfuric
acid, nickel oxide (NiO) and copper sulfide (CuS) (Conard
2013; Rezaei et al. 2017). The reduction roast/leach sectio
n of the plant was shut in 1982 amid an economic downturn
whilst the pyrrhotite roasters continued to operate supplying
sulfuric acid to the market until 1991 (Rezaei et al. 2017).
Conard (2013) indicated that production of NiO continued
until the mid-1990s, though with the shutdown of the reduc­
tion kiln, the feed was metallic Ni powder from Inco’s Copper
Cliff nickel refinery.
The first stage in the process was an oxidizing roast of
the pyrrhotite concentrate at 760°C to produce an iron
oxide calcine and SO2; the SO2 stream was sent to
a sulfuric acid plant whilst the calcine was transferred to
the reduction kiln (Conard 2013). The Ni present in pyr­
rhotite was oxidized to nickel ferrite (NiFe2O4) (Conard
2013; Rezaei et al. 2017). In the reduction kiln, Ni in nickel
ferrite was reduced to a mixture of Fe-Ni alloy and nickel
sulfide whilst hematite in the calcine was reduced to mag­
netite using partially combusted natural gas (Conard 2013;
Rezaei et al. 2017). The reduced calcine was leached in
aerated ammonia-ammonium carbonate lixiviant at 55°C
to dissolve Ni and other base metals in the calcine
(Conard 2013). The iron oxide leach residue was sent to
a pelletizing plant to produce hematite pellets grading 67%
Fe (Conard 2013). Copper (along with some Co) was recov­
ered from the leach liquor by precipitation as a sulfide
using sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) with the precipitate
being sent to a smelter (Conard 2013). Nickel was recov­
ered from the leach liquor after Cu removal by precipita­
tion as a basic nickel carbonate using soda ash (Na2CO3)
and calcination at 550°C to produce an acid-soluble nickel
oxide product grading 77% Ni and 0.15% Co (Conard
2013).
3.6.3. Kokkola refinery, Finland
The Kokkola refinery operated by Outokumpu Oyj pro­
cessed pyrite-pyrrhotite flotation concentrate recovered as
a by-product from the Outokumpu copper mine for recov­
ery of base metals between 1966 and 1987 (Palperi and
Aaltonen 1971; Sauni et al. 2010). The pyrite-pyrrhotite
concentrate graded 0.67% Co, 0.37% Ni, 0.28% Cu and
0.4% Zn (Palperi and Aaltonen 1971). A two-stage roasting
process was employed whereby part of the concentrate was
roasted to produce an oxide calcine (termed dead roasting)
which was then combined with fresh sulfide concentrate
and sodium sulfate in the second roasting stage where
sulfation of the base metals takes place at 680°C (Deng
1992; Palperi and Aaltonen 1971). The rationale for this
two-stage roasting approach was (a) finely divided ferric
oxide produced from dead roasting catalyses SO2 oxidation
to SO3 which reacts with metal oxides to form their sulfates
and (b) addition of fresh concentrate to the second stage
maintained a desirable atmosphere for sulfation and sup­
plied heat for roasting (Palperi and Aaltonen 1971). The
SO2 produced from roasting was sent to a sulfuric acid
plant whilst the iron oxide leach residue (termed purple
ore) grading 64.3% Fe (Palperi and Aaltonen 1971) was
presumably sold. Nickel, Cu and Zn were recovered from
the leach liquor by precipitation as their sulfides, with the
sulfide precipitate being smelted and refined at Harjavalta
(Finland) (Palperi and Aaltonen 1971). Metallic cobalt was
recovered by hydrogen reduction of a cobalt-ammonium
sulfate solution (Palperi and Aaltonen 1971). The sulfation
roasting plant reportedly closed in 1987 (Sauni et al. 2010),
ahead of the closure of the Outokumpu copper mine in
1989, though the production of cobalt products at Kokkola
continues to this day and a cobalt refinery is currently
operated by Umicore (Törmänen and Tuomela 2021).
4. Summary
A summary of the advantages, disadvantages, and commercial
progress of each of the various leaching systems that have been
employed for direct extraction of nickel from flotation concen­
trates is presented in Table 6. It can be seen from Table 6 that
sulfate-based leaching technologies, particularly pressure oxi­
dation and bioleaching, are the most advanced with regards to
the number of processes that have been piloted and commer­
cially deployed at nickel sulfide processing operations. Both
technologies are well established, having enjoyed success in
other industries and therefore pose a low technical risk relative
to other less established leaching technologies. Other factors to
consider in selection of a process/technology for direct leach­
ing of nickel sulfide concentrates besides the track record/
experience in other industries is the flexibility/adaptability of
the process to changes in feed composition and the types of
finished nickel products that can be produced i.e. intermediates
such as MHP or MSP, or class 1 nickel (>99.8% Ni) products
such as electrowon cathode, metallic Ni briquettes or powder,
or high-purity nickel sulfate. Some of the processes are sum­
marized in Table 6 such as nitric acid leaching have not
progressed beyond laboratory scale investigation and therefore
remain unproven at large scale. It is interesting to note that
despite the success of chloride-based leaching processes in the
commercial processing of nickel mattes, chloride-based
Table 6. Comparison of leaching processes that have been evaluated for the direct leaching of nickel sulfide flotation concentrates and commercial progress.
Leaching system Advantages
Ammoniacal - Highly selective for metals which form soluble amine complexes (Ni,
leaching: Co, Cu & Zn)
- Sherritt-Gordon - Iron, aluminum, magnesium & calcium rejected during leaching as
process insoluble residues
(ammoniacal - Fast leaching kinetics
pressure - Ni metal powder can be produced directly from the resultant leach
leaching) liquor
- Pyrite is inert, though any Ni/Co associated with pyrite is not extracted
Acid sulfate - Pressure leaching is conducted by well-established technologies
leaching: - Pressure oxidation processes can be operated autogenously i.e. no
- Pressure oxidation external heat input
-Co-processing of - Sulfuric acid is a low cost lixiviant, can also be generated in situ from
Ni-laterites oxidation of part or all the elemental sulfur produced during leaching
& sulfides or recycling SX and EW raffinates to the leaching stage
- Atmospheric - High degree of flexibility with respect to type of products that can be
leaching produced (cathode, MHP, MSP, sulfate salts)
- Depending on the chosen leach conditions, oxidation of sulfide to
elemental sulfur can be favored (which reduces the amount of
oxidant required)
- Pyrite is generally inert (depends on leach conditions), though any Ni/
Co associated with pyrite may not be extracted
- Arsenic can be managed by precipitation as stable ferric arsenate
- Iron hydrolysis products are typically well-crystalline and readily
filterable (depends on leach conditions)
Chloride leaching: - Fast leaching kinetics
- Ferric & cupric - Oxidation of sulfide to elemental sulfur favored, and As(III) to As(V)
chloride leaching which is precipitated as ferric arsenate phases
- Gaseous oxidants - Elemental sulfur formed at temperatures below melting point is
(oxygen, porous, facilitating more complete leaching of base metals
chlorine, and - Leaching can be carried out at atmospheric pressure & lixiviants can be
their mixtures) regenerated for reuse
- Precious metals and PGMs are soluble in chloride lixiviants though
rejection to the leach residue is possible through control of the ORP
- Pyrite is inert, though any Ni/Co associated with pyrite is not extracted
- Ni & Co electrowinning from chloride media is well established
Nitric acid leaching - Nitric acid serves as both the lixiviant and the oxidant, simplifying
reagent requirements for leaching. It is also a strong oxidizing agent
- Nitric acid can be regenerated from hydrolysis of ferric nitrate solutions,
scrubbing of NOx gases evolved during leaching and thermal
decomposition of nitrate salts such as Mg(NO3)2 if recovered
- Hematite produced from hydrolysis of nitrate solutions is ‘cleaner’ and
more marketable i.e. low sulfur, base metal contaminants compared
to sulfate-based routes
- Stainless steels can be used as materials of construction for leaching
vessels
- Arsenic can be managed by precipitation as stable ferric arsenate
Disadvantages
- Ammonia is expensive, though it can be partly recovered for reuse
- Ammonium sulfate by-product requires disposal if there is no market for it. Where it is to
be used for fertilizer applications, must meet specifications with respect to metals and
sulfamate content, the latter being herbicidal.
- Cobalt refining more complex relative to other processes
- Autoclaves and oxygen gas represent significant capital and operating costs for pressure
oxidation processes
- Recovery of Au, Ag and PGMs from the leach residue can be difficult depending on the
chosen leach conditions
- Iron precipitation products generally unsuitable for steel making due to sulfur & Zn/Cu
content
- Ca/Mg-bearing silicate minerals can pose problems with regards to acid consumption &
silica gelling, and dissolved Mg ions can be problematic for Ni/Co SX and effluent
treatment
- Potentially slow dissolution kinetics at ambient pressure for stirred tank leaching
processes unless ultra-fine grinding is utilized such as in the Albion ProcessTM or
through the addition of halide salts such as in the Intec Nickel Process
- Chloride ion is corrosive and therefore exotic materials of construction are required for
the leaching vessels
- Impurity buildup can occur from recycling of chloride lixiviants, necessitating their
removal once the concentration becomes intolerable
- Use of chlorine gas as an oxidant for leaching poses a hazard to humans and the
environment. ‘Wet’ chlorine gas also corrosive, requiring exotic materials of
construction for leaching vessels
- Recovery of Au and PGMs from the leach residue can be difficult where the residues are
contaminated with iron hydrolysis products and elemental sulfur
-Advantages of chloride media such as producing sulfur textures ideal for facilitating base
metal sulfide dissolution, and limited oxidation of sulfur to sulfate can be equally
addressed in sulfate/sulfuric acid systems with addition of chloride salts (Activox®,
CESL process)
- Sulfur oxidation to SO42- undesirable as it consumes excess nitric acid and the sulfate
must be subsequently removed from the leach liquor for nitric acid regeneration
- Metals recovery by electrowinning or H2 reduction likely to require transfer of the
dissolved metals from a nitrate medium into a sulfate or chloride system
- Potential for degradation of organic extractants due to residual nitric acid in leach
liquors
- Environmental limits on discharge of nitrate & NOx gases means recovery and re-use of
reagent must be rigorous
-Benefits of nitric acid can be addressed in sulfate systems by adding of small quantities of
nitrates/nitrites to function as an oxidation catalyst i.e. Nitrogen Species Catalyzed
(NSC) pressure leaching, or used exclusively as an oxidant
Commercial progress
- Sherritt-Gordon Process originally developed to treat flotation concentrates and is in use
at two locations (Fort Saskatchewan, Canada & Kwinana, Western Australia); however,
both operations no longer process nickel flotation concentrates. Fort Saskatchewan is
processing MSP and Kwinana is processing nickel matte.
- Numerous pressure oxidation processes have been piloted (Activox®, PLATSOLTM, CESL,
Kell process)
- Pressure oxidation has been commercially deployed at the Kokkola refinery (Finland),
Long Harbor (Voisey’s Bay Process, Canada), the Nadezhdin mill (Russia),
Fredericktown and Garfield refineries (USA). The US operations are now closed but
were the first commercial operations to utilize pressure oxidation to process nickel
bearing sulfide concentrates.
- Co-processing of laterites and sulfides appears promising but is currently limited to
laboratory/pilot investigations
- Albion ProcessTM (atmospheric leaching process) expected to be suitable for nickel
sulfide processing based on commercial success in processing of gold, zinc and copper
concentrates
- Chlorine leach processes have been successfully employed for extraction of Ni and Co
from mattes at Nikkelverk (Falconbridge process), Sandouville-Le Havre and Niihama
(MCLE process) but have not been utilized for processing nickel flotation concentrates
- Atmospheric chloride leach processes have been patented (Outotec, Jaguar Nickel Inc.)
but have not seen industrial deployment
- Direct Nickel Process (DNi ProcessTM) has been piloted for processing nickel laterite ores
- Very few published studies on leaching of Ni-sulfide concentrates in nitric acid solutions
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW
(Continued)
23
 24
N. FARIS ET AL.

Table 6. (Continued).
Leaching system Advantages Disadvantages Commercial progress
Bacterial leaching: - Processing equipment is simpler relative to other competing - Slow leaching kinetics which translates to long residence times; 5–10 days being typical - Three bioleaching processes for treatment of nickel sulfide concentrates have been
- Mesophiles (T < technologies for continuous stirred tank bioleaching piloted: BioNIC® (BHP Limited) BacTech (BacTech Limited) and BioHeapTM (Western
45° C) - High degree of flexibility with respect to type of products that can be - Microbes may be sensitive to chloride content in water which poses problems for Areas Limited); the latter having been implemented at a nickel sulfide concentrator
- Moderate produced (cathode, MHP, MSP, sulfate salts) regions where only saline waters are available. Microbes may also be sensitive to pulp - Bioleaching of nickel sulfide concentrates has been implemented at two operations for
thermophiles - Bioleaching processes are stated to be flexible with regards to density and shear rate which affects throughput and equipment sizing. Finally, treating low volumes of material; in both cases the concentrates being processed were
and thermophilic concentrate head grades and mineralogy microbes may be sensitive to leaching temperature which affects throughput and high in arsenic (as niccolite and gersdorffite)
archaea - Bioleaching is suitable for the processing of polymetallic concentrates cooling requirements for bioleach processes - Bio-heap leaching is in use in Finland for processing of a base metals (Ni, Cu, Zn, Co)
(55–85° C) containing gold, silver and PGMs in addition to base metals - Iron precipitation product may be poorly crystalline & voluminous with poor settling & bearing black schist
filtration properties; base metal losses could occur through adsorption & entrainment
- Poor rejection of As during leaching; As is solubilized as As(III) which must be oxidized to
As(V) for precipitation from solution
Roast-leach - Iron conversion to an insoluble iron oxide during oxidizing roasting - Gaseous emissions from roasting processes requires emissions abatement equipment or - A modified Caron process was in use by Inco Ltd. at their Copper Cliff Operations for
processes: processes can result in minimal iron dissolution in subsequent a sulfuric acid plant which significantly increases capital cost. Arsenic may be recovery of iron and base metals from pyrrhotite concentrates. The plant is no longer
- Oxidizing roast & leaching stages & could also enable the recovery of iron oxide as volatilized during roasting operational
Caron-type a by-product - Nickel ferrites if formed during oxidizing roasting processes limit Ni recovery during - The Falconbridge iron ore plant in Canada and the Kokkola works in Finland utilized
processes - Conversion of base metal sulfides to sulfates or chlorides during salt subsequent leaching processes sulfation roasting to recover iron and base metals from pyrrhotite and pyrite-
- Chloridizing and sulfation roasting means water or dilute acids can be used as the - Use of alkali sulfates or chlorides for roasting could be problematic for disposal of pyrrhotite concentrates. Both plants are no longer operational
roasting lixiviant in leaching effluents - Chloridizing roasting and reduction roasting + leaching processes have only been tested
- Sulfation roasting - Reduction roasting converts many ‘refractory’ sulfides to a more - Roasting processes can be energy intensive at laboratory scale for the processing of nickel sulfide concentrates
- Reduction reactive form amenable to subsequent leaching via non-oxidative - Reduction roasting followed by non-oxidative leaching generates H2S, a toxic gas,
roasting dissolution whose emissions must be managed such as by the Claus process or other suitable
technologies
- Non-oxidative leaching of reduced sulfide concentrates require high concentrations of
mineral acids which can require the use of exotic materials of construction, thereby
increasing capital cost. Regeneration and recycling of the lixiviant would also be
required for this approach to be economical

leaching has not seen use for direct processing of nickel sulfide
concentrates. Despite the number of technologies that have
been developed for direct leaching of nickel sulfide concen­
trates, the adoption of direct leaching processes for treatment
of nickel sulfide concentrates/ores remains low. However, the
expected demand for class 1 nickel in lithium-ion batteries and
electric vehicles could provide renewed interest in direct leach­
ing of nickel sulfide concentrates for the following reasons;
firstly, Ni extraction from sulfidic resources is likely to be
lower cost relative to lateritic resources and secondly, produc­
tion of class 1 nickel or intermediates such as MHP could
enable nickel sulfide miners to better capture the value of
their sulfide concentrates through hydrometallurgical
processing.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the support provided by CSIRO Mineral
Resources to Nebeal Faris through the ResearchPlus CERC Postdoctoral
Fellowship program. The authors would like to thank Dr. Robbie
McDonald and Mr. David McCallum of CSIRO Mineral Resources for taking
time to review and provide valuable feedback during the preparation of this
manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The work was supported by the CSIRO [Research Plus CERC Postdoctoral
Fellowship program].
ORCID
Mark I. Pownceby http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7061-2489
Miao Chen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3122-7617
References
Adams, M., and G. Johnson, 2001. Advances in nickel sulfide process
development. In ALTAc 2001 Nickel/Cobalt Conference, 18. Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Adams, M., K. Liddell, and T. Holohan. 2011. Hydrometallurgical processing
of Platreef flotation concentrate. Minerals Engineering 24 (6):545–50.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2010.09.009.
Adams, M. D., K. S. Liddell, and L. A. Smith. 2015. The KellGold hydrome­
tallurgical process for cyanide-free extraction of gold from refractory concen­
trates and feedstocks-a preliminary assessment, World Gold Conference
2015, 141–54. Johannesburg: The Southern African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy.
Agar, G. E. 1991. Flotation of chalcopyrite, pentlandite, pyrrhotite ores.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 33 (1–4):1–19. doi:10.1016/
0301-7516(91)90039-L.
Anon. 2015. The first cargo of nickel from the processing plant at Long
Harbour is transported to the USA. Accessed August 27, 2021. http://
www.vale.com/canada/EN/aboutvale/news/Pages/primeiro-
carregamento-niquel-usina-processamento-long-harbour-
transportado-eua.aspx
Anon, 01 October 2021 BHP delivers first crystals from Kwinana nickel
sulphate plant https://www.bhp.com/news/media-centre/releases/
2021/10/bhp-delivers-first-crystals-from-kwinana-nickel-sulphate-
plant Accessed 05 May 2022 () (BHP)
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 25
Anon, July 29, 2021. Terrafame’s net sales in the first half of 2021 amounted to
EUR 185.0 million – Battery chemicals plant’s ramp-up started. Accessed
August 27, 2021. https://www.terrafame.com/news-from-the-mine/news/
2021/07/terrafames-net-sales-in-the-first-half-of-2021-amounted-to-eur
-185.0-million-battery-chemicals-plants-ramp-up-started.html
Astudillo, C., and F. Acevedo. 2008. Adaptation of Sulfolobus metallicus to
high pulp densities in the biooxidation of a flotation gold concentrate.
Hydrometallurgy 92 (1–2):11–15. doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2008.02.003.
Bailey, A., and G. Hansford. 1993. Factors affecting bio-oxidation of sulfide
minerals at high concentrations of solids: A review. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 42 (10):1164–74. doi:10.1002/bit.260421006.
Barnes, S. J., S. Barnes, and C. Perring. 2007. Komatiite-hosted nickel
sulfide deposits: Geology, geochemistry, and genesis. Society of
Economic Geologists Special Publication 13:51–97.
Barnes, S.-J., and P. C. Lightfoot Hedenquist, J. W., Thompson, J. F. H.,
Goldfarb, R. J., Richards, J. P. 2005. Formation of Magmatic Nickel
Sulfide Deposits and Processes Affecting Their Copper and Platinum
Group Element Contents. Economic Geology 100th Anniversary.
Littleton, Colorado, USA: Society of Economic Geologists. 179–213.
Barnes, S. J., J. E. Mungall, M. Le Vaillant, B. Godel, C. M. Lesher, D. Holwell,
P. C. Lightfoot, N. Krivolutskaya, and B. Wei. 2017. Sulfide-Silicate textures
in magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide ore deposits: Disseminated and
net-textured ores. American Mineralogist 102 (3):473–506. doi:10.2138/
am-2017-5754.
Barnes, S. J., S. Staude, M. Le Vaillant, R. Piña, and P. C. Lightfoot. 2018.
Sulfide-Silicate textures in magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide ore deposits:
Massive, semi-massive and sulfide-matrix breccia ores. Ore Geology
Reviews 101:629–51. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2018.08.011.
Berezowsky, R., 2000. The pressure acid leaching of nickel sulphide
concentrates. In TMS 129th Annual Meeting, 32. Nashville, TN: The
Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS).
Berezowsky, R. M. G. S., M. Collins, D. Kerfoot, and N. Torres. 1991. The
commercial status of pressure leaching technology. JOM 43 (2):9–15.
doi:10.1007/BF03220132.
Bide, T., L. Hetherington, and G. Gunn. 2008. Nickel – Mineral profile,
1–24. Keyworth, Nottingham, UK: British Geological Survey.
Björkman, M., 2019. Hitura nickel mine cleanup effort to cost €16m for the
Finnish state, Mining Metalnews.com. Accessed September 21, 2021.
https://www.miningmetalnews.com/index.php/20190828/1272/hitura-
nickel-mine-cleanup-effort-cost-eu16m-finnish-state
Brown, J. A., and V. G. Papangelakis. 2005. Interfacial studies of liquid
sulphur during aqueous pressure oxidation of nickel sulphide. Minerals
Engineering 18 (15):1378–85. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2005.02.008.
Bulatovic, S. M. 2007. Flotation of nickel and nickel-copper ores. In
Handbook of flotation reagents: Chemistry, theory and practice, volume
1: Flotation of sulfide ores, 401–42. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Campagnol, N., K. Hoffman, A. Lala, and O. Ramsbottom, 2017. The
future of nickel: A class act, McKinsey & Company, 16 pp.
Downloaded August 31, 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/
McKinsey/Industries/Metals%20and%20Mining/Our%20Insights/The
%20future%20of%20nickel%20A%20class%20act/The%20future%20of
%20nickel%20A%20class%20act.pdf
Caron, M. 1950. Fundamental and practical factors in ammonia leaching
of nickel and cobalt ores. JOM-Journal of the Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society 2 (1):67–90. doi:10.1007/BF03398981.
Cole, P. M., A. E. Norton, G. Benetis, D. W. Dew, and D. M. Miller. 1997. The
BioNIC process: Description of the process and presentation of pilot plant
results. In Proceedings of the Nickel-Cobalt 97 International Symposium, ed.
W. C. Cooper and I. Mihaylov, 98–110. Sudbury, ON: The Metallurgical
Society of CIM.
Conard, B. R. 2013. Processing history at Vale Canada’s (Inco’s) iron ore
recovery plant. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
4 (4):61–68.
Cooke, P. 2021. The lithium wars: From Kokkola to the Congo for the 500
mile battery. Sustainability 13 (8):4215. doi:10.3390/su13084215.
Corrans, I., G. Johnson, and J. Angove. 1993. The recovery nickel and gold
from sulphide concentrates. In XVIII International Mineral Processing
Congress, ed. J. T. Woodcock, 1227–31. Sydney, Australia: Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM).
26 N. FARIS ET AL.
Crossley, B., T. Gerrans, D. Honey, and D. Muir, inventor(s); WMC
Resources Ltd, assignee. 1998. Leaching of a nickel sulphide
concentrate. AU Patent 8077698A. Filed August 18, 1998.
Crundwell, F., M. S. Moats, V. Ramachandran, T. Robinson, and
W. G. Davenport. 2011a. Converting – Final oxidation of iron from
molten matte. In Extractive metallurgy of nickel, cobalt and platinum-
group metals, 233–46. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Crundwell, F., M. S. Moats, V. Ramachandran, T. Robinson, and
W. G. Davenport. 2011b. Extraction of nickel and cobalt from sulfide
ores. In Extractive metallurgy of nickel, cobalt and platinum-group
metals, 147–58. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Crundwell, F., M. S. Moats, V. Ramachandran, T. Robinson, and
W. G. Davenport. 2011c. Flash smelting of nickel sulfide concentrates.
In Extractive metallurgy of nickel, cobalt and platinum-group metals,
215–32. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Crundwell, F., M. S. Moats, V. Ramachandran, T. Robinson, and
W. G. Davenport. 2011d. Separation of the platinum-group metals
from base metal sulfides, and the refining of nickel, copper and cobalt.
In Extractive metallurgy of nickel, cobalt and platinum-group metals,
457–87. Netherlands: Elsevier.
Crundwell, F., M. S. Moats, V. Ramachandran, T. Robinson, and
W. G. Davenport. 2011e. Slow cooling and solidification of converter
matte. In Extractive metallurgy of nickel, cobalt and platinum-group
metals, pp. 259–67. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Crundwell, F., M. S. Moats, V. Ramachandran, T. Robinson, and
W. G. Davenport. 2011f. Smelting of nickel sulfide concentrates by
roasting and electric furnace smelting. In Extractive metallurgy of
nickel, cobalt and platinum-group metals, 199–214. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Dalvi, A., G. Bacon, and R. Osborne. 2004. The past and the future of
nickel laterites. In PDAC 2004 International Convention trade show
and investors exchange, Prospectors and Developers Association of
Canada, Toronto, Canada, (7–10 March, 2004).
Defreyne, J., W. Grieve, D. Jones, and K. Mayhew. 2006. The role of
iron in the CESL process. In 3rd International Symposium on Iron
Control in Hydrometallurgy, ed. J. E. Dutrizac and P. A. Riveros,
205–20. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy, and Petroleum.
Deng, T. 1992. Chemical oxidation of iron sulfide minerals for metals
recovery. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metullargy Review
10 (1):325–45. doi:10.1080/08827509208914094.
Deng, T. 1993. Aqueous pressure oxidation of minerals – A salient devel­
opment in hydrometallurgy. Mineral Procesing and Extractive
Metallurgy Review 12 (2–4):185–222. doi:10.1080/08827509508935258.
Deng, T. 1994. Nickel and cobalt extraction by pressure hydrometallurgy,
9. Government Resesrch Announcement Index.
Dew, D., C. Van Buuren, K. McEwan, and C. Bowker. 1999. Bioleaching of
base metal sulphide concentrates: A comparison of mesophile and
thermophile bacterial cultures. Process Metallurgy 9:229–38.
Dowling, S., S. J. Barnes, R. Hill, and J. Hicks. 2004. Komatiites and nickel
sulfide ores of the Black Swan area, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia.
2: Geology and genesis of the orebodies. Mineralium Deposita
39 (7):707–28. doi:10.1007/s00126-004-0438-8.
Dreisinger, D., W. Murray, D. Hunter, K. Baxter, J. Ferron, and
C. Fleming, 2005. The application of the PLATSOL™ process to copper-
nickel-cobalt-PGE/PGM concentrates from PolyMet Mining’s
NorthMet deposit. In ALTA 2005 Nickel/Cobalt Conference, . May
16-18, 2005. Rendezvous Observation City Hotel, Perth, Australia:
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Dutrizac, J. 1992. The leaching of sulphide minerals in chloride media.
Hydrometallurgy 29 (1–3):1–45. doi:10.1016/0304-386X(92)90004-J.
Duyvesteyn, W. P., and B. Sabacky. 1993. The Escondida process for
copper concentrates. In The Paul E. Queneau International
Symposium - Extractive Metallurgy of Copper, Nickel and Cobalt.
Volume I: Fundamental Aspects, ed. R. G. Reddy and
R. N. Weizenbach, 881–910. Denver, Colorado, USA: The Minerals,
Metals and Materials Society (TMS).
Eckstrand, O. R., and L. J. Hulbert. 2007. Magmatic nickel-copper-
platinum group element deposits. In Mineral deposits of Canada:
A synthesis of major deposit types, district metallogeny, the evolution of
geological provinces, and exploration methods , ed. W. D. Goodfellow, 5:
205–22. St John‘s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: Geological
Association of Canada.
Eksteen, J., E. Oraby, and V. Nguyen. 2020. Leaching and ion exchange
based recovery of nickel and cobalt from a low grade, serpentine-rich
sulfide ore using an alkaline glycine lixiviant system. Minerals
Engineering 145:106073. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2019.106073.
Elias, M. 2002. Nickel laterite deposits-geological overview, resources and
exploitation. Giant ore deposits: Characteristics, genesis and
exploration. CODES Special Publication 4:205–20.
Eltham, J. A., and P. A. Tilyard, 1973. An approach to the flotation of
Western Australian nickel ores. In Australian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy Conference, Perth, WA, 417–29.
Fassell, W. M. 1962. Hyperatmospheric extractive metallurgy: Its past,
present and future. Pure and Applied Chemistry 5 (3–4):683–700.
doi:10.1351/pac196205030683.
Feng, B., Q. Feng, Y. Lu, and P. Lv. 2012. The effect of conditioning
methods and chain length of xanthate on the flotation of a nickel ore.
Minerals Engineering 39:48–50. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2012.05.022.
Ferron, C., and C. Fleming, 2001. PLATSOL treatment of the Northmet
copper-nickel-pgm bulk concentrate- pilot plant results. In ALTA 2001
Nickel/Cobalt-7: 2001. May 15-17, 2001. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services. Rendezvous Observation City
Hotel, Perth, Australia.
Ferron, C., and C. Fleming. 2002. Pilot plant demonstration of the Platsol
process for the treatment of the NorthMet copper-nickel-PGM deposit.
Mining Engineering (Colorado) (USA) 54 (12):33–39.
Ferron, C. J., C. Fleming, D. B. Driesinger, and P. T. O’-Kane, 2000. Single-
step pressure leaching of base and precious metals(gold and PGM’s) using
the platsol process. In ALTA 2000 Nickel/Cobalt-6, 193–210.
Ferron, C., C. Fleming, P. O’-Kane, and D. Dreisinger. 2002. High tem­
perature chloride assisted leach process to extract simultaneously Cu,
Ni, Au and the PGM’s from various feedstocks. In Proceedings of the
32nd Annual Hydrometallurgy Meeting and International Conference
on the Practice and Theory of Chloride/Metal Interaction, ed. E. Peek
and G. van Weert, 11–28. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.
Fewings, J., and S. Seet, 2012. Bacterial leaching at elevated pH using BioHeap™
technology. In ALTA 2012 Nickel-Cobalt-Copper Proceedings May 28-30,
2012. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Burswood Convention Centre, Perth, Australia, 365–72.
Fewings, J., and S. Seet, 2014. BioHeap® application at cosmic boy nickel
concentrator. In ALTA 2014 Nickel-Cobalt-Copper Proceedings 24-31
May, 2014. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Perth, Australia, 423–30.
Fewings, J., S. Seet, T. McCredden, and C. Fitzmaurice, 2015. BioHeap®
application at cosmic boy nickel concentrator – An update. In ALTA
2015 Nickel-Cobalt-Copper Proceedings, 25-27 May, 2015. Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services). Perth, Australia,
356–72.
Fewings, J., S. Seet, T. McCredden, and C. Fitzmaurice, 2016. BioHeap® –
Cosmic boy mill recovery enhancement project. An update. In ALTA 2016
Nickel-Cobalt-Copper Proceedings, 23-25 May, 2016. Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services. Perth, Australia, 366–74.
Fewings, J., and A. Wilathgamuwa. 1998. Pilot plant experience on the
bacterial leaching of Ni/Co sulfide concentrates at BacTech (Australia)
Ltd, Nickel/Cobalt Pressure Leaching and Hydrometallurgy Forum, 13.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Fleming, C., C. J. Ferron, D. Dreisinger, and P. T. O’-Kane. 2000.
A process for the simultaneous leaching and recovery of gold, platinum
group metals and base metals from ores and concentrates. In EPD
congress 2000, ed. P. R. Taylor, 419–31. Nashville, TN: The Minerals,
Metals and Materials Society (TMS).
Forward, F. 1953. Ammonia pressure leach process for recovering nickel,
copper, and cobalt from Sherritt Gordon nickel sulphide concentrate.
Transactions of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and
the Mining Society of Nova Scotia 56:363–70.
Forward, F., and V. Mackiw. 1955. Chemistry of the ammonia pressure
process for leaching Ni, Cu, and Co from Sherritt Gordon sulphide
concentrates. JOM 7 (3):457–63. doi:10.1007/BF03377530.

Forward, F., and I. Warren. 1960. Extraction of metals from sulphide ores by
wet methods. Metallurgical Reviews 5 (1):137–64. doi:10.1179/
mtlr.1960.5.1.137.
Gilbertson, B. 2000. Creating value through innovation: Biotechnology in
mining. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy 109 (2):61–67.
doi:10.1179/mpm.2000.109.2.61.
Grassi, R. A., A. G. Clausdorff, R. C. Harrison, and K. J. Osten, inventor(s);
IGO Limited, assignee. Method for preparing a high-purity hydrated
nickel sulphate. WO Patent 2020061639A1. Filed September 26, 2019.
Grguric, B., N. Rosengren, C. Fletcher, and J. Hronsky. 2007. Type 2
deposits: Geology, mineralogy, and processing of the Mount Keith
and Yakabindie orebodies, Western Australia. Special Publication-
Society of Economic Geologists 13:119.
Haavanlammi, L., O. Hyvarinen, J. Karonen, and D. Krebs, inventor(s);
Outotec Oyj, assignee. Method for processing nickel bearing raw material
in chloride-based leaching. AU Patent 2006298627B2. Filed March 10,
2006.
Heinzle, T., D. Miller, and V. Nagel, 1999. Results of an integrated pilot
plant operation using the BioNIC® process to produce nickel metal. In
Proceedings Biomine ‘99 and water management in metallurgical
operations ‘99, 16–25. Glenside, SA: Australian Mineral Foundation.
Hoatson, D. M., S. Jaireth, and A. L. Jaques. 2006. Nickel sulfide deposits
in Australia: Characteristics, resources, and potential. Ore Geology
Reviews 29 (3–4):177–241. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2006.05.002.
Holwell, D. A., Z. Adeyemi, L. A. Ward, D. J. Smith, S. D. Graham,
I. McDonald, and J. W. Smith. 2017. Low temperature alteration of
magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfides as a source for hydrothermal Ni and
PGE ores: A quantitative approach using automated mineralogy. Ore
Geology Reviews 91:718–40. doi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2017.08.025.
Honey, D. J., D. M. Muir, and P. R. Hunt. 1997. Hydrometallurgical processing
options for nickel sulphide concentrates. In Proceedings of the Nickel-
Cobalt 97 International Symposium, ed. W. C. Cooper and I. Mihaylov,
15–29. Sudbury, ON, Canada: The Metallurgical Society of CIM.
Hourn, M., and D. Turner, 2012. Commercialisation of the Albion process. In
Proceedings of the ALTA 2012 gold conference, 19. May 31 - June 1 2012
Burswood Convention Centre, Perth, Australia: Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Hourn, M. M., D. W. Turner, and I. R. Holzberger, inventor(s); M.I.M.
Holdings Limited, Highlands Frieda Pty Ltd, assignee(s). 1996.
Atmospheric mineral leaching process. US Patent 5993635A. Filed
March 22, 1996.
IGO Limited, 2020. Annual report 2020. Downloaded August 25 , 2021.
https://www.igo.com.au/site/PDF/892ef7e5-efdb-4abc-a241
-2e9605018439/2020AnnualReporttoShareholders
Inco Staff. 1956. Development of the Inco iron ore recovery process.
Transactions of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and
the Mining Society of Nova Scotia, 59, 201–07.
Johnson, G. D., and H. A. Evans, 1998. Activox® and the Yakabindie
process for treatment of nickel sulfide concentrates. In ALTA 1998
Nickel/Cobalt Pressure Leaching and Hydrometallurgy Forum, 25-27
May, 1998. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical
Services. Hyatt Regency Hotel, Perth, Australia.
Johnson, G., H. Evans, and J. Turner, 2000. Autoclave availability:
Activox® the advantages of operating at reduced temperatures and
pressures. In Proceedings of the International Conference ALTA 2000
Nickel/Cobalt, 15-17 May, 2000. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA
Metallurgical Services. Rendezvous Hotel, Perth, Australia, 306–16.
Jones, D. L., inventor; Cominco Engineering Services Ltd, assignee. 1996.
Process for the recovery of nickel and/or cobalt from an ore or
concentrate. US Patent 5855858A. Filed June 7, 1996.
Jones, D., J. Hestrin, and R. Moore. 1998. CESL process for nickel/cobalt/
copper sulphides, testing in an integrated pilot plant . In ALTA 1998
Nickel/Cobalt Pressure Leaching and Hydrometallurgy Forum, 12.
Melbourne, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Jones, D. L., K. Mayhew, R. Mean, and M. Neef, 2010. Unlocking dis­
seminated nickel sulphides using the CESL nickel process. In ALTA
2010 Nickel/Cobalt/Copper Conference, 14. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 27
Jones, D., K. Mayhew, and L. O’-Conner, 2009. Nickel and cobalt recovery
from a bulk copper-nickel concentrate using the CESL process, Teck
Resources Limited, 12 pp. Downloaded February 2 , 2021. https://www.
teck.com/media/CESL-Publication-Nickel-Cobalt-Recovery-Bulk-
Copper-Nickel-Concentrate-CESL-Process.pdf
Jones, D. L., R. Moore, and S. K. Stocker, inventor(s); Cominco
Engineering Services Ltd, assignee. 2003. Pressure oxidation leaching
in the presence of an acidic solution of halide and sulfate ions from
copper and base metal containing ore/concentrate. US Patent
7438874B2. Filed May 22, 2003.
Karonen, J., M. Tiihonen, and L. Haavanlammi. 2009. Hydronic – A novel
nickel refining method for nickel concentrates. In Hydrometallurgy of
nickel and cobalt 2009, ed. J. J. Budac, R. Fraser, I. Mihaylov,
V. G. Papangelakis, and D. J. Robinson, 17–26. Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada: The Metallurgy and Materials Society (MetSoc).
Keele, R., and E. Nickel. 1974. The geology of a primary millerite-bearing
sulfide assemblage and supergene alteration at the Otter Shoot,
Kambalda, Western Australia. Economic Geology 69 (7):1102–17.
doi:10.2113/gsecongeo.69.7.1102.
Kerfoot, D. 1989. The development of the Sherritt ammonia pressure leach
process. Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin 82 (926):136–41.
Kerfoot, D. G. E., and P. D. Cordingley, 1997. The acid pressure leach
process for nickel and cobalt laterite. Part II: Review of operations at
Fort Saskatchewan In Proceedings of the Nickel-Cobalt 97
International Symposium, ed. W. C. Cooper and C. A. Levac, 355–70.
Sudbury, Canada.
Kerfoot, D., E. Krause, B. Love, and A. Singhal, inventor(s); Vale Canada
Ltd, assignee. 2001. Recovery of nickel and cobalt values from a sulfidic
flotation concentrate by chloride assisted oxidative pressure leaching in
sulfuric acid. WO Patent 2002024966A1. Filed February 26, 2001.
Kerfoot, D. G., and D. R. Weir. 1988. The hydro and electrometallurgy of
nickel and cobalt. In Extractive metallurgy of nickel and cobalt, ed.
G. P. Tyroler and C. A. Landolt, 241–67. Arizona: The Metallurgical
Society Phoenix.
Kerr, A. 2002. An overview of recent developments in flotation technology and
plant practice for nickel ores. In Mineral Processing, Plant Design, Practice
and Control Proceedings, ed. A. L. Mular, D. N. Halbe, and D. J. Barratt,
1142–58. Vancouver, Canada: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration.
King, A., and J. Budden, 1996. The bacterial oxidation of nickel and cobalt
polymetallic concentrates. In Proceedings of the Nickel/Cobalt Pressure
Leaching and Hydrometallurgy Forum, Perth, Australia, 13–14.
Kitay, A., V. Mechev, and V. Volkov. 1991. Ecological pyro-
hydrometallurgical technology of nickel pyrrhotite concentrate treatment
with non-traditional and reagentless recovery of sulphur dioxide from low
concentrated gases. In EMC’91: Non-Ferrous Metallurgy—Present and
Future, ed. J. Vereecken, 149–55. England, Brussels, Belgium: Elsevier
Science Publishers Ltd.
Klyushnikov, A. M., R. I. Gulyaeva, E. N. Selivanov, and S. M. Pikalov.
2021. Kinetics and mechanism of oxidation for nickel-containing pyr­
rhotite tailings. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and
Materials 28 (9):1469–77. doi:10.1007/s12613-020-2109-x.
Kofluk, R. P., and G. K. W. Freeman. 2006. Iron control in the Moa Bay
laterite operation. In Iron Control in Hydrometallurgy, ed. J. E. Dutrizac
and P. A. Riveros Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Metallurgical Socierty of
the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 573–89.
Kozyrev, S. M., M. Z. Komarova, L. N. Emelina, O. I. Oleshkevich,
O. A. Yakovleva, D. V. Lyalinov, V. I. Maximov, and L. J. Cabri. 2002.
The mineralogy and behaviour of PGM during processing of the Noril’Sk-
Talnakh PGE-Cu-Ni ores. In The geology, geochemistry, mineralogy,
mineral beneficiation of the platinum-group elements, ed. L. Cabri, vol. 54,
757–91. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Canadian Institute Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum Special.
Krebs, D., O. Hyvarinen, and D. Dreisinger, inventor(s); Outotec Oyj,
assignee. 2006. Processing nickel sulphide ore or concentrates with
sodium chloride. CA Patent 2624609C. Filed October 3, 2006.
Kuhn, M., N. Arbiter, and H. Kling. 1974. Anacondas Arbiter process for
copper. Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin 67 (742):62–71.
28 N. FARIS ET AL.
Laukka, A., J. Seppälä, J. Neale, P. van Aswegen, S. Barnett,
A. Taskinen, and K. Koistinen, 2018. Mondo minerals nickel sulfide
bioleach project: Maximising value through gold recovery. In ALTA
2018 Nickel-Cobalt-Copper Proceedings, 21-23 May, 2018.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Perth, Australia, 507–24.
Liddell, K. S., inventor. 1999. Hydrometallurgical treatment process
for extraction of platinum group metals obviating the matte
smelting process. WO Patent 1999060178A1. Filed May 19, 1999.
Liddell, K. S., and M. D. Adams, inventor(s); Lifezone Limited, assignee.
Hydrometallurgical treatment process for extraction of metals from
concentrates. WO Patent 2014009928A1. Filed July 12, 2013.
Liddell, K., and M. Adams. 2012. Kell hydrometallurgical process for
extraction of platinum group metals and base metals from flotation
concentrates. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy 112 (1):31–36.
Liddell, K., M. Adams, L. Smith, and B. Muller. 2019. Kell hydrometallur­
gical extraction of precious and base metals from flotation
concentrates-Piloting, engineering, and implementation advances.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
119 (6):585–94. doi:10.17159/2411-9717/602/2019.
Liddell, K., T. Newton, M. Adams, and B. Muller. 2011. Energy consump­
tion for Kell hydrometallurgical refining versus conventional pyrome­
tallurgical smelting and refining of PGM concentrates. Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 111 (2):127–32.
Lotter, N., D. Bradshaw, M. Becker, L. Parolis, and L. Kormos. 2008.
A discussion of the occurrence and undesirable flotation beha­
viour of orthopyroxene and talc in the processing of mafic
deposits. Minerals Engineering 21 (12–14):905–12. doi:10.1016/j.
mineng.2008.02.023.
Lu, Z., M. Jeffrey, Y. Zhu, and F. Lawson. 2000. Studies of pentlandite
leaching in mixed oxygenated acidic chloride-sulfate solutions.
Hydrometallurgy 56 (1):63–74. doi:10.1016/S0304-386X(00)00067-0.
Ma¨ Kinen, T., and P. Taskinen. 2008. State of the art in nickel smelting:
Direct Outokumpu nickel technology. Mineral Processing and
Extractive Metallurgy 117 (2):86–94. doi:10.1179/174328508X290867.
Mackiw, V., W. Lin, R. Benoit, and T. Benz. 1958. Nickel-Cobalt
separation at Sherritt Gordon. Jom 10 (12):800–02. doi:10.1007/
BF03398274.
Makino, S., M. Sugimoto, F. Yano, and N. Matsumoto. 1996. Operation of the
MCLE (matte chlorine leach electrowinning) plant for nickel refining at
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd. In EPD Congress 1996, ed.
G. W. Warren, 297–311. Anaheim, CA: The Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society.
Mani, H., M. Xu, P. Quinn, and R. Stratton-Crawley. 1997. The effect of
ultramafic mineralogy on pentlandite flotation. In Proceedings of the
Second UBC-McGill Bi-annual International Symposium on
Fundamentals of Mineral Processing and the Environment, ed. J. A. Finch,
S. R. Rao, and I. Holubec, 63–76. Sudbury, ON: Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.
Marsh, E. E., E. D. Anderson, and F. Gray, 2013. Nickel-cobalt laterites:
A deposit model: Chapter H in mineral deposit models for resource
assessment, Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5070-H, 38. Reston,
Virginia, USA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Marston, R., D. Groves, D. Hudson, and J. Ross. 1981. Nickel sulfide
deposits in Western Australia; a review. Economic Geology
76 (6):1330–63. doi:10.2113/gsecongeo.76.6.1330.
Matousek, J. 1982. The pyrometallurgical winning of cobalt. CIM Bulletin
(Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum)
75 (848):121–27.
Mayhew, K., T. McCoy, R. Mean, and A. Miller, 2013. Teck’s CESL nickel
process: Advancing towards a commercial ready hydromet solution for
low grade disseminated nickel sulphides. In ALTA 2013 Nickel-Cobalt-
Copper Conference, 259–69.
McDonald, R. G., and J. Li. 2020. The high temperature co-processing of
nickel sulfide and nickel laterite sources. Minerals 10 (4):351.
doi:10.3390/min10040351.
McDonald, R., and D. Muir. 2007. Pressure oxidation leaching of chalco­
pyrite. Part I. Comparison of high and low temperature reaction
kinetics and products. Hydrometallurgy 86 (3–4):191–205.
McRae, M. E., 2018. Nickel. In Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological Survey
minerals yearbook 2015. Reston, Virginia, USA: U.S. Geological Survey,
1–18. Downloaded October 22, 2021. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.
com/prd-wret/assets/palladium/production/mineral-pubs/nickel/myb1-
2015-nicke.pdf
McRae, M. E. 2020a. Nickel. In Mineral commodity summaries 2020,
112–13. Reston, Virginia, USA: U.S. Geological Survey.
McRae, M. E. 2020b. Nickel. In Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological
Survey minerals yearbook 2016, 1–18. Reston, Virginia, USA: U.S.
Geological Survey. Downloaded September 21, 2020b. https://prd-
wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/
atoms/files/myb1-2016-nickel.pdf .
Meddings, B., and D. J. I. Evans. 1971. The changing role of hydrometallurgy.
CIM Bulletin (Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
64 (706):48–57.
Meng, X., and K. N. Han. 1996. The principles and applications of ammonia
leaching of metals—A review. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metullargy
Review 16 (1):23–61. doi:10.1080/08827509608914128.
Miller, P. C. 1997. The design and operating practice of bacterial oxidation
plant using moderate thermophiles (the BacTech Process). In
Biomining – Theory, microbes and industrial processes, ed.
D. E. Rawlings, 81–102. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Miller, P., M. Rhodes, R. Winby, A. Pinches, and P. Van Staden. 1999.
Commercialization of bioleaching for base-metal extraction. Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration 16 (4):42–50. doi:10.1007/BF03403233.
Mishra, G., K. Viljoen, and H. Mouri. 2013. Influence of mineralogy and ore
texture on pentlandite flotation at the Nkomati nickel mine, South Africa.
Minerals Engineering 54:63–78. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2013.04.009.
Mitchell, J. S. 1957. Cobalt pressure leaching and reduction at Garfield.
JOM (The Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS))
9 (3):343–45. doi:10.1007/BF03398496.
Moskalyk, R., and A. Alfantazi. 2002. Nickel sulphide smelting and elec­
trorefining practice: A review. Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy Review 23 (3–4):141–80. doi:10.1080/08827500306893.
Moyes, J., and F. Houlis. 2003. The development of the Intec Nickel
Process to treat a low-grade Ni/Cu/Co/PGM concentrate. In ALTA Ni-
Co 2003 Proceedings, 19-20 May, 2003. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
ALTA Metallurgical Services. Perth, Western Australia, 11.
Mudd, G. M. 2010. Global trends and environmental issues in nickel
mining: Sulfides versus laterites. Ore Geology Reviews 38 (1–2):9–26.
Muir, D., and E. Ho. 2006. Process review and electrochemistry of nickel
sulphides and nickel mattes in acidic sulphate and chloride media.
Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy 115 (2):57–65.
doi:10.1179/174328506X109031.
Naldrett, A. 1999. World-Class Ni-Cu-PGE deposits: Key factors in their
genesis. Mineralium Deposita 34 (3):227–40. doi:10.1007/s001260050200.
Naldrett, A. J. 2004. The Jinchuan deposit, China. In Magmatic sulfide
deposits, 373–404. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Neale, J., M. Gericke, C. Pawlik, P. van Aswegen, S. Barnett, and J. Seppälä,
2015. The MONDO minerals nickel sulfide bioleach project: From test
work to design. In Nickel-Cobalt-Copper Conference Proceedings, 25-
27 May, 2015. Perth, Australia, 373–96, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Neale, J., J. Seppälä, A. Laukka, P. van Aswegen, and S. Barnett, 2016. The
MONDO minerals nickel sulfide bioleach project: Constrution
Commissioning and Early Plant Operation. In ALTA 2016 Nickel-
Cobalt-Copper Proceedings, 23-25 May. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services. Perth, Australia, 375–411.
Nemati, M., and S. T. L. Harrison. 2000. Effect of solid loading on
thermophilic bioleaching of sulfide minerals. Journal of Chemical
Technology & Biotechnology: International Research in Process,
Environmental & Clean Technology 75 (7):526–32. doi:10.1002/1097-
4660(200007)75:7<526:AID-JCTB249>3.0.CO;2-4.
Nickel, E., J. Ross, and M. Thornber. 1974. The supergene alteration of
pyrrhotite-pentlandite ore at Kambalda, Western Australia. Economic
Geology 69 (1):93–107. doi:10.2113/gsecongeo.69.1.93.
Norton, A., J. Coetzee, and C. Barnett, 1998. BioNIC®: An economically
competitive process for the biological extraction of nickel. In Proceedings
of the Nickel/Cobalt Pressure Leaching and Hydrometallurgy Forum,
Perth, Australia, 25–27.

Nyman, B., A. Aaltonen, S.-E. Hultholm, and K. Karpale. 1992. Application of
new hydrometallurgical developments in the Outokumpu HIKO process.
Hydrometallurgy 29 (1–3):461–78. doi:10.1016/0304-386X(92)90027-W.
Oxley, A., M. E. Smith, and O. Caceres. 2016. Why heap leach nickel laterites?
Minerals Engineering 88:53–60. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2015.09.018.
OZ Minerals, 2020. Annual and sustainability report 2020. Downloaded
August 31, 2021. https://www.ozminerals.com/uploads/media/210218_
OZ_Minerals_2020_Annual_and_Sustainability_Report.pdf
Palmer, C., and G. Johnson. 2005. The Activox® process: Growing significance
in the nickel industry. JOM 57 (7):40–47. doi:10.1007/s11837-005-0251-6.
Palperi, M., and O. Aaltonen. 1971. Sulfatizing roasting and leaching of cobalt
ores at Outokumpu Oy. JOM (The Journal of the Minerals, Metals &
Materials Society (TMS)) 23 (2):34–38. doi:10.1007/BF03355685.
Peek, E., A. Barnes, and A. Tuzun. 2011. Nickeliferous pyrrhotite – “Waste or
resource?”. Minerals Engineering 24 (7):625–37. doi:10.1016/j.
mineng.2010.10.004.
Pietrobon, M. C., S. Grano, S. Sobieraj, and J. Ralston. 1997. Recovery
mechanisms for pentlandite and MgO-bearing gangue minerals in nickel
ores from Western Australia. Minerals Engineering 10 (8):775–86.
doi:10.1016/S0892-6875(97)00056-3.
Potvin, R. R., and J. J. Negusanti. 1995. Declining industrial emissions,
improving air quality, and reduced damage to vegetation. In Restoration
and Recovery of an Industrial Region Progress in Restoring the Smelter-
Damaged Landscape Near Sudbury, Canada, Gunn, J. M. Springer series on
environmental management, 51–65. New York: Springer.
Queneau, P. E., W. K. Sproule, and A. Illis, inventor(s); Inco Limited, assignee.
1949. Method of producing high-grade iron oxide from ores rich in nick­
eliferous pyrrhotite. US Patent 2556215A. Filed March 5, 1949.
Rezaei, S., F. Liu, S. Marcuson, M. Muinonen, V. L. Lakshmanan, R. Sridhar,
and M. Barati. 2017. Canadian pyrrhotite treatment: The history, inventory
and potential for tailings processing. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly
56 (4):410–17. doi:10.1080/00084433.2017.1361671.
Riekkola-Vanhanen, M. 2007. Talvivaara black schist bioheapleaching
demonstration plant. In Advanced Materials Research, 30–33. Zurich:
Trans Tech Publ.
Riekkola-Vanhanen, M. 2013. Talvivaara mining company–from a project to
a mine. Minerals Engineering 48:2–9. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2013.04.018.
Robles, E., I. Cronje, and G. Nel. 2009. Solvent extraction design consid­
eration for the Tati Activox® plant. Journal of the Southern African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 109 (6):383–91.
Rorke, G., P. Basson, and D. Miller, 2001. Advancements in thermophile
bioleaching technology. In ALTA 2001 Nickel/Cobalt Conference, 17.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA Metallurgical Services.
Sairinen, R., H. Tiainen, and T. Mononen. 2017. Talvivaara mine and water
pollution: An analysis of mining conflict in Finland. The Extractive
Industries and Society 4 (3):640–51. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2017.05.001.
Sauni, R., A. Linna, P. Oksa, H. Nordman, M. Tuppurainen, and J. Uitti.
2010. Cobalt asthma—A case series from a cobalt plant. Occupational
Medicine 60 (4):301–06. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqq023.
Senior, G. D., L. K. Shannon, and W. J. Trahar. 1994. The flotation of
pentlandite from pyrrhotite with particular reference to the effects of
particle size. International Journal of Mineral Processing 42 (3–
4):169–90. doi:10.1016/0301-7516(94)00031-X.
Senior, G., and S. Thomas. 2005. Development and implementation of a new
flowsheet for the flotation of a low grade nickel ore. International Journal of
Mineral Processing 78 (1):49–61. doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2005.08.001.
Sizgoric, M. 1981. Alteration of nickel sulfide ores and its effect on their
flotation Process mineralogy : extractive metallurgy, mineral explora­
tion, energy resources ; proceedings of a symposium sponsored by
TMS-AIME Process Mineralogy Committee at the 110th AIME
Annual Meeting, 22-26 February, 1981. Chicago, Illinois, USA,
Hausen, D. M., Park, W. C. Warrendale, Pensylvania, USA: The
Metallurgical Society of AIME. 225–32.
Song, X., Y. Wang, and L. Chen. 2011. Magmatic Ni-Cu-(PGE) deposits in
magma plumbing systems: Features, formation and exploration.
Geoscience Frontiers 2 (3):375–84. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2011.05.005.
Stensholt, E. O., H. Zachariasen, and J. H. Lund. 1986. Falconbridge chlorine
leach process. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy:
Section C: Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy 95 (3):10–16.
MINERAL PROCESSING AND EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY REVIEW 29
Stevens, D., G. Bishop, B. Shinghal, B. Love, and I. Mihaylov, 2009.
Operations of the pressure oxidative leach process for Voisey’s Bay
nickel concentrate at Vale Inco’s Hydromet demonstration plant. In
Proceedings of the 48th Annual Conference of Metallurgists of CIM,
Sudbury, Canada, 3–16.
Stieper, G., 2018. First chalcopyrite copper concentrate leaching using
Albion processTM Technology (Conference presentation). In 10th
International Seminar on Process Hydrometallurgy, Santiago,
Chile.
Subramanian, K. N., Ferrajuolo, R. 1976. Oxygen pressure leaching of Fe-
Ni-Cu sulfide concentrates at 110°C — effect of low chloride addition.
Hydrometallurgy, 2 (2): 117–125.
Taylor, A., H. Fairley, and R. Winby. 1997. Re-opening of the radio hill
nickel project, Western Australia using bacterial leaching of nickel
sulphide concentrates. In ALTA 1997 Nickel/Cobalt Pressure Leaching
and Hydrometallurgy Forum, 57. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ALTA
Metallurgical Services.
Thornhill, P. G., inventor; Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd, assignee. Recovery
of metals from solutions. US Patent 3103414A. Filed February 25, 1960.
Thornhill, P. G., inventor; Falconbridge Ltd, assignee. 1954. Method of
roasting metal sulfide concentrates in a fluidized bed. US Patent
2813015A. Filed April 30, 1954.
Thornhill, P. G. 1961. The Falconbridge iron ore process. Transactions of the
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Mining Society of
Nova Scotia 64:337–44.
Thornhill, P. G., and E. H. Coulter, inventor(s); Falconbridge Nickel Mines
Ltd, assignee. 1966. Method of precipitating metals as sulphides. US Patent
3450495A. Filed September 16, 1966.
Toguri, J. 1975. A review on the methods of treating nickel-bearing pyrrhotite;
with special reference to the Sudbury Area pyrrhotite. Canadian
Metallurgical Quarterly 14 (4):323–38. doi:10.1179/cmq.1975.14.4.323.
Toguri, J. M., H. Babaie, and R. Sridhar, 1995. Effect of arsenic on the Cu-Ni
matte separation process. In Proceedings Second International Symposium
on Quality in Non-ferrous Pyrometallurgy, 20-24 August, 1995.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Kozlowski, M. A., McBean, R. W.,
Argyropoulos, S. A. (Montréal, Canada: Metallurgical Society of the
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, 311–18.
Tong, L., and D. Dreisinger. 2009. The adsorption of sulfur dispersing
agents on sulfur and nickel sulfide concentrate surfaces. Minerals
Engineering 22 (5):445–50. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2008.12.006.
Törmänen, T., and P. Tuomela, 2021. Analysis of Finnish battery mineral
deposits with special emphasis on cobalt. Open File Research Report,
29/2021. Geological Survey of Finland, 63 pp. Downloaded August 27 ,
2021. https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/29_2021.pdf .
Warner, A. E. M., C. M. Díaz, A. D. Dalvi, P. J. Mackey, A. V. Tarasov, and
R. T. Jones. 2007. JOM world nonferrous smelter survey Part IV:
Nickel: Sulfide. JOM 59 (4):58–72. doi:10.1007/s11837-007-0056-x.
Watling, H. 2006. The bioleaching of sulphide minerals with emphasis on
copper sulphides—A review. Hydrometallurgy 84 (1–2):81–108.
doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2006.05.001.
Watling, H. 2008. The bioleaching of nickel-copper sulfides. Hydrometallurgy
91 (1–4):70–88. doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2007.11.012.
Watmuff, I. 1974. Supergene alteration of the Mt Windarra nickel sulphide ore
deposit, Western Australia. Mineralium Deposita 9 (3):199–221.
doi:10.1007/BF00203996.
Wishaw, B. 1993. Nickel matte refining at the Kwinana, WA, refinery of
Western Mining Corporation Limited. Australasian Mining and
Metallurgy, AusImm 2:1203–06.
Woodward, T., 2014. On the operability of the Sherritt-Gordon ammonia
leach at the Kwinana nickel refinery. Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch
University, 407 pp.
Woodward, T. M., and P. A. Bahri. 2007. Steady-state optimisation of the
leaching process at Kwinana Nickel refinery. In 17th European Symposium
on Computer Aided Process Engineering. , Pleşu, V., Agachi, P. S., Computer
Aided Chemical Engineering, 24: 557–62. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Xiao, Z., and A. Laplante. 2004. Characterizing and recovering the plati­
num group minerals – A review. Minerals Engineering 17 (9–
10):961–79. doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2004.04.001.