Gavin M. Mudd works at the Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, CLAYTON, Victoria, Australia 3800 (Gavin.Mudd@eng.monash.edu.au)
“A major concern with this increasing proportion of laterite nickel is that, although technology such as HPAL now exists to make processing of laterite ores more viable (technically and financially), it is widely perceived to be at a higher environmental cost.” (Gavin M. Mudd – 2009)
ABSTRACT
There are widespread nickel resources around the world, but divided principally between nickel sulfide or laterite (oxide) resources. Historically production has been dominated by sulfide ores but future production is increasing shifting to laterite ores. The principal reason for this historically is that sulfide ores are easier to process, through conventional mining, smelting and refining, compared to laterite ores which require intensive hydrometallurgical processing (such as high pressure acid leaching or HPAL).
This means that laterite ores typically require substantially more energy and chemicals to produce than sulfide nickel. Given that many major nickel companies report annually on their sustainability performance, such as Eramet, Inco (now Vale Inco), WMC Resources (now BHP Billiton), Norilsk Nickel, there is data available to examine in detail the differences in the environmental costs of nickel sulfide versus laterite.