Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ore Geology Reviews

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /oregeorev

Global trends and environmental issues in nickel mining: Sulfides versus laterites

Gavin M. Mudd ⁎Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 3800 AustraliaDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

⁎ Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil EnClayton, Victoria, 3800 Australia. Tel.: +61 3 9905 1352

E-mail address: Gavin.Mudd@monash.edu.

0169-1368/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. Aldoi:10.1016/j.oregeorev.2010.05.003

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 January 2010Received in revised form 17 May 2010Accepted 17 May 2010Available online 1 June 2010

Keywords:Nickel miningNickel sulfideNickel lateriteSustainable miningResource intensity

Nickel (Ni) is an important metal in modern infrastructure and technology, with major uses in stainless steel,alloys, electroplating and rechargeable batteries. Economic Ni resources are found in either sulfide orlaterite-type ores. Although the majority of economic resources are contained in laterite ores, the bulk ofhistoric Ni production has been derived from sulfide ores since laterites require more complex processing. Tomeet future demand for Ni, there is an increasing amount of Ni being mined from laterite ores—leading toincreasing energy and greenhouse gas emission costs for Ni production. In many of the major Ni fields of theworld, environmental impacts have also been significant, especially in Sudbury in Canada and the Taimyrand Kola Peninsulas in Russia. A major gap in the literature remains on historical trends in global Ni mining,especially with respect to primary aspects such as production, known economic resources and ore gradesand type. This paper compiles and analyses a wide array of data on global Ni mining, presenting a coherentpicture of major historical trends and the current industry configuration. The paper includes uniquehistorical data sets for major Ni fields, especially the Sudbury Basin and Thompson fields in Canada and theKambalda field in Australia. By understanding these critical ‘mega-trends’ in the Ni industry, it is possible tobetter understand unfolding global issues, such as environmental impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, climatechange and potential industry responses, and whether ‘peak nickel’ is a viable concept and the implicationsthese issues have for Ni production and demand. The data, trends and issues synthesized in this papertherefore provide a compelling picture of the Ni industry, and should help to inform current research andpolicy directions.

gineering, Monash University,; fax: +61 3 9905 4944.

l rights reserved.

© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Nickel (Ni) is an important metal in modern infrastructure andtechnology, with major uses in stainless steel (∼58%), nickel-basedalloys (∼14%), casting and alloy steels (∼9%), electroplating (∼9%)and rechargeable batteries (∼5%) (Eramet, 2009; Barnett, 2010).Economic Ni resources are found in either sulfide or laterite-type ores.Globally, the bulk of historic Ni production has been derived fromsulfide ores, while the majority of known Ni resources are containedin laterite ores. This unusual difference is duemainly to the challengesof processing laterite compared to sulfide ores—leading to a historicalpreference for sulfide ores. To meet future demand for Ni, however,there is an increasing amount of Ni being mined from laterite ores.

The issues of ‘Peak Oil’ (Cavallo, 2004; Tsoskounoglou et al., 2008)and ‘Peak Gas’ (Mohr and Evans, 2007) are receiving widespreadattention—although very little fundamental research investigateswhether the analogous concept of ‘peak minerals’ is also valid. That

is, assuming minerals are finite, continued growth in their extractionwill eventually lead to their exhaustion—forming the classic bell curveof a rise, peak and fall in production (a type of curve first made famousfor oil by M. King Hubbert in 1956). Yet current Ni production ratesare substantively greater than a century ago, and economic Niresources are now known to be widespread across numerous partsof the world, with major fields in Canada, Russia, Australia, theCaribbean and across the western Pacific archipelago.

A major gap in the literature remains on historical trends in globalNi mining, especially with respect to primary aspects such asproduction, known economic resources and ore grades and ore type.This paper compiles and analyses a wide array of data on global Nimining, presenting a coherent picture of major historical trends andthe current industry configuration. The paper includes uniquehistorical data sets for major global Ni fields, especially the SudburyBasin and Thompson fields in Canada and the Kambalda field inAustralia. By understanding these critical ‘mega-trends’ in the Niindustry, it is possible to better understand unfolding global issues,such as environmental impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, climatechange and potential industry responses, and whether ‘peak nickel’is a viable concept and the implications these issues have for Niproduction and demand.

10 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

2. Background: nickel resources, historical overview andproduction methods

2.1. Nickel resources

As a metal, Ni would commonly be considered a ‘finite’ resourceand therefore mining is intrinsically unsustainable. However, withappropriate technology, policies and programs, Ni can also be easilyrecycled—which could be perceived to provide an effectively infiniteresource and supply. The primary issues centre around energyrequirements, environmental impacts and economic costs, leadingto the current preference for most Ni being supplied from mining asthe lowest cost supply option (i.e., recycling rates are low at present).There are abundant economic Ni resources known around the world,principally in Australia, Canada, New Caledonia, Philippines, Indonesiaand Russia, amongst others. According to the US Geological Survey,global economic and sub-economic resources in 2008 were estimatedat 220 Mt Ni—a value whose magnitude has been similar for at least adecade, and even shows a gradual increase over this time (e.g.,resources in 1998 were 180 Mt Ni) (USGS, var.-a).

Nickel is commonly present in two principal ore types—sulfide orlaterite. Sulfide ores are typically derived from volcanic or hydro-thermal processes and usually include copper (Cu) and/or cobalt (Co),and often precious metals such as gold (Au) or platinum (Pt),palladium (Pd) and rhodium (Rh) (the platinum group metals orPGMs) (Naldrett, 2002; Hoatson et al., 2006). Laterite ores are formednear the surface following extensive weathering of ultramafic rocks,and occur abundantly in tropical climates around the equator, the aridregions of central Western Australia or humid areas of Eastern Europe(Elias, 2002). The weathering leads to distinct ore types, namely,limonite, nontronite and saprolite/garnierite/serpentine, with differ-ent impurity levels of magnesium, iron and silica, as well as atransition zone between the ore types (Elias, 2002; Dalvi et al., 2004;Wedderburn, 2009). A typical laterite profile is shown in Fig. 1.

2.2. Brief history

Numerous societies had unknowingly taken advantage of Ni inalloys for millennia before it was formally identified by Swedishchemist Axel Fredrik Cronstedt in 1751 (Howard-White, 1963;Habashi, 2009). The Chinese alloy, known as ‘pai thung’ or whitecopper, began arriving in Europe in the late 1700s and offered a cheapsubstitute for silver. In 1823, Ernest August Geitner invented a newCu–Ni alloy, which by the 1830s had become popular in Germany andBritain as ‘German Silver’. A small amount of Ni mining and smeltingoccurred throughout Europe, particularly in southern Norway whichhad about 40 small Ni mines active by 1870. These sulfide orestypically contained around 1 to 2% Ni (Barlow, 1907; RONC, 1917).

In 1863, Jules Garnier discovered a new Ni mineral (later namedgarnierite) on theDumbeaRiver in the French Territory of NewCaledonia

Fig. 1. Typical weathering profiles for nickel laterite ores (

(Habashi, 2009). Mining of this lateritic Ni deposit, just north of Noumea,began in 1875 although the smelter nearNoumea closed shortly after dueto indigenous conflict (Howard-White, 1963). A new smelterwas built in1880 at Thio, on the east coast, and New Caledonia quickly rose to theposition of the world's largest Ni producer. Early ore grades wereparticularly rich at some12%Ni in the1870sbut declined to5%Ni by1909(Barlow, 1907; RONC, 1917). The French Ni company, Société Le Nickel(SLN), was formed in 1880, and Ni matte from New Caledonia wasexported to France for refining at a new plant at Le Havre.

The 1880s was a pivotal decade for Ni with the discovery of themassive Sudbury Ni–copper (Cu) field in northern Ontario, Canada,and the emergence of Ni's benefit as an alloying agent in steel,particularly for armor plating inmilitary applications (Habashi, 2009).

The discovery of Sudbury occurred during the construction of theCanadian Pacific Railway in 1883, and was initially thought to be alarge, rich Cu deposit. In 1886, during smelting, it was found thatSudbury was actually a Ni–Cu ore—although no economical metal-lurgical methods were known at the time to separate and purify suchmetals (Howard-White, 1963). Given the apparent scale of Sudbury'sdeposits and richness of the ores, along with growing Ni demand,there was major incentive to develop new metallurgical processes—which was achieved with perhaps unparalleled success in the modernmining industry (Simons, 1988; Marcuson and Díaz, 2007). Theprocesses included simple heap roasting, the Orford Process forsmelting and refining, including its subsequent modifications byViktor Hybinette, and the Mond and Hybinette processes for refining.These innovations allowed the Sudbury field to flourish and establisha dominant position as the world's biggest Ni producer for manydecades. By 1905, Canada was producing ∼9 kt Ni/year – and growingrapidly – and had permanently overtaken New Caledonia (∼6 to 7 ktNi/year).

Two of the earliest companies at Sudbury, the Canadian CopperCompany and Orford Copper Company, merged in 1902 to form theInternational Nickel Company Limited (‘Inco’), which later mergedwith the Mond Nickel Company in 1929 (keeping the Inco name). Anew Sudbury producer, Falconbridge Limited, was established in1929, playing the junior role to Inco for many decades. Falconbridgepurchased and renovated the Ni refinery at Kristiansand, Norway, in1929, using it to refine its Ni–Cu matte.

Throughout the early to middle 20th Century, Sudbury played apivotal role in Ni supply, especially during the strenuous war years(Simons, 1988). DuringWorldWar 1 Ni production doubled from 20 ktin 1914 to 44.3 kt in 1918 (then falling to 7.9 kt by 1922 due to severeeconomic conditions). World War 2 saw production climb from 95.5 ktin 1936 to a record 130.4 kt in 1943. Curiously, Inco's President outlinedthepotential conflicts betweensupplyingmetals forwarversus industryat the 1936 Annual General Meeting (CDM, var.-b, 1936 Edition, p. 20):“Unquestionably a small percentage of your nickel output, in commonwith other metals, enters into themanufacture of armament, and a warwould temporarily increase demand for supplies of this character. Such

adapted from Dalvi et al., 2004; Wedderburn, 2009).

11G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

a demand would be temporary only and might be followed by adisastrous interruption of your company'swell established efforts in thegreat fields of peacetime industry … war demand is neither desirablenor profitable for the nickel industry.”

The middle 20th Century continued to see Ni demand growstrongly, as well as the emergence of major new producers. Thediscovery and development of two major Ni fields in the Soviet Unionbegan in the 1930s at the Kola Peninsula (or ‘Petsamo’, formerly partof Finland until World War 2; see Bray, 1994) and in northern Siberiaat the Taimyr Peninsula—the Pechenganickel-Severeonickel andNorilsk-Talnakh Ni sulfide fields, respectively. The Taimyr field issimilar in scale to Sudbury but contains richer ore (especially Cu).Minor ferronickel production also occurs from laterite ores in theUrals of southern Russia. Together, Russia is now theworld's largest Niproducer, with the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas controlled throughpublic company OJSC MMC Norilsk Nickel. In 1956 a major discoverywas made at Thompson in northern Manitoba, Canada, providing asecond major Ni field in Canada. China entered the Ni industry in theearly 1960s, following the discovery of the large Jinchuan Ni sulfidefield in Gansu province, north-western China. Other minor Nidiscoveries were also made in China (e.g., Jilin Jien, Xing Jiang,Yunnan Yajiang). Australia made a sudden and dramatic entry withthe announcement of the Kambalda Ni sulfide field in January 1966 byWestern Mining Corporation (WMC)—which entered into commer-cial production by June 1967. The Kambalda discovery ignited anunparalleled Ni exploration boom in Western Australia.

From the 1950s onwards, the number and scale of Ni lateriteprojects has grown considerably around the world, particularly inNew Caledonia, the Caribbean, the western Pacific archipelago andsmaller projects around Eastern Europe and Russia. Many lateriteprojects produce ferronickel, while some produce an intermediateproduct, such as a Ni sulfide, hydroxide or carbonate (whichsometimes include cobalt as by-products).

By the close of the 20th Century and the dawn of the 21st, Nicontinues to play a major role in alloys, especially steel, plus a range ofother uses such as batteries and chemical products. Canada's earlydominance is less pronounced, given the rise of Norilsk and Russia, aswell as other producers such as Australia, NewCaledonia, Indonesia andChina. As a sign of Ni's continuing importance, in 2006, Inco was takenover by Brazil's Vale Limited (formerly CVRD) and Falconbridge takenover by Xstrata Limited (Swiss-based but of South African origins).Australia'smain Niminer,WMC,was taken over by BHP Billiton Limitedin 2005.

Although the global financial crisis has hit the Ni industryparticularly hard with dozens of mine closures and productioncutbacks (Wedderburn, 2009), continuing strong economic growthin China and India as well as abundant remaining economic resourcesshould position the Ni industry for long-term growth (Stadelhoferet al., 2009).

2.3. Nickel production methods

Historically, most Ni production has been derived from sulfide oreswith laterite ores providing only a modest source. In terms of knownNi resources, approximately 60% is found in laterites while ∼40% iscontained in sulfides (USGS, var.-a)—the reverse of production. Themajor reason for this is the difficulty of processing Ni lateritescompared to sulfides—laterite ores require extensive and complextreatment to extract Ni, and have historically been more expensivethan sulfide ores (Simons, 1988).

In general, Ni production from sulfide ores involves either open cutor underground mining, followed by concentration via flotation,smelting of concentrates to produce a Ni (±Cu) matte, then refiningto produce a puremetal. It is common formines, smelters and refineriesto be in different locations, depending on regional geographic factors.Pyrometallurgical processing of sulfide ores in this manner is very

similar to other base metals, with Cu either an important by-product orco-product (depending on ore grades). Precious metals (Au, Ag, andPGMs) are often extracted from sulfide ores (especially Norilsk andSudbury).

On the other hand, Ni production from laterite ores is relativelycomplex. Laterite mines are mostly open cut, due to the large area andshallow nature of the ores, and commonly apply a basic orebeneficiation before processing (since flotation is generally unsuit-able). The high moisture content of laterite ores also needs to beaddressed through drying or calcining. There are three major processconfigurations from this point—rotary kiln electric furnaces (RKEF),the Caron ammonia leach process or high pressure acid leaching(HPAL). In general, laterite ore types are suited to a particular process,such as limonite for HPAL or saprolite for RKEF (see Fig. 1) (King,2005; Warner et al., 2006). This is changing, however, as new lateriteprojects are being engineered to treat all ore types. Most lateriteprojects around the world use RKEF plants, commonly producingferronickel. The Caron process is based on high temperature ammonialeaching, with metal-rich solutions fed to a solvent extraction(hydrometallurgical) facility. Only 5 Caron plants have ever beendeveloped, with 4 remaining in operation; while only 2 of 4 HPALprojects ever built remain in operation (Dalvi et al., 2004). At HPALplants, the ore is leached with sulfuric acid at high pressures (up to5.4 MPa) and temperatures (245 to 270 °C) in a titanium-cladautoclave. Solid-solution separation is subsequently carried outthrough counter current decantation, and metals produced by solventextraction. HPAL laterite projects commonly vary at this stage, someoperating a Ni refinery to produce pure metal, while some produce anintermediate Ni hydroxide (or even sulfide) product for export to arefinery. The first HPAL plant was built at Moa Bay in Cuba in 1959,with operations severely interrupted by the Cuban Revolution in1960.

In the late 1990s, three new Ni laterite projects were developed inWestern Australia based on improvements in materials and processingtechnology which made HPAL potentially attractive. Although Cawseand Bulong were financial and/or technical failures, the Murrin Murrinproject survived and now has stable production of ∼30 kt Ni/year(Mudd, 2007). The Rio Tuba (Coral Bay) HPAL project in the Philippineswas commissioned in 2005 and appears to be the most successful plantto date. At present several new large HPAL laterite projects are underdevelopment, including Goro and Koniambo in NewCaledonia, Ramu inPapua New Guinea, Ambatovy in Madagascar and Ravensthorpe inWestern Australia (closed in early 2009 before reaching commercialproduction). Expansions at major RKEF plants were also underway orplanned until the global financial crisis forced delay or deferment.Overall, laterite-derived Ni will continue to increase significantly in thefuture.

3. Current nickel production and economic resources

Global Ni production continues to grow significantly over the long-term, including near exponential growth since 1950, from some 10 ktNi in 1900 to a record high of 1.6 Mt Ni in 2007, shown in Fig. 2(including prices over time). Estimated cumulative world productionby 2009 was ∼49.1 Mt Ni. Based on continuing Chinese demand (Li,2007) (amongst others), it is most likely that the strong trend evidentin Fig. 2 will continue for a considerable period of time (despite theglobal financial crisis). The principal issue associated with such ascenario is the sustainability of this growth in Ni production—from amineral resource perspective as well as environmental aspects such asenergy and pollution impacts.

At present, Ni production is relatively widespread around theworld,albeit concentrated in a small number of countries and companies. Acompilation of Ni sulfide and laterite mines is given in Tables 1 and 2,respectively, including mining method, ore type and processingconfiguration. Recent Ni production over time by ore type and country

Fig. 2. Global Ni production and prices over time (data from Schmitz, 1979; ABARE, 2009; CDM, various dates-a; Kelly et al., 2009; USGS, various dates-a, -b).

12 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

is shown in Fig. 3, demonstrating the large share by a small number ofcountries as well as the growth in laterite-derived Ni.

The extent of world economic Ni resources is reported annually bythe US Geological Survey (USGS, var.-a). In addition, some nationalgeoscience agencies provide estimates, such as Canada (NRC, var.) andAustralia (GA, var.). There are issues of equivalence between thedifferent groups, such as for Canadawhere the NRC and USGS estimates

Table 1Nickel sulfide mines, processing configuration and companies (2008 data).

Project, country Ore (kt) %Ni %Cu %Co g/t PGM k

Taimyr Peninsula, Russia 15,034 1.56 2.65 – 8.42 1Jinchuan, Chinab ∼8300b ∼1.3b ∼2.4b ∼0.01b ∼0.2b ∼Vale Inco Sudbury, Canada 8219 1.26 1.36 ∼0.04 ∼1.9Voisey's Bay, Canada 2385 3.50 2.38 0.14 –

Mt Keith, Australiac 10865 0.62 – – –

Leinster, Australiac 2445 2.03 – – –

Kola Peninsula, Russia 8149 0.59 0.25 – 0.10Kambalda, Australiad 1269 2.80 ∼0.22 ∼0.05 ∼1.5Thompson, Canada 2291 1.66 ∼0.1 – –

Raglan, Canada 1300 2.30 0.62 ∼0.05 –

Tati, Botswana 9629 0.29 0.21 – –

Black Swan, Australia 2846 0.84 – – –

Falconbridge, Canada 1915 0.98 1.14 ∼0.18 –

Lake Johnston, Australia 1391 1.53 – – –

Jilin Jien, China nd nd nd – – ∼Montcalm, Canada 927 1.20 0.65 ∼0.05 –

Aguablanca, Spain 1,825 0.6 0.4 – –

Savannah, Australia 684 1.30 0.62 0.07 –

Cosmos-Sinclair, Australia 263 3.53 ∼0.15 ∼0.06 –

Levack-Podolsky, Canada 1256 ∼0.7 ∼1.5 ∼0.01 ∼1.5Nkomati, South Africa 1070 0.70 0.24 ∼0.04 0.71Waterloo, Australia 253 2.63 – – –

Bindura, Zimbabwe 722 0.59 – – –

Hitura-Kotalahti, Finland 600 0.63 – – –

Avebury, Australia 268 0.91 – – –

Lockerby, Canada 136 1.66 0.88 ∼0.04 –

Redstone-McWatters, Canada 68 1.66 ∼0.9 – –

Shakespeare, Canada 83 0.39 0.40Total 84.2 Mt 1.15 1.05 – – 7

PGM mines, South Africae 84.4 Mt ∼0.11 ∼0.03 – 3.97

Note: Data is derived from respective company annual reports or websites; additional datand—no data; CSR—concentrator–smelter–refinery; Conc.—concentrator; ARM—African Rain

a PGM includes platinum, palladium and gold mainly, plus others where reported.b Data for ore and grade estimated only.c Full data not reported, older data (1998–2004) used as an approximation.d Full data not reported, since Kambalda now operates as a toll mill only; data estimatede Platinum group metal (PGM) mines with Ni–Cu as by-products; grades based on 50% e

are 3.6 and 19.9 Mt Ni, respectively. The main reason for such a largedifference is that Canada only includes proved and probable reserves atoperating (or committed) projects whereas the USGS also includemeasured, indicated and inferred resources at operating mines andknown mineral deposits (even if sub-economic). Analysis of companyreported resources shows that they exceed the NRC estimate signifi-cantly but are still smaller than the USGS estimate. The 2008 USGS data

t Ni kt Cu t Co t PGMa Mine Type Proc. Company

94.0 381.6 – 103.7 UG/OC CSR Norilsk Nickel90b ∼150b ∼450b ∼2b UG CSR Jinchuan Nickel85.3 115.3 804 15.0 UG CSR Vale Inco77.5 55.4 1,695 – OC CSR Vale Inco45.0 – – – OC Conc. BHP Billiton40.8 – – – OC/UG Conc. BHP Billiton38.3 18.8 – – UG/OC CSR Norilsk Nickel33.1 ∼2.7 ∼1.8 UG Conc. BHP Billiton28.9 ∼1.4 168 – UG CSR Vale Inco25.9 6.4 512 – UG/OC Conc. Xstrata20.8 13.3 – – OC/UG Conc. Norilsk Nickel17.6 – – – OC/UG Conc. Norilsk Nickel16.8 19.1 3,186 – UG CSR Xstrata15.5 – – – UG Conc. Norilsk Nickel10b nd – – UG CSR Jilin Jien Nickel8.9 5.1 338 – UG Conc. Xstrata8.1 7.1 – – OC Conc. Lundin Mining7.8 4.1 218 – UG Conc. Panoramic Resources7.6 0.3 120 – UG Conc. Xstrata6.0 16.0 75 1.62 UG Conc. FNX Mining5.1 2.6 276 1.27 OC Conc. ARM / Norilsk Nickel5.0 – – – UG Conc. Norilsk Nickel3.1 – – – OC/UG CS Mwana Africa2.4 – – – UG Conc. Belvedere Resources2.1 – – – UG Conc. OZ Minerals1.7 1.0 32 – UG Conc. First Nickel1.0 ∼0.6 – – UG Conc. Liberty Mines0.3 0.3 25 OC Conc. Ursa Major

88.6 801.1 7,899 ∼125.4

46.4 13.5 – 276.9 UG/OC CSR various

sourced from NRC (var.), USGS (var.-b), plus approximate data for China (Guo, 2009).bow Minerals.

from nickel miners.xtraction (no ore grade data available for milling).

Table 2Nickel laterite mines, processing configuration and companies (2008 data).

Project, country Ore (kt) %Ni %Co kt Ni t Co Process Company

Sorowako, Indonesia 4675 2.10 nd 72.4 nd RKEF Vale Inco/PT IncoDoniambo, New Caledoniaa 2930a 2.0a – 51.1 – RKEF SLN/ErametCerro Matoso, Colombiaa ∼2415a ∼2.3a – 41.6b – RKEF BHP BillitonYabulu, Australia nd nd nd 35.1 1600 Caron BHP BillitonMoa Bay, Cubaa 2881a ∼1.5a ∼0.16a 32.4 3428 HPAL Sherritt InternationalMurrin Murrin, Australia 2446 1.43 ∼0.10 30.5 2018 HPAL Minara ResourcesLarco-Larymna, Greecea,c 2500a 1.2a – 21.2 – RKEF Larco SAFalcondo, Dominican Republic 1708 1.14 – 18.8 – RKEF XstrataPomalaa, Indonesia 1113 1.58 – 17.6 – RKEF PT AntamKavadarci, Macedonia ∼750 ∼2 nd 15.0 nd RKEF Feni Industries/CunicoLoma de Níquel, Venezuela 677 1.6 – 10.9 – RKEF Anglo AmericanRio Tuba (Coral Bay), Philippinesa 858a 1.5a – 9.7 – HPAL Sumitomo JVCodemin, Brazil 476 2.1 – 9.1 – RKEF Anglo AmericanUfaleynickel, Russia nd nd nd ∼9a nd RKEF OAO UfaleynickelBerong, Philippinesa,d ∼293a ∼1.48a nd 4.3d – Caron‡ Toledo MiningCawse, Australia 678 0.69 nd 3.7 – HPAL Norilsk Nickel

Total-laterite (Caron) »293 ∼1.48 – »35.1 »1600Total-laterite (HPAL) ∼6900 ∼1.4 ∼0.12 76.3 »5500Total-laterite (RKEF) ∼17,250 ∼1.0 nd 257.7 –

Note: Data is derived from respective company annual reports or websites; additional data sourced from NRC (var.), USGS (var.-b).nd—no data; RKEF—rotary kiln electric furnace; HPAL—high pressure acid leach.

a Data for ore and grade estimated only.b USGS data gives 2008 Colombian production as 77 kt Ni, though this appears to be ferronickel and not contained Ni.c Virtually all nickel laterite mines are open cut, although the Larco project in Greece also includes some underground mining.d Exported to Yabulu for processing.

13G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

of Ni reserves plus reserves base by country is shown in Table 3,including ore type and cumulative production.

4. Canada's nickel: Sudbury Basin, Thompson and beyond

Canada has played a leading role in the Ni industry since the late1880s when the Sudbury Basin field of northern Ontario was found tocontain widespread and rich Ni–Cu ores. This major discoverycoincided with the development of Ni-based steel alloys and growingCu demand for electrical applications. Given the general inexperiencein processing and smelting Ni ores, as well as the inability toefficiently separate Ni and Cu, most projects had to develop their ownmethods to extract and produce Ni, commonly based on adaptationsof Cu smelting methods (Marcuson and Díaz, 2007). After the initialboom, whereby a number of major companies had establishedminingand/or smelting operations, the industry began to consolidate.Following its formation in 1902, Inco, and later Falconbridge from1929, were the mainstay of the Canadian Ni industry until 2006 whenboth were taken over. Inco stayed focused on Ni throughout itshistory, while Falconbridge diversified into Cu, zinc and aluminum.

The Sudbury field provided vital Ni supplies during the dark timesof war, saw numerous workers strikes every several years or so (somelasting months), underwent a constant evolution in mining, smeltingand refining methods (driven by dedicated research and innovation),continuing investment in product research and development to keepthe Ni market expanding, and moves from underground to open cutand back to deep underground mines. The economic benefits,however, came with significant environmental costs.

A major Ni discovery was made at Thompson in northernManitoba in 1956 by Inco, thus adding a new field to Canada's Nistory. After extensive exploration and development work, a stand-alone mine, mill, smelter and refinery project was built at Thompson,with first production in August 1960 (Fraser, 1985; Marcuson et al.,2009). Thompson remains a major Ni producer in 2009, with manyyears of resources remaining.

Other important Canadian Ni projects have included Lynn Lake inManitoba, small Sudbury mines and small mines in Quebec, BritishColombia and the Northwest Territories. The large Voisey's Bay Ni–Cusulfide deposit was discovered in Newfoundland in 1994, with Incoeventually developing a mine and production starting in 2005.

By 2009, Canada had produced 13.79 Mt Ni—of which 11.09 Mtcame from Sudbury and 2.22 Mt Ni came from Thompson (11.61 MtNi alone is from Inco), showing Canada's Ni dominance at 28.1% ofhistorical world production (also visible in the dominance of sulfideores in Fig. 3).

There is a wide array of data sources on Ni mining in Canada.The principal publications are the annual industry or statisticalyearbooks published by various government agencies over the years,including:

• Report on the Mining and Minerals Statistics of Canada (1886 to 1905)(GNHSC, var.);

• Annual Report of the Ontario Bureau/Department of Mines (1891 to1919/1920 to 1970) (OBM, var.; ODM, var.);

• Annual Report on the Mineral Production of Canada (1911 to 1946)(CDBS, var.-a; CDM, var.-a);

• Mineral Statistics of Canada (1947 to 1973) (CDBS, var.-b);• CanadianMineral Industry (1934 to 1938, 1944 to 1949) (CDM, var.-b);• Canadian Minerals Yearbook (1944 to 2009) (NRC, var.).

Annual financial reports of companies also provide data (e.g.,Falconbridge, var.; Inco, var.; Vale, var.; Xstrata, var.), as well as USagencies on occasion (e.g., USBoM, var.; USGS, var.-b). Remaining gapsin data have been filled by companies directly or state agencies. It isremarkable that all of these reports have not been analyzed to compilelong-term statistics on Sudbury or Thompson, especially given theincreasing importance of understanding long-term trends in miningas a means to better project realistic scenarios for the future of theindustry.

The long-term trend in Canadian Ni–Cu ore grades are shown inFig. 4. To verify that the production data used to estimate annual oregrades over time are representative, the sum of individual mineseach year are compared to reported Ni production in Fig. 5. Ingeneral, most years show N95% of reported production, meaningthat the compiled data closely reproduces Canadian Ni production.The years where calculated production is N100% are probably due toincorrect reporting. It is clear from Fig. 4 that ore grades at Sudburyhave been relatively stable since 1943, generally being 1 to 1.6% Niand 0.9 to 1.6% Cu, with the first five decades enjoying relativelyhigher grades. The relatively high grade of Voisey's Bay is evident inFig. 4.

Fig. 3. Global nickel production by ore type (top) and country (bottom). Data from ABARE, 2009; Kelly et al., 2009; NRC, various dates; USBoM, various dates; USGS, various dates-b.(Note: 2008 and 2009 data is preliminary).

14 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

The two major factors which have historically affected productionat Sudbury are strikes and economic conditions, both visible in Fig. 5.Extended strikes resulted in lower production in 1969 and 2003. Onthe other hand, weak demand and economic conditions led tocurtailed production in 1921 to 1922, 1932, 1958, 1972 and 1994. Insome years, both factors were prevalent, such as 1978 to 1979. Theproportion of Ni production by company/mine is shown in Fig. 6, withthe early and continuing dominance of Inco from Sudbury and laterThompson clearly evident.

Data is very patchy on the extent of ore (and grades) derived fromopen cut versus underground mining over time for Sudbury,Thompson and other mines. Based on the various national reports(see above), it is clear that the significant majority of ore has comefrom underground mines, but open cut mines have been important atvarious times at both Sudbury and Thompson. The Voisey's Bayproject is presently using open cut mining, but will most likely moveto underground mining in the future. The approximate depths of

underground development and mining at Sudbury over time areshown in Fig. 7, highlighting the increasing depths over time (now upto 2.5 km). Both Vale/Inco and Xstrata/Falconbridge have knownresources at greater depths, though they remain undeveloped atpresent due to weak economic conditions.

The reported Canadian ore resources and grades for Inco andFalconbridge over time are shown in Fig. 8. Over time, bothcompanies have generally increased ore resources, though therecent drop at Inco is due to the CVRD/Vale takeover, since onlyproved and probable reserves are reported by Vale and notadditional measured, indicated and inferred resources. For Inco, aclear long-term decline in ore grades is evident, compared toFalconbridge ore grades which have increased substantially since1973. With respect to contained metals, a plateau is arguable forInco while Falconbridge continues to increase (though with morevolatility recently, related to economic conditions). A compilation ofCanadian Ni sulfide resources is included in Table 4. The estimated

Table 3Nickel reserves plus reserves base (kt Ni) (2008 USGS data; USGS, var.-a).

Country Cumulativeproduction(to 2009)a

Reserves Reservesbaseb

Total Main ore type

Australia 4467 26,000 29,000 55,000 Sulfide∼57%,Laterite∼43%,c

Cuba 2255 5600 23,000 28,600 LateriteNew Caledonia 4966 7100 15,000 22,100 LateriteCanada 13,788 4900 15,000 19,900 SulfideIndonesia 3110 3200 13,000 16,200 LateriteRussia ∼10,121 6600 9200 15,800 SulfideSouth Africa 1231 3700 12,000 15,700 SulfideBrazil ∼1076 4500 8300 12,800 Laterite/SulfideChina ∼1306 1100 7600 8700 SulfidePhilippines 921 940 5200 6140 LateriteColombia ∼1165d 1400 2700 4100 LateriteDominican Republic ∼1232 720 1000 1720 LateriteBotswana 894 490 920 1410 SulfideGreece ∼746 490 900 1390 LateriteVenezuela ∼161 560 630 1190 LateriteZimbabwe ∼450 15 260 275 SulfideUnited States 412 0 150 150 SulfideOther countries – 2200 6100 8300 various

Total ∼48,301 69,500 150,000 219,500

a Data compiled from Schmitz (1979), Kelly et al. (2009), Mudd (2009b), NRC (var.),USBoM (var.), USGS (var.-b); 2008 and 2009 data is preliminary.

b From 2010, USGS no longer report the reserves base category.c Percentage data includes economic resources only, not sub-economic resources

(2005 Edition, GA, var.).d USGS Columbia data appears to be ferronickel and not contained Ni, leading to

uncertainty regarding Colombian production.

15G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

Ni resources of 5.3 Mt Ni compares to the national estimate of 3.6 MtNi (NRC, var.).

A major challenge which emerged early in Sudbury's history wasthe extent of environmental impacts, especially those associated withsmelting operations (Crawford, 1995; Marcuson and Díaz, 2007). Therelease of sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates and heavy metals led tosignificant and relatively widespread environmental contamination,in particular the generation of acid rain from SO2 emissions. The early

Fig. 4. Trends in Canadian ore grades for majo

practice of heap roasting prior to smelting led to severe local SO2

emissions and impacts, a significant issue noted by the Royal OntarioNickel Commission in 1917 (RONC, 1917) (it also noted that Norwayhad recently abandoned this practice due to its heavy environmentalimpacts). Despite the closure of heap roasting by Inco in 1928 andcontinued evolution in smelting and refining practices over time, theincreasing scale of Sudbury's production led to substantial cumulativeenvironmental impacts by the 1960s over a wide area. The impactsincluded heavy metal soil contamination, acid rain linked to SO2

emissions (∼1.5 to 2.7 Mt SO2/year), acidified wetlands, biodiversitydeclines (especially fish), vegetation dieback and heavy soil erosion(Crawford, 1995; Dudka et al., 1995; Adamo et al., 1996; Keller et al.,1998; Robitaille and Linley, 2006; Marcuson and Díaz, 2007).

In 1969 and 1970, Falconbridge and Inco, respectively, were orderedby Ontario environmental regulators to lower daily SO2 emissions, withfurtherorders in1978 reducingdaily limits aswell as introducing limitsonground level SO2 concentrations. These requirements effectively forcedproduction to match emissions levels until smelting and SO2 capturetechnology and infrastructure caught up, such as the 380 m ‘super stack’built at the Copper Cliff smelter in 1972. Emissions limits and ground levelconcentrations are still being reduced over time. Over 2001 to 2005, Inco'sSO2emissions fromSudburydeclined from230 to194 kt SO2/year (1.14 to1.00 t SO2/t Ni+Cu), while Thompson declined from 220 to 180 kt SO2/year (4.26 to 3.79 t SO2/t Ni+Cu), respectively (Inco, 2006).

An important outcome of the long-term environmental andtechnology initiatives by Inco and Falconbridge is the gradualrecovery of the surrounding Sudbury environment. Acid rainproblems and the numbers of damaged lakes have significantlyreduced and fish stocks have increased substantially (Crawford, 1995;Marcuson and Díaz, 2007). Environmental issues, however, remain acritical ongoing challenge for the Sudbury field, especially as mines godeeper, production costs increase and environmental requirementscontinue to become more stringent.

5. New Caledonia's nickel laterites

By the late 1800s New Caledonia was the world's leading Niproducer, based on rich laterite ores controlled through Société Le

r Ni–Cu mines and the Canadian average.

Fig. 5. Calculated vs. reported Canadian Ni production (Inset: calculated versus reported production).

16 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

Nickel (a Rothschild's family company, founded in 1880 in France).The early years were challenging, given the problems of transport,indigenous conflicts and suitable smelting technology. The firstsmelter at Pointe Chaleix in Noumea was closed shortly after openingdue to indigenous conflict, with a new smelter opened by SLN in 1889at Thio on the east coast (Howard-White, 1963; Habashi, 2009).Mining and smelting continued at a modest scale, with Ni matterefined in France. By 1905, however, Sudbury had become the world'sleading producer, and New Caledonian production continued at amodest scale of ∼5 to 10 kt Ni/year. From the 1950s significantexpansion finally emerged, reaching 44 kt Ni/year in 1961 and 105 ktNi/year in 1970. Production has since fluctuated between 105 and

Fig. 6. Proportion of Canadian Ni produ

136 kt Ni/year, based on processing at Doniambo and exporting ore tothe Yabulu refinery in Queensland or laterite smelters in Japan ormore recently China.

From 1974 to 1985, SLN went through significant corporaterestructuring, finishing with a new holding company called Eramet70% owned by French state company ERAP and 15% each by Imétaland Elf Aquitaine. In 1994, 30% of Eramet's interest was floated on theParis bourse, with a 30% interest in SLN transferred in 1999 from ERAPto New Caledonian state company Société Territoriale Calédoniennede Participation Industrielle (STCPI). At the same time, ERAP's interestin Eramet was transferred to French state company Cogema, later tobecome nuclear giant Areva (with a 26% interest in Eramet in 2007).

ction over time by company/mine.

Fig. 7. Approximate depths of major Inco and Falconbridge mines over time (compiled from CDBS, various dates-b; CDM, various dates-b; Coleman, 1913; Inco, 1920, various dates;NRC, various dates; OBM, various dates; ODM, various dates; RONC, 1917).

17G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

By 2007, SLN was owned 56% by Eramet, 34% by STCPI and 10% byJapan's Nisshin Steel (Eramet, 2010). All of Eramet's refineries andfacilities in France are 100% owned.

The major smelter operated by Eramet/SLN is at Doniambo, noweffectively in the centre of Noumea. Doniambo was first built in 1910using blast furnace technology, and has continually evolved intechnology and scale. Doniambo converted to RKEF technology in1958, and presently produces ferronickel (80%) andmatte (20%), with2008 production of 51.1 kt Ni making it the second largest lateriteproducer (Table 2) (Warner et al., 2006; Eramet, 2009).

Eramet/SLNwas expanding their capacity until the global financialcrisis. Two major new projects under development are Koniambo inthe north and Goro in the south-east. Koniambo is 49% owned byFalconbridge (now Xstrata) with 51% owned by the northern Provincecompany Société Minière du Sud Pacifique (SMSP), while Inco (nowVale Inco) own 74% of Goro with Japanese companies Sumitomo andMitsui owning 21% and New Caledonian provincial company Société

Fig. 8. Trends in Canadian economic ore resources (Mt ore), ore grades (%Ni+Cu

de Participation Minière du Sud Calédonien (SPMSC) 5%. Both largescale projects will use HPAL technology and have been verycontroversial on environmental and social impact grounds, especiallywith indigenous Kanak communities (see Ali and Grewal, 2006). As oflate 2009, Goro had finished construction and was working throughcommissioning while Koniambo's construction has been sloweddown due to the global financial crisis.

A reasonable amount of historical data is available on Ni mining inNew Caledonia, including:

• 1917 Royal Ontario Nickel Commission (RONC, 1917);• Coleman's 1913 study ‘The Nickel Industry’ (Coleman, 1913);• US Bureau of Mines ‘Minerals Yearbook’ (1933 to 1993) (USBoM, var.);• New Caledonian 2007 statistical review (ISEE, 2008).

The available data on ore grades over time are shown in Fig. 9,though almost all of these grades are yield-based estimates and nottrue ore grade assays. The rich garnierite ores of the earliest mines

) and contained metals (Mt Ni+Cu) for Inco (left) and Falconbridge (right).

Table 4Reported Ni sulfide resources by operating mine and country (2008 data).

Project, Country Ore (Mt) %Ni %Cu g/t Pt g/t Pd g/t Au kt Ni kt Cu

Vale Inco Sudbury, Canada 150.4 1.17 1.35 0.7 0.9 0.3 1760 2031Xstrata Falconbridge Sudbury, Canada 59.9 1.84 1.82 – – – 1103 1093Voisey's Bay, Canada 26.0 2.76 1.62 – – – 717 421Thompson, Canada 24.5 1.78 0.12 – – – 436 30Raglan, Canada 32.6 2.85 0.82 – – – 930 268Levack, Canada 8.05 1.99 1.75 0.01 0.01 – 160 141Podolsky, Canada 9.53 0.64 1.34 0.01 0.02 0.01 61 127Lockerby, Canada 2.42 2.23 1.36 – – – 54 33Redstone, Canada 2.87 1.54 0.07 – – – 44 2Montcalm, Canada 3.0 1.26 0.59 – – – 38 18Sub-total - Canada 319.3 1.66 1.30 – – – 5302 4160Taimyr Peninsula, Russia 2205 0.78 1.47 1.03 3.77 0.21 17,200 32,415Kola Peninsula, Russia 846.0 0.54 0.25 0.02 0.04 0.01 4568 2115Sub-total - Russia 3051 0.71 1.13 0.75 2.74 0.15 21,768 34,530Kambalda, Australiaa 7.27 3.87 ∼0.2 – – – 281 ∼15Mt Keith, Australia 422 0.53 – – – – 2220 –

Leinster-Cliffs, Australia 192.3 0.86 – – – – 1648 –

Savannah-Copernicus, Australia 5.59 1.45 0.73 – – – 81 41Lake Johnston, Australia 12.9 1.53 – – – – 197 –

Black Swan, Australia 6.06 0.86 – – – – 52 –

Waterloo, Australia 0.91 1.76 – – – – 16 –

Forrestania, Australia (Western Areas) 15.88 1.8 – – – – 288 –

Cosmos-Sinclair, Australia 56.3 0.83 – – – – 47 –

Sub-total - Australia 719.2 0.73 – – – – 5271 »56Munali, Zambia (Albidon)b 10.3 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 – 124 21Mirabela-Santa Rita, Brazilb 150.1 0.60 0.16 0.091 – – 901 240Aguablanca, Spain 25.6 0.39 0.33 0.21 0.19 0.11 100 85Kotalahti, Finland 5.47 0.55 0.37 – – – 30 20Hitura, Finland 4.15 0.63 0.23 – – – 26 9.5Pora-Vammala, Finland 2.09 0.67 0.21 – – – 14 4.4Talvivaara, Finlandb 1004 0.22 0.13 – – – 2209 1305Bindura, Zimbabwe 70.95 0.64 – – – – 452 –

Tati, Botswana 319.7 0.26 0.23 – – – 833 746Nkomati, South Africa 401.2 0.36 0.14 – – – 1441 552Jinchuan, China ∼432 ∼1.04 ∼0.69 – – – ∼4500 ∼3000

Total 6515 0.66 0.69 – – – ∼42,966 ∼44,706

Note: Data is derived from respective company annual reports or websites; additional data sourced from NRC (var.), USGS (var.-b).a WMCsoldall of theirKambaldamines over2000 to2002,with themill nowoperatedona toll basis; all resources are compiled from individual companies (thoughnot all are available).b Entered commercial production during 2009.

18 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

show grades of 12% Ni in the 1870s but this had declined to 5% Ni by1909. Throughout the middle 20th Century ore grades appeared to bestable around 3.5 to 5% Ni, though recent grades have declined furtherto a yield of around 1.1 to 1.4% Ni. Based on incomplete Eramet/SLNproduction and resources data, ore grades appear to be about 2% Ni.

Fig. 9. Trends in New Caledonian ore yields over time.

Economic resources for Doniambo and Goro are included in Table 5,showing that ore grades are unlikely to decline much further for theforeseeable future and stay around 1 to 2% Ni.

Table 5Reported Ni laterite resources by operating mine and country (2008 company data).

Project, Country Ore (Mt) %Ni %Co kt Ni kt Co Company

Murrin Murrin,Australia

330 0.99 0.066 3267 218 MinaraResources

Cawse, Australia 57.4 0.72 nd 413 nd Norilsk NickelCoral Bay group,Philippines

161.3 1.21 – 1948 – Nickel Asia/Sumitomo

Berong, Philippinesa 275a 1.3a – ∼3600a – Toledo MiningFalcondo, DominicanRepublic

72.3 1.53 – 1110 – Xstrata

Sorowako, Indonesia 663 1.6 – 10,600 – Vale Inco/PT IncoPomalaa, Indonesiab ∼147b ∼2.2b – ∼3300b – PT AntamCerro Matoso,Colombia

275 1.09 – 2985 – BHP Billiton

Doniambo,New Caledonia

142.3 2.48 – 3526 – Eramet

Goro, New Caledonia 124.3 1.46 – 1815 – Vale Inco JVLoma de Niquel,Venezuela

40.5 1.46 – 591 – Anglo American

Codemin, Brazil 10.6 1.29 – 137 – Anglo American

Total 2300 1.45 – ∼33,300 »218

Note: Data is derived from respective company annual reports or websites; additionaldata sourced from NRC (var.), USGS (var.-b).nd—no data; JV—joint venture.

a Pre-JORC estimate.b Pomalaa resources reported on wet ore basis only, estimate for comparison only.

19G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

With abundant Ni laterite resources, New Caledonia is wellpositioned for a continuing major role in Ni, although balancingenvironmental, social and economic impacts and benefits will be amajor ongoing challenge.

6. Russian nickel: Taimyr and Kola Peninsulas

Russia is presently the world's leading Ni producer, mainly fromthe Norilsk-Talnakh field in the Taimyr Peninsula of northern Siberiaand the Kola Peninsula of north-western Russia, bordering Finland(both Ni sulfide).

In 1933 Inco began investigation of large but low grade Ni depositsin the Petsamo region of northern Finland, part of the Kola Peninsula,looking to both secure and expand their European market share. Aftervarious studies and negotiation of agreements, Inco invested severalmillion dollars to develop Petsamo and, just as commercial productionwas imminent in 1939, World War 2 began and Germany invadedFinland. Towards the end of the war in 1944, the Soviet Unionannexed this region of Finland, and quickly began exploiting thePetsamo project and renaming it Pechenga (Bray, 1994). Thiseffectively gave the Soviets a free start in Ni mining and production,an advantage they used to build themselves into a significant globalproducer by the 1970s. Thus Inco not only lost their project but alsohelped a competitor rise more rapidly than they otherwise wouldhave been able to achieve.

Until the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991, informationon Ni mining and production was extremely sparse. After corporaterestructuring in 1998 to 1999, Norilsk Nickel was established andlisted on the Russian Stock Exchange, and remains the world's leadingNi producer. An increasing amount of Ni is sourced from laterite-derived ferronickel production from in the Urals of southern Russia,reaching 46 kt Ni in 2007, through small companies Rezh NickelWorks JSC (Sverdlovsk), OJSC Ufaleynikel (Chelyabinsk) and OAOMechel (Orenburg) (Kuck, 2009). Norilsk recently began acquiring Niassets in overseas countries, such as Australia, Botswana and SouthAfrica—making it a truly global Ni player.

The 2008 production for the Taimyr and Kola fields are given inTable 1, and represent typical recent production. The Taimyr field isparticularly rich in PGMs, especially palladium, making Norilsk Nickela major global PGM producer. The high grade Taimyr field alone ismore than double the Ni production of Sudbury or Jinchuan. Therecent ore grades for the Taimyr and Kola fields are shown in Fig. 10.Recent reported ore resources are included in Table 4.

Fig. 10. Ore grades at the Taimyr and Kola Peninsula fields (Norilsk, var.-a).

A major (and ongoing) issue with both fields is the extent ofenvironmental contamination, largely due to the Soviet era whenproduction mattered most. Similarly to Sudbury, the major impactshave included heavy metal soil contamination, acid rain linked to SO2

emissions (∼2.1 Mt SO2/year in the 1990s), acidified wetlands,biodiversity impacts and vegetation dieback (Tuovinen et al., 1993;Rautio et al., 1998; Blais et al., 1999; Viventsova et al., 2005; Patonet al., 2006; Boyd et al., 2009). Both fields are considered to be majorsources of mercury contamination in the Arctic (Perkins, 1995;Hylander and Goodsite, 2006). The Kola Peninsula in particular isrenowned for contributing to pollution problems across northernEurope (Norseth, 1994; Perkins, 1995; Rautio et al., 1998).

There is very little known about the recent changes in Russiawith respect to environmental pollution control and remediation ofpast impacts. Norilsk publishes an annual sustainability report(Norilsk, var.-b), in which they acknowledge environmental impacts,especially SO2 emissions, and discuss a range of initiatives at theirTaimyr and Kola fields. Based on reported data from 2003 to 2008,total SO2 emissions remained around 2 Mt SO2/year, with no decliningtrend evident. In 2008, Taimyr and Kola SO2 emissions were 1.92 and0.13 Mt SO2, respectively (Norilsk, var.-b). Norilsk is investing intechnology and infrastructure to address such problems, but itappears they have been less successful to date than their Sudburycounterparts.

7. Australia's nickel: sulfides versus laterites

Australia's Ni industry had a small but uneconomic start throughNi–Cu sulfide mining in the Zeehan field of western Tasmania in the1910s (Mudd, 2007). The presence of economic Ni resources inAustralia was not realized until January 1966 when the Kambalda Nisulfide field of central Western Australia was announced by WesternMining Corporation (Mudd, 2009b). The Kambalda field was inArchaean geology and heralded an entirely new type of Ni sulfidedeposit—that of komatiite-hosted Ni mineralisation (Solomon andGroves, 2000; Hoatson et al., 2006). The Kambalda breakthroughignited a major Ni exploration boom acrossWestern Australia, leadingto numerous Ni sulfide and laterite deposits being rapidly discovered.

Within 18 months WMC had constructed a mine and mill atKambalda, producing the first Ni concentrate by June 1967—capturinga key period of opportunity in the Ni market due protracted strikes atSudbury. A refinery was built at Kwinana in 1970, just south of Perth,with the Kalgoorlie smelter coming on-stream in 1972. The Kambaldafield consists of an abundant number of small to medium sizedeposits, mostly Ni-dominant (2 to 4% Ni) with only minor Cu (∼0.2to 0.3% Cu) and PGMs (see Mudd, 2009b). The long-term trends inproduction and economic resources at Kambalda are shown in Fig. 11.In contrast to Kambalda, low grade but very large disseminated sulfidedeposits were also discovered in centralWestern Australia, such as MtKeith, Honeymoon Well and Yakabindie. Other major Ni mines haveincluded Leinster-Agnew (∼2% Ni) and Mt Keith (∼0.6% Ni), while anumber of small but commonly high grade mines include Black Swan(5 to 9% Ni, now ∼0.8% Ni), Cosmos (5 to 9% Ni), Lake Johnston (∼2 to3% Ni), Forrestania (∼2% Ni), and others. By 2008, Kambalda hadproduced ∼1.3 Mt Ni, followed by Leinster-Agnew at ∼0.75 Mt Ni andMt Keith at ∼0.46 Mt Ni (Mudd, 2009b). Western Australia has beenthe mainstay of Australia's Ni industry.

The Greenvale Ni laterite deposit in northern Queensland,discovered in 1957 but ignored until the Kambalda boom, wasdeveloped and bought on-stream in 1974. The Yabulu refinery atTownsville, based on the Caron process, was constructed to processthe ore (transported by rail). The early years were very difficultfinancially, due to the energy supply being oil and the plantcoming on-stream during the height of the oil crisis. The Greenvalemine closed in 1992, with the smaller Brolga deposit then developed

Fig. 11. Trends in production and economic resources at the Kambalda Ni field, Western Australia.

20 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

(closing by 1995), and Yabulu began to import laterite ore from thewestern Pacific (e.g., New Caledonia, Indonesia, Philippines).

The next major phase of the Ni industry in Australia was thedevelopment of three Ni laterite projects in Western Australia in thelate 1990s, using recent improvements in high pressure acid leachingtechnology. Although there was much hope for a revolution as theCawse, Bulong and Murrin Murrin projects were built over 1998 to2000, the first two were a clear financial and technical failure whileMurrin Murrin barely survived until the recent mining boom camealong (King, 2005; Mudd, 2007, 2009b). Bulong began operations inSeptember 1998 but struggled to reach production targets and designcapacity (10 kt Ni/year), finally collapsing in early 2003 after havingproduced ∼17 kt Ni and 1 kt Co. The Cawse project followed a similarpath, starting in December 1998 but failing to meet expectations—production by the end of 2000 was only ∼10 kt Ni and 1.8 kt Co. Inearly 2001, Cawse was closed due to the dire financial circumstancesof its owner caused by low production and high cash costs. Cawse wassubsequently sold in December 2001 and the plant modified and re-opened to produce a mixed Ni–Co carbonate concentrate. Norilsk

Fig. 12. Trends in the Australian Ni sector—ore grades and open cut

Nickel became the new owner of Cawse in mid-2007, only to close it ayear later as Ni prices collapsed (the lack of gas supplies due toVaranus Island gas explosion was also a critical factor). The MurrinMurrin project took about three years to reach somewhat stableproduction of ∼30 kt Ni/year, due to major problems in equipmentbreakdowns, maintenance issues and corporate and financial pro-blems. An experimental heap leach project was recently closed due tomarket conditions. Although Murrin Murrin had produced 243 kt Niand 16 kt Co by 2008, the project requires a strong focus on operatingconditions and regular maintenance shutdowns.

In contrast to Canada, the dominantminingmethod has been by opencut mining—related to the large low grade projects such as Mt Keith andlaterite projects. The Kambalda field has been mainly mined byunderground methods. The extent of mining method and Australianaverage Ni ore grade are shown in Fig. 12, including economic resourcesover time. As can be observed, Australia's Ni resources continue to growsubstantially, due to the progressive inclusion of lowgrade laterite ores inthe 1990s. As noted by Schodde (2010), although there have been recentNi sulfide discoveries, these effectively only replace that already being

mining (left); economic and sub-economic Ni resources (right).

Fig. 13. Australian Ni production by ore type.

21G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

mined. Australia's economic Ni resources as of 2008 were 26.4 MtNi, with a further 23 Mt Ni in sub-economic resources (GeoscienceAustralia, var.). NewNi sulfide deposits are still being discovered, such asthe Sinclair, Flying FoxandProsperohighgradedeposits aswell as severalin the Kambalda field, with significant prospectivity remaining despitethe overall exploration maturity of central Western Australia andelsewhere (Hoatson et al., 2006;Mamuse et al., 2010).Most Ni resources,however, are being derived from expansion at existing projects plus theconversion of uneconomic deposits to the economic category. Productionover time by ore type is shown in Fig. 13. Recent reported Ni sulfide andlaterite resources at operating projects are given in Tables 4 and 5,respectively. The totals of 5.3 and 3.7 Mt Ni for sulfide and lateriteresources, respectively, compare to Geoscience Australia's estimate of26.4 Mt Ni in economic resources (2008 Edition, Geoscience Australia,var.), showing that many large Ni deposits remain to be developed.

Despite the relative youth of Australia's Ni industry, SO2 emissionswere a major issue with the Kalgoorlie Ni smelter since the goldindustry was also a major SO2 emitter. In the early 1990s, annual SO2

emissions were 275 to 319 kt SO2/year but dropped dramaticallyupon the completion in July 1996 of the sulfuric acid plant to average36 kt SO2/year (WMC, var.). Recent trends in unit SO2, CO2 and energyintensity for the Kalgoorlie Ni smelter are shown in Fig. 14. Significantammonia contamination problems have also developed in ground-water at the Kwinana refinery (WMC, var.).

Fig. 14. Emissions and energy intensity over time for the Kalgoorlie Ni smelter (datafrom WMC, various dates).

8. Miscellaneous countries

Nickel production is increasingly occurring in a range of countries,although mostly from laterite projects in Indonesia, Cuba, Colombia,Brazil, Eastern Europe and others. It is worthmaking some brief pointson specific countries:

Indonesia—Indonesia contains large Ni laterite resources (Table 3),which it has beendeveloping over recent decades to becomeamajorglobal producer (∼190 ktNi/year). The two biggest producers are PTInco on Sorowako Island, Sulawesi Province, which began in 1978and now produces about 73 kt Ni/year (as Ni matte), and PT Antamwhich also operates on Sorowako Island at Pomalaa (producingferronickel) as well as mines on Halmahera Island to the east,producing about 26 kt Ni/year. Some ore is exported by PT Antamand other small mines to Japan, Yabulu in Queensland or China fornickel pig iron production. Amajor issue in Indonesia is the potentialconflict between Ni mining and high value biodiversity areas, oftenconservation and/or popular tourist areas, such as BHP Billiton's GagIsland project (just south-east of Halmahera) or Eramet's Weda Bayproject (also on Halmahera Island).United States (USBoM, var.)—historically, most Ni production wassourced from Cu smelting and refining andwas generally very small(b0.5 kt Ni/year). The only Ni mine to date was the moderate scaleHannaNi laterite project at Riddle, Oregon,which began commercialproduction in 1955. By its closure in 1982, it had produced about295 kt Ni, with initial ore grades around 1.5% Ni but declining to∼0.9% Ni by closure. The Hanna plant was re-opened in late 1989based on processing imported New Caledonian ore, but closedpermanently again in 1993. Rio Tinto discovered a very high gradethough small Ni sulfide deposit, called Eagle, in Michigan in 2003.The resource was recently estimated at 4.5 Mt grading 3.33% Ni and2.77% Cu (150 kt Ni, 125 kt Cu), though development has beendelayed due to weak economic conditions (RT, 2009).Cuba—Cuba remains an important Ni laterite producer, though verylittle is known. In the 1950s, ore grades at the Nicaro project weretypically 1.4% Ni, based on the Caron process (USBoM, var.). Theworld's first HPAL plant was built at Moa Bay in 1959, but wasquickly shut downduring the Cuban Revolution and later re-openedin 1961. Due to lack of materials and expertise,Moa Bay took severalyears to ramp up production. Although Canadian Ni companySherritt International have a 50% ownership of Moa Bay from 1994,no annual process or production statistics are published. Anothermajorproducer is theNicaroproject, basedon theCaronprocess. Thepast decade has seen stable Cuban production around 75 kt Ni/year.

22 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

Heavy metal impacts and accumulation in surrounding marineecosystems have been observed from Ni projects in Cuba (Gonzálezet al., 1997).Colombia—the Cerro Matoso RKEF project began production offerronickel from laterite ore in September 1982. Ore grades havedeclined from 3.2% Ni in 1982, to 2.85% Ni by 1998 and morerecently to ∼2.3% Ni (Kift and Ferrer, 2004). In 2008, ferronickelproduction contained 41.6 kt Ni (Table 2).China—China is a significant consumer and growing Ni producer.Similarly to Cuba, very little process or production statistics arepublished on fields such as Jinchuan or Jilin Jien. It appears thatrecent average ore grades at Jinchuan (2001 to 2005) are similar tothe Taimyr field, being good in Ni at ∼1.3 to 1.8% Ni and increasingin Cu at ∼1.3 to 3.3% Cu (JGL, 2009). Given that economic resourcesare still very substantive (Table 4), China's Ni production looks setto continue to grow given ongoing expansion plans. A surprisingoutcome of the recent mining boomwas China's rapidly increasingproduction of Ni pig iron (based on imported laterite ore mixedwith iron ore to produce a ‘nickelliferous steel’), though this doesappear to be expensive given its just as rapid contraction in 2009.Recent reviews of the Chinese Ni industry are given by Donghe(2009) and Guo (2009), with approximate production andresource statistics given in Tables 1 and 4, respectively.Southern Africa—Almost all of South Africa's Ni production hasbeen a by-product of its platinum group metals sector, with 2008production being 46.4 kt Ni (plus 13.5 kt Cu and 277 t PGMs,Table 1; based on respective company annual reports, see Glaisterand Mudd, 2010). There are however, a number of low grade Ni–Cu–PGM sulfide mines and/or smelters, namely Tati in Botswana,Bindura in Zimbabwe and Nkomati in South Africa. Production andresource statistics are given in Tables 1 and 4, respectively.

9. Environmental sustainability aspects of sulfides versus laterites

There are a number of key environmental themes which haveemerged from this review and research on major trends in Ni miningand production: (i) economic resources over time; (ii) declining oregrades; (iii) increasing proportion of Ni laterites; (iv) the role ofprocessing technology; and (v) environmental impacts associatedwith Ni production.

For the first half of the 20th Century, the location of economic Niresources was confined almost entirely to Canada and New Caledonia.By the middle of the century, however, with the growing sulfideproduction from Russia and Australia, combined with rapidly growinglaterite resources around theworld, the extent of economic resources isless of concern. New Ni deposits continue to be found, as noted forCanada, the USA and Australia. Many laterite resources continue toexpand at operating projects (e.g., Goro and Sorowako), as well asdiscoveries nearby (e.g., Sulawesi project near Sorowako). As shown forAustralia and Inco and Falconbridge in Canada, the long-term trend foreconomic Ni resources over time is generally increasing (though howlong this trend can continue into the future is entirely speculative).Based on an incomplete survey (Tables 4 and 5), Ni sulfide and lateriteresources at operatingprojects are at least 42 and 33MtNi, respectively.At some 220 Mt of potentially economic resources (Table 3), this givesalmost a centuryof production at 4.5%growthper year (see Fig. 2). A keyassumption of ‘peak oil’ is that economic resources are finite, and thatweare fast approaching theexhaustionof economic resources. In testingthis assumption for Ni, it can easily be shown to be incorrect. From asustainability perspective, the extent of global economic Ni resources istherefore not a significant challenge—and any ‘peak’ in future Niproduction will almost certainly not be caused by a lack of economicmineral resources.

The long-termdecline in ore grades occurredmostly throughout thefirst half of the 20th Century, with Sudbury being relatively stable inrecent decades. The introduction of low grade laterite and disseminatedsulfide ores, however, was a key factor in the decline of Australia'saverage ore grade in themid-1990s. Based on Tables 1 and 4, the Taimyrfield will gradually decline since ore resources are lower than presentmilling (0.78 vs. 1.56% Ni), although the Kola field will be stable. If theexpected growth in future demand is met by ongoing sulfide mining,then thiswill require the expansion of existing and development of newlowgrade projects, since they invariably contain largerNi tonnages thanhigher grade but commonly smaller deposits (see Table 4). Whilelaterite deposits are typically now higher grade than their sulfidecounterparts (comparing Tables 1 and 2), the rapid growth in this Nisub-sector is placing pressure on higher grade deposits and forcingdevelopment of lower grade resources, typified by the long-termdecline in New Caledonia and Cerro Matoso. Overall, there is significantdownward pressure on average Ni ore grades, though this is moresignificant for sulfides than laterites.

As shown in Fig. 3, there has been a steadily increasing proportion oflaterite-derived Ni production since 1952. By 2007, Ni laterite appears tohave overtaken Ni sulfide (856.5 vs. 817.2 kt Ni, respectively), althoughgiven thewide array of project closures in 2008, it is unclearwhether thiswill be maintained in the short term. Based on existing producers anddeveloping and planned projects, the trend towards increasing Ni lateritewill eventually continue, although sulfide will continue to be a major Nisource for some decades (mainly Russia, Canada and Australia).

The development and uptake of processing technology has beencritical to the long-term growth of the Ni industry, for both the sulfideand laterite sectors (Simons, 1988). In Canada, the advancement of newsmelting and refining technologies, combined with new productdevelopment, were crucial to the success of the Sudbury Ni–Cu field(Marcuson and Díaz, 2007). This ethos of innovation helped to cementCanada's early technological lead in the global Ni industry, an area inwhich it remains strong. In parallel, there has been continual refinementof technology for processing Ni laterites, especially in the latter 20thCentury. Over time, the scale, power and efficiencies for RKEF plantshave improved considerably (Walker et al., 2009), allowing substantialproject scales to now be achieved at Sorowako, Doniambo and CerroMatoso (see Table 2). The recent emergence of HPAL as the preferredtechnology for most new laterite projects, based on committed andplanned projects (see Taylor, 2007; Wedderburn, 2009), is furtherevidence of the critical role of technology in Ni production, although itremains uncertain whether HPAL can ever catch up to RKEF production.

A new technology for Ni production which has recently emerged—or perhaps old technology newly applied to Ni—is that of heapleaching, including biological activation. Most heap leach projects aretargeted at laterites, such as Çaldağ in Turkey by European Nickel(Purkiss, 2010) and Murrin Murrin in Australia (Johnston, 2007), butsome are also being developed for sulfides, such as the Talvivaara Ni–Zn heap bioleaching project in Finland began commercial productionin early 2009 (Talvivaara, 2010). Heap leaching is economicallyattractive since it has considerably lower capital costs than existingRKEF or HPAL plant types and lower energy requirements, but thereremains significant commercial and technical uncertainty regardingore chemistry and leaching dynamics, especially differences betweendeposits (Taylor, 2009; Wedderburn, 2009).

The final key theme associated with the global Ni industry is theextent of environmental impacts. As discussed for Canada and Russiain particular, the historic impacts of Ni sulfide smelting and refiningcreated a lasting legacy of widespread pollution. Canada has evidentlyimproved its practices and is continuing to lower net environmentalimpacts around Sudbury, leading to the ongoing recovery of lakes andecosystems. Conversely, very little is known about Russian impactsand their management.

A recent environmental development in Europe is the 2006 ‘REACH’legislation—which requires companies tobe responsible for thepollutants

Table 6Environmental sustainability metrics of major Ni mines /fields—average of recent years±standard deviation (number of data points in brackets, v—variable) (data updated fromMudd, 2009a).

Operation %Ni±Cu±Co GJ/t metal kL/t metal t CO2/t metal t SO2/t metal

Inco Sudbury (MCSR) (5) 2.92±0.23 81.5±16 Not reported 4.77±16a 1.13±0.08Thompson (MCSR) (5) 2.11±0.29 82.8±3.9 Not reported 0.86±0.14a 4.01±0.23Xstrata Canada (MCS) (5) 2.68±0.34 77.1±7.7 Not reported 6.33±1.13 0.45±0.06Mt Keith (MC) (9) 0.62±0.03 61.3±5.0 231±22 8.49±1.1 0.005±0.006Leinster (MC) (9) 1.97±0.07 25.8±6.8 62.0±10 (13) 3.72±0.78 (10) 0.002±0.002Kambaldab (MC) (5) 3.42±0.36 31.3±4.3 31.6±7.2 4.62±0.8 0.007±0.008Kalgoorlie (S) (v) – 31.3±3.7 (10) 6.35±1.2 (14) 3.50±0.71 (13) 0.80±1.2 (9)Kwinana (R) (v) – 62.0±11 (10) 12.9±4.4 (14) 5.56±1.2 (13) 0.004±0.006 (9)Taimyr (MCSR) (v) 4.63±0.23 (9) 196±43.3 (6) 714±307 (6) Not reported 3.46±0.11 (6)Kola (MCSR) (v) 0.96±0.06 (9) 226±22.5 (2) 2,675±8 (2) Not reported 2.49±0.20 (3)Murrin Murrin (MCSR) (v) 1.44±0.06 (8) 275±54 (4) 322±30 (5) 25.5±4.6 (2) 0.095±0.070 (9)Sorowako (MCS) (6) 1.85±0.12 453±19 Not reported 24.9±2.1 1.14±0.13Doniambo (MCS) (v) ∼2.0 Not reported 22.7±1.0 (6) 30.7±2.2 (6) 0.36±0.07 (5)Cerro Matoso (MCS) (v) Not reported 290±35 (3) 1,308±54 (3) ∼30±0.6 (2) 0.010±0.015 (2)Yabulu (R) (v) Not reported 572±42 (5) 215±13 (3) 45.8±1.4 (5) Not reported

a Over 1998 to 2002, unit Inco's global unit CO2 costs were 4.3 to 4.9 t CO2/t metal. M–C–S–R: Mine, Concentrator, Smelter, Refinery.b Only data up to 2000 is included since data from 2001 clearly shows effects of WMC selling mines and operating the Kambalda mill only.

23G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

in their products, and ensure they are below certain threshold levels toprotect public health and the environment (see Minns, 2008). Given thetoxicity issues associatedwithNi production, especially heavymetals andrisks such as cancer, the REACH legislation represents a significant issuefor the global Ni industry (Taylor, 2007).

The most critical area of growing environmental interest is that ofenergy consumption and its associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-sions (Kemp and Wiseman, 2004)—due to the link between GHG's andanthropogenic climate change (IPCC, 2007). Historically, Ni lateriteshave longbeen known to bemore energy intensive to process than theirsulfide cousins, a major factor in their traditionally higher productioncost (especially if themain energy sourcewas oil) (Kemp andWiseman,2004; Marcuson et al., 2009). Recently, the energy, water and GHGemissions data given by Ni companies in their annual sustainabilityreporting were studied by Mudd (2009a), with the results given inTable 6 and shown in Fig. 15. The higher energy and GHG intensity oflaterite over sulfide is evident, with sulfide commonly being less than100 GJ/t metal—compared to laterite projects with unit energy costsbetween 252 to 572 GJ/t metal. Most projects analyzed show variableenergy performance over time, with many arguably even showinggradual increases in unit energy costs—only theKwinana refinery showsa consistent long-term decline in unit energy costs. All sulfide projectsrelease GHG's less than 10 t CO2−e/t metal compared to laterite projectswhich range from 25 to 46 t CO2−e/t metal. Some projects have similarunit energy costs but are considerably higher in unit GHG costs,demonstrating the importance of understanding the GHG intensity ofdifferent energy sources (e.g., hydroelectricity versus fossil fuels).

Finally, SO2 emissions are highly variable but, rather surprisingly,are not simply related to ore type alone. For example, the average unitSO2 emissions for the Sudbury sulfide and Sorowako lateriteoperations are 1.13 and 1.12 t SO2/year, respectively (Table 6). Thissuggests that the extent of pollution control, such as capture andconversion to sulfuric acid, is likely to be the major aspect controllingunit SO2 emissions and not simply ore type. Formany projects, there isevidence of a decline in unit SO2 emissions over time (e.g., KalgoorlieNi smelter, Fig. 14), suggesting that efforts at reducing pollution canbe effective.

These environmental aspects are critical to understand given thecurrent international debate on greenhouse gas emissions, climatechange and energy production and consumption. Although theCopenhagen climate summit in December 2009 failed to reach globalconsensus and agreement on GHG emissions reduction plans, thetargets being widely discussed are of the order of 50 to 80% reductionfrom 2000 levels by 2050. As noted by Eckelman (2010), energy and

GHG intensity are ore grade dependent—as ore grades decline this leadsto significantly increasing unit intensities. Accounting for energy, GHGemissions and other environmental (and social) aspects is now a corearea of corporate governance, strategy and planning, and is oftencommunicated publicly through annual sustainability reports (Mudd,2009c). Nickel production has significant exposure to emerging GHGemissions trading systems (or carbon taxes in somenations),whichwillinevitably lead to higher unit costs of production using presenttechnology with no changes in efficiency or energy sources such asfossil fuels.

The ongoing impacts of these global reforms to energy and GHGintensive industries is difficult topredict, but in the short tomedium termit will certainly favor enterprises that are based on low GHG intensityenergy sources such as hydroelectricity or other renewable energysystems. In the longer term, there is a fundamental need for technologywhich reduces the energy and GHG intensity of Ni production to meetglobal needs with respect to issues such as climate change. As noted byMarcuson et al. (2009) in discussing the environmental constraints (suchas energy,wastes, pollution, etc.)which already affect theNi industry butwill intensify in the coming decades: “The past we knew is obsolete; thefuture beckons” (p. 656). In otherwords, future technologymust not onlysolve metallurgical problems but do so at substantively lower environ-mental costs—a pattern which has generally not prevailed in the past.Whether major initiatives in recycling or improved efficiency of use willemerge as valuable solutions remains to be seen, given the commonlydispersive uses for Ni (Reck et al., 2008). Technology and processinnovation will, without doubt, continue to evolve and remain pivotal tothe global Ni industry—but now technology must now explicitly addressenvironmental aswell as economic and process factors in order to ensureviability. This remains adaunting challenge to all in theglobalNi industry.

10. Conclusions

This paper investigated and synthesized awide rangeof historical dataon trends inNimining, placing these in contextwith environmental issuesand the sustainabilityofNiproduction. TheNi industryhas seena constantevolution since its emergence in the late 19th Century, starting with Nilaterite from New Caledonia, then the dominance of Sudbury Ni–Cusulfide throughout most of the 20th Century, with competition fromRussian and Australian sulfides and a range of laterite producers by thedawn of the 21st Century. Smelting and refining technology has beencontinually developed and improved, in parallel with major countriessuch as Canada and New Caledonia, allowing continual growth in Niproduction. Economic resources continued to expand significantly

Fig. 15. Unit energy (top left) and greenhouse gas emissions (top right) intensity versus ore grades; unit GHG emissions versus energy intensity (bottom) (data updated fromMudd,2009a).

24 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

throughout the latter20thCentury, therebysuggesting that ‘peakNi’ is nota realistic concept (compared to say peak oil). Long-term declines in oregrades are evident in all countries analyzed. The historical pattern ofeconomic growth in the Ni industry, however, has come at significantenvironmental costs, such as acid rain, heavy metal soil contamination,biodiversity and water resources impacts, greenhouse gas emissions andclimate change. The processing of laterite ores is clearly more resourceintensive than sulfides, especially in unit energy and greenhouse gasemissions intensities. Given that such processing costs are inverselyrelated to ore grades, and that the proportion of laterites is increasing anddemand continues to grow, the Ni industry is particularly exposed topotential trading schemes for greenhouse gas emissions (or carbon taxes),especiallywhere energy supplies are from fossil fuels. In thismanner, thisis where the real basis for the concept of ‘peak Ni’may emerge—wherebyenergy and environmental costs constrain future Ni mine production andnot merely the extent of remaining economic resources. Whether thisbegins to favor recycling is difficult to predict. New Ni technologies areneeded to explicitly address environmental factors, as well as traditionalmetallurgical problems, in order to ensure industry viability. The data,trends and issues synthesized in this paper therefore provide a compellingpicture of the global Ni industry, and should help to inform currentresearch and policy directions.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are due toBillMcCutcheon (Natural Resources Canada)and Lori Janower (Manitoba Innovation, Energy andMines) for providingnumerous reports and information. Xstrata Canadaprovided an extensivehistorical data set for Falconbridge (many thanks). My sabbatical host atthe University of Auckland, Assoc. Prof. Carol Boyle, deserves thanks forher encouragement and commitment to sustainability research. AnthonyJessup deserves recognition for his work on the sustainability metrics. Ifanyone is interested in the data sets, I am only too happy to share.

References

ABARE, 2009. Australian commodity statistics 2009. Australian Bureau of Agriculturaland Resource Economics (ABARE), Canberra, ACT. 367 pp.

Adamo, P., Dudka, S., Wilson, M.J., McHardy, W.J., 1996. Chemical and mineralogicalforms of Cu and Ni in contaminated soils from the Sudbury mining and smeltingregion, Canada. Environmental Pollution 91, 11–19.

Ali, S.H., Grewal, A.S., 2006. The ecology and economy of indigenous resistance:divergent perspectives on mining in New Caledonia. The Contemporary Pacific 18,361–392.

Barlow, A.E., 1907. Origin, geological relations and composition of the nickel and copperdeposits of the Sudbury mining district, Ontario, Canada. Geological Survey ofCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 244 pp.

25G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

Barnett, S., 2010. Nickel—a key material for innovation in a sustainable future. 2nd EuroNickel Conference. Informa Pty Ltd, London, UK. 32 pp.

Blais, J.M., Duff, K.E., Laing, T.E., Smol, J.P., 1999. Regional contamination in lakes fromthe Noril'sk region in Siberia, Russia. Water Air and Soil Pollution 110, 389–404.

Boyd, R., Barnes, S.-J., De Caritat, P., Chekushin, V.A., Melezhik, V.A., Reimann, C.,Zientek, M.L., 2009. Emissions from the copper–nickel industry on the KolaPeninsula and at Noril'sk, Russia. Atmospheric Environment 43, 1474–1480.

Bray, M., 1994. Inco's petsamo venture, 1933–1945: an incident in Canadian, British,Finnish and Soviet relations. International Journal of Canadian Studies 9, 173–194.

Cavallo, A.J., 2004. Hubbert's petroleumproductionmodel: an evaluation and implicationsforworld oil production forecasts. Natural Resources Research 13, 211–221.

CDBS, var.-a. Annual report on the mineral production of Canada. Mining, Metallurgicaland Chemical Branch, Canadian Dominion Bureau of Statistics (CDBS), Years 1921to 1946, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

CDBS, var.-b. Mineral statistics of Canada. Mining, Metallurgical and Chemical Section,Canadian Dominion Bureau of Statistics (CDBS), Years 1947 to 1973, Ottawa, Ontario,Canada.

CDM, var.-a. Annual report on the mineral production of Canada. Mines Branch, CanadianDepartment of Mines (CDM), Years 1911 to 1920, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

CDM, var.-b. The Canadian mineral industry. Mines Branch, Canadian Department ofMines (CDM), Years 1934 to 1938, 1944 to 1949, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Coleman, A.P., 1913. The nickel industry: with special reference to the Sudbury region,Ontario. Mines Branch, Canadian Department of Mines, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.206 pp.

Crawford, G.A., 1995. Environmental improvements by the mining industry in theSudbury basin of Canada. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 52, 267–284.

Dalvi, A.D., Bacon, W.G., Osborne, R.C., 2004. The past and the future of nickel laterites.PDAC 2004 International Convention. Prospectors and Developers Association ofCanada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 27 pp.

Donghe, P., 2009. Technology development in Jilin Jien Nickel Industry Co Ltd. In: Liu, J.,Peacey, J., Barati, M., Kashani-Nejad, S., Davis, B. (Eds.), International Symposium onPyrometallurgy of Nickel and Cobalt 2009: 48th CIM Annual Conference ofMetallurgists. Metallurgical Society, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy andPetroleum, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, pp. 131–135.

Dudka, S., Ponce-Hernandez, R., Hutchinson, T.C., 1995. Current level of total elementconcentrations in the surface layer of Sudbury's soils. Science of the TotalEnvironment 162, 161–171.

Eckelman, M.J., 2010. Facility-level energy and greenhouse gas life-cycle assessment ofthe global nickel industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54, 256–266.

Elias, M., 2002. Nickel laterite deposits—geological overview, resources and exploita-tion. In: Cooke, D.R., Pongratz, J. (Eds.), Giant ore deposits: charatceristics, genesisand exploration. Centre for Ore Deposit Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart,TAS, pp. 205–220.

Eramet, 2009. Annual reference document 2008. Eramet Group, April 2009, Paris,France, www.eramet.fr.

Eramet, 2010. Eramet—a global company: History. Eramet Ltd, Accessed 13 January 2010,Paris, France, www.eramet.fr/us/Site/Template/T1.aspx?SELECTID=47&ID=54.

Falconbridge, var. Annual report. Falconbridge Ltd (now Xstrata Ltd, www.xstrata.com), Years 1996 to 2005, Toronto, Canada.

Fraser, H.S., 1985. A Journey North: the Great Thompson Nickel Discovery. Inco Ltd,Toronto, Canada. 388 pp.

GA, var. Australia's identified mineral resources. Geoscience Australia (GA), Years 1999to 2008, Canberra, ACT.

Glaister, B.J., Mudd, G.M., 2010. The environmental costs of platinum-pgm mining andsustainability: is the glass half-full or half-empty?Minerals Engineering 23, 438–450.

GNHSC, var. Reporton theminingandminerals statistics of Canada. Geological andNaturalHistory Survey of Canada (GNHSC), Years 1886 to 1905, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

González, H., Ramírez, M., Torres, I., 1997. Impact of nickel mining and metallurgicalactivities on the distribution of heavy metals in sediments of Levisa, Cabonico andNipe Bays, Cuba. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 19, 57–62.

Guo, X.J., 2009. Chinese nickel industry—projects, production and technology. In: Liu, J.,Peacey, J., Barati, M., Kashani-Nejad, S., Davis, B. (Eds.), International Symposium onPyrometallurgy of Nickel and Cobalt 2009: 48th CIM Annual Conference ofMetallurgists. Metallurgical Society, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy andPetroleum, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, pp. 3–21.

Habashi, F., 2009. A history of nickel. In: Liu, J., Peacey, J., Barati, M., Kashani-Nejad, S.,Davis, B. (Eds.), International Symposium on Pyrometallurgy of Nickel and Cobalt2009: 48th CIM Annual Conference of Metallurgists. Metallurgical Society,Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada,pp. 77–98.

Hoatson, D.M., Jaireth, S., Jaques, A.L., 2006. Nickel sulfide deposits in Australia:characteristics, resources and potential. Ore Geology Reviews 29, 177–241.

Howard-White, F.B., 1963. Nickel—an historical review. Methuen and Co, London, UK.350 pp.

Hylander, L.D., Goodsite, M.E., 2006. Environmental costs of mercury pollution. Scienceof the Total Environment 368, 352–370.

Inco, 1920. The mining and smelting operations of the International Nickel Company ofCanada, Limited. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 82 pp.

Inco, 2006. Annual sustainability report 2005. Inco Ltd (now Vale Inco Ltd, www.vale.com), Toronto, Canada.

Inco, var. Annual report. Inco Ltd (now Vale Inco Ltd, www.vale.com), Years 1996 to2005, Toronto, Canada.

IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis—summary for policy-makers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland.February.

ISEE, 2008. Bilan économique et social 2007. Institut de la Statistique et des ÉtudesÉconomique (ISEE), Noumea, Nouvelle-Calédonie. 53 pp.

JGL, 2009. Jinchuan Group Ltd—overview. Jinchuan Group Ltd (JGL), Accessed 10December 2009, Jinchang, China, www.jnmc.com.

Johnston, P., 2007. Minara Resources Ltd—an overview. Global Mining and MaterialsConference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 26 pp.

Keller, W., Heneberry, J.H., Gunn, J.M., 1998. Effects of emission reductions from theSudbury smelters on the recovery of acid- and metal-damaged lakes. Journal ofAquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6, 189–198.

Kelly, T.D.,Matos, G.R., Buckingham,D.A., DiFrancesco, C.A., Porter, K.E., Berry, C., Crane,M.,Goonan, T., Sznopek, J., 2009. Historical statistics for mineral and materialcommodities in the United States. US Geological Survey, Data Series 140 (SupersedesOpen-File Report 01-006), Version 3.0 (Online Only), Accessed 12 February 2010,Reston, Virginia, USA, minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ (Last updated 14-Jan-2010).

Kemp, D.J., Wiseman, M., 2004. The implications of sustainability in developing a nickellaterite project. In: Imrie, W.P., Lane, D.M. (Eds.), International Laterite NickelSymposium—2004. The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Charlotte, NorthCarolina, USA, pp. 45–53.

Kift, J.R., Ferrer, C.E., 2004. A historical overview of the Cerro Matoso operation from1980 to 2003. In: Imrie, W.P., Lane, D.M. (Eds.), International Laterite NickelSymposium—2004. The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Charlotte, NorthCarolina, USA, pp. 719–731.

King, M.G., 2005. Nickel laterite technology—finally a new dawn? JOM 57, 35–39.Kuck, P.H., 2009. 2007 Minerals Yearbook—Nickel (Advance Release). US Geological

Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA. October 2009, 27 pp.Li, J.C., 2007. China's rising demand for minerals and emerging global norms and

practices in the mining industry. Minerals and Energy—Raw Materials Report 22,105–126.

Mamuse, A., Beresford, S., Porwal, A., Kreuzer, O., 2010. Assessment of undiscoverednickel sulphide resources, Kalgoorlie terrane, Western Australia—part 1. Depositand endowment density models. Ore Geology Reviews 37, 141–157.

Marcuson, S.W., Díaz, C.M., 2007. The changing Canadian nickel smelting landscape—late 19th century to early 21st century. CanadianMetallurgical Quarterly 46, 33–46.

Marcuson, S.W., Hooper, J., Osborne, R.C., Chow, K., Burchell, J., 2009. Sustainability innickel projects: 50 years of experience at Vale Inco. In: Liu, J., Peacey, J., Barati, M.,Kashani-Nejad, S., Davis, B. (Eds.), International Symposium on Pyrometallurgy ofNickel and Cobalt 2009: 48th CIM Annual Conference of Metallurgists. Metallur-gical Society, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Sudbury,Ontario, Canada, pp. 641–658.

Minns, A.J. (Ed.), 2008. Risk assessment and management. Leading practice sustainabledevelopment program for the mining industry. Commonwealth Department ofIndustry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra, ACT. 95 pp.

Mohr, S.H., Evans, G.M., 2007. Model proposed for world conventional, unconventionalgas. Oil and Gas Journal 105, 46–51 (17 Dec 2007).

Mudd, G.M., 2007. An analysis of historic production trends in Australian base metalmining. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 227–261.

Mudd, G.M., 2009a. Nickel sulfide versus laterite: the hard sustainability challengeremains. In: Liu, J., Peacey, J., Barati, M., Kashani-Nejad, S., Davis, B. (Eds.),International Symposium on Pyrometallurgy of Nickel and Cobalt 2009: 48th CIMAnnual Conference of Metallurgists. Metallurgical Society, Canadian Institute ofMining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, pp. 23–32.

Mudd, G.M., 2009b. The sustainability of mining in Australia: key production trends andtheir environmental implications for the future. Department of Civil Engineering,Monash University and Mineral Policy Institute, Melbourne, VIC. October 2007—Revised April 2009, 277 pp.

Mudd, G.M., 2009c. Sustainability reporting and mining—an assessment of the state ofplay for environmental indicators. SDIMI 2009—Sustainable Development Indica-tors in the Minerals Industry Conference. Australasian Institute of Mining andMetallurgy, Gold Coast, Queensland, pp. 377–391.

Naldrett, A.J., 2002. Requirements for forming giant Ni–Cu sulfide deposits. In: Cooke,D.R., Pongratz, J. (Eds.), Giant Ore Deposits: Charactleristics, Genesis andExploration. Centre for Ore Deposit Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart,TAS, pp. 195–204.

Norilsk, var.-a. Annual report. OJSC MMC Norilsk Nickel, Years 1999 to 2008, Moscow,Russia.

Norilsk, var.-b. Annual social report. OJSC MMC Norilsk Nickel, Years 2003/04 to 2008,Moscow, Russia.

Norseth, T., 1994. Environmental pollution around nickel smelters in the Kola Peninsula(Russia). Science of the Total Environment 148, 103–108.

NRC, var. Canadian minerals yearbook. Mining Sector, Natural Resources Canada (NRC),Years 1944 to 2009, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

OBM, var. Annual report of the Bureau of Mines. Ontario Bureau of Mines (OBM), Years1891 to 1919, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

ODM, var. Annual report of the Department of Mines. Ontario Department of Mines(ODM), Years 1920 to 1970, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Paton, G.I., Viventsova, E., Kumpene, J., Wilson, M.J., Weitz, H.J., Dawson, J.J.C., 2006. Anecotoxicity assessment of contaminated forest soils from the Kola Peninsula.Science of the Total Environment 355, 106–117.

Perkins, P.E., 1995. An overview of international institutional mechanisms for environ-mentalmanagementwith reference to arctic pollution. Science of the Total Environment160–161, 849–857.

Purkiss, S., 2010. Commercialising heap leach technology for nickel laterites. 2nd EuroNickel Conference. Informa, London, UK. 18 pp.

Rautio, P., Huttunen, S., Lamppu, J., 1998. Effects of sulphur and heavy metal depositionon foliar chemistry of scots pines in Finnish Lapland and on the Kola Peninsula.Chemosphere 36, 979–984.

26 G.M. Mudd / Ore Geology Reviews 38 (2010) 9–26

Reck, B.K., Müller, D.B., Rostkowski, K., Graedel, T.E., 2008. Anthropogenic nickel cycle:insights into use, trade, and recycling. Environmental Science and Technology 42,3394–3400.

Robitaille, J.-F., Linley, R.D., 2006. Structure of forests used by small mammals in theindustrially damaged landscape of Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Forest Ecology andManagement 225, 160–167.

RONC, 1917. Report of the Royal Ontario Nickel Commission. Royal Ontario NickelCommission (RONC), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 600 pp.

RT, 2009. Annual report 2008. Rio Tinto Ltd/Plc (RT), London, UK/Melbourne, Victoria,Australia. 184 pp.

Schmitz, C.J., 1979. World non-ferrous metal production and prices, 1700–1976. FrankCass and Co, London, UK. 432 pp.

Schodde,R., 2010. Thedecliningdiscovery rate—what is the real story?AMIRA International's8th Exploration Managers Conference. AMIRA, Yarra Valley, Victoria. 31 pp.

Simons, C.S., 1988. The production of nickel: extractive metallurgy—past, present andfuture. In: Tyroler, G.P., Landolt, C.A. (Eds.), Symposium on the Extractive Metallurgyof Nickel and Cobalt. The Metallurgical Society, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pp. 91–134.

Solomon, M., Groves, D.I., 2000. The geology and origin of Australia's mineral deposits.Centre for Ore Deposit Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS. 1002 pp.

Stadelhofer, J.W., Kaiser, H.-P., Wedig, M.J., 2009. Nickel mining and production asophisticated task. World of Metallurgy—Erzmetall 62, 100–108.

Talvivaara, 2010. An overview of Talvivaara operations. 2nd Euro Nickel Conference.Informa, London, UK. 21 pp.

Taylor, A., 2007. Nickel processing technology 10 years on fromCawse, Bulong andMurrinMurrin. In: Taylor, A. (Ed.), ALTA Ni/Co 2007–12th Nickel/Cobalt Conference. ALTAMetallurgical Srrvices, Perth, Western Australia. 46 pp.

Taylor, A., 2009. Trends in nickel-cobalt processing. In: Taylor, A. (Ed.), ALTA Ni/Co2009-14th Nickel/Cobalt Conference. ALTA Metallurgical Srrvices, Perth, WesternAustralia. 30 pp.

Tsoskounoglou, M., Ayerides, G., Tritopoulou, E., 2008. The end of cheap oil: currentstatus and prospects. Energy Policy 36, 3797–3806.

Tuovinen, J.-P., Laurila, T., Lättilä, H., Ryaboshapko, A., Brukhanov, P., Korolev, S., 1993.Impact of the sulphur dioxide sources in the Kola Peninsula on air quality innorthernmost Europe. Atmospheric Environment 27, 1379–1395.

USBoM, var. Minerals Yearbook. US Bureau of Mines (USBoM), Years 1933 to 1993, USA.USGS, var.-a. Minerals commodity summaries. US Geological Survey (USGS), Years

1996 to 2009, Reston, Virginia, USA.USGS, var.-b. Minerals yearbook. US Geological Survey (USGS), Years 1994 to 2008,

Reston, Virginia, USA.Vale, var. Annual report (form 20-f). Vale SA, Years 2006 to 2009, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.Viventsova, E., Kumpiene, J., Gunneriusson, L., Holmgren, A., 2005. Changes in soil

organic matter composition and quantity with distance to a nickel smelter—a casestudy on the Kola Peninsula, nw Russia. Geoderma 127, 216–226.

Walker, C., Kashani-Nejad, S., Dalvi, A.D., Voermann, N., Candy, I.M., Wasmund, B., 2009.Nickel laterite rotary kiln-electric furnace plant of the future. In: Liu, J., Peacey, J.,Barati, M., Kashani-Nejad, S., Davis, B. (Eds.), International Symposium onPyrometallurgy of Nickel and Cobalt 2009: 48th CIM Annual Conference ofMetallurgists. Metallurgical Society, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy andPetroleum, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, pp. 33–50.

Warner, A.E.M., Díaz, C.M., Dalvi, A.D., Mackey, P.J., Tarasov, A.V., 2006. JOM worldnonferrous smelter survey, part iii: nickel-laterite. JOM 58, 11–20.

Wedderburn, B., 2009. Nickel laterite processing—a shift toward heap leaching. In:Taylor, A. (Ed.), ALTA Ni/Co 2009-14th Nickel/Cobalt Conference. ALTA Metallur-gical Srrvices, Perth, Western Australia. 68 pp.

WMC, var. Annual environmental progress / sustainability report. Western MiningCorporation Ltd (WMC), Years 1995 to 2004, Melbourne, VIC.

Xstrata, var. Annual report. Xstrata Plc, Years 2002 to 2009, Zug, Switzerland.