Agglomeration and column leaching behaviour of nickel laterite ores: effect
of ore mineralogy and particle size distribution
Ataollah Nosrati, Keith Quast, Danfeng Xu, William Skinner, David J.
Robinson, Jonas Addai-Mensah
PII:
DOI:
Reference:

S0304-386X(14)00060-7
doi: 10.1016/j.hydromet.2014.03.004
HYDROM 3854

To appear in:

Hydrometallurgy

Received date:
Revised date:
Accepted date:

28 August 2013
5 March 2014
6 March 2014

Please cite this article as: Nosrati, Ataollah, Quast, Keith, Xu, Danfeng, Skinner,
William, Robinson, David J., Addai-Mensah, Jonas, Agglomeration and column leaching
behaviour of nickel laterite ores: eect of ore mineralogy and particle size distribution,
Hydrometallurgy (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.hydromet.2014.03.004

This is a PDF le of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its nal form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could aect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Agglomeration and column leaching behaviour of nickel laterite ores: effect

of ore mineralogy and particle size distribution

SC
R

IP

Ataollah Nosrati1*, Keith Quast1, Danfeng Xu1, William Skinner1, David J. Robinson2,
Jonas Addai-Mensah1
1

NU

Ian Wark Research Institute, University of South Australia

Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia
2
CSIRO Minerals Down Under National Research Flagship Australian Minerals Research
Centre, PO Box 7229, Karawara W.A. 6152, Australia

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

*Corresponding author: Ataollah.nosrati@unisa.edu.au

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
Nickel (Ni) laterites account for about 60-70% of the worlds nickel mineralization. The
processing of low grade (e.g., 1% Ni) laterite ores is favoured by the use of the more cost-

effective hydrometallurgical techniques (e.g., atmospheric agitated tank or heap leaching)

IP

instead of smelting. Application of heap leaching which boasts of low capital and operating
expenditures, however, is very limited due to intractable challenges such as poor heap

SC
R

porosity/permeability associated with most laterite feed ores. Feed particles agglomeration
into robust and porous agglomerates of right size range enables permeable and geotechnically
stable bed required for successful heap leaching to be constructed. In this paper, several basic

NU

and applied studies of the agglomeration and column leaching behaviour of real Ni laterite
ores are reported. The work involved isothermal, batch agglomeration tests carried out to

MA

produce 5 40 mm agglomerates which were characterized and subjected to >100 days of

laboratory column leaching. The effect of feed ore characteristics (e.g., mineralogy/
chemistry and particle size distribution) on agglomeration behaviour and agglomerates

column leaching behaviour was investigated through several characterization techniques

TE

including agglomerate size, compressive strength, 3D micro-structure analyses and laboratory

column leaching tests. Links between feed mineralogy/chemistry and size, binder dosage,

CE
P

agglomeration behaviour, agglomerate properties and leaching behaviour are established. The
significance of the findings to Ni laterite plant agglomeration for enhanced heap leaching is
discussed.

AC

Keywords: Ni laterite; Agglomeration; Column leaching; Mineralogy; Particle size

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Oxley et

Dhawan et al., 2013 Steemson and Smith, 2009;

AC

CE
P

Bouffard

TE

al., 2007; Steemson and Smith, 2009;

MA

NU

SC
R

IP

1. Introduction

Readett and Fox, 2009/2010; Steemson

and Smith, 2009; Oxley et al., 2007

Readett and Fox, 2010

agglomerate

Long-term column leaching test is widely used to simulate the HL process and determine
value metal recovery, leaching rate, and reagent requirements (Agatzini-Leonardou and
Dimaki, 1994; Stamboliadis et al., 2004; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008,2009; Quast et al.,
2013). Despite some limitations and differences between column and real HL conditions
(e.g., more compactness and less solution-solid contact in real heap compared with column)
3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the long history of industrial operation of this technique in nickel, copper, gold and uranium
mines has proved the column reactors to be reasonably good simulators of heaps of similar
height (Agatzini-Leonardou and Dimaki, 1994; Stamboliadis et al., 2004; Dhawan, et al.,

2013; Hernandez et al., 2003; Elliot et al., 2009; Kyle, 2010; Watling et al., 2010,2011).

IP

Hence, undertaking laboratory column leaching studies in tandem with agglomeration studies
is essential (i) to determine the agglomerate performance over a period of time under real HL

SC
R

conditions and (ii) characterise and evaluate their sulphuric acid leaching behaviour.
This paper presents results from our recent laboratory agglomeration and column leaching
to characterise and evaluate

NU

studies undertaken on

MA

their sulphuric acid agglomeration and agglomerate leaching behaviour.

TE

2.1. Materials

2. Experimental methods

The study involved three low grade Ni laterite ores (~1 wt. % Ni) described by their

CE
P

dominant generic mineralogy and were designated as Goethitic (G), Siliceous Goethitic (SG)
and Saprolitic (SAP) ores. These are typical of deposits located in the arid region of Western
Australia and are characterized by the general mineralogy using QEMSCAN summarized in

AC

Fig. 1. The ore complexity is also indicated in the QEMSCAN images in Fig. 2. Chemical
analyses of Run-of-Mine (ROM) ores are shown in Table 1 and the major mineral deportment
according to Quantitative X-ray diffraction analysis shown in Table 2. In Table 2, D stands for
dominant, SD for sub-dominant, M for minor and VM for very minor. Detailed mineralogical
analyses of these three samples of laterite have been reported by Swierczek et al. (2011, 2012).
In all three ores, the main Ni-bearing phase is asbolane, with magnetite, hematite and quartz
being virtually barren in Ni. Goethite is another main carrier for Ni.
2.2. Drum agglomeration: equipment and agglomeration procedure
Agglomeration tests were conducted in a batch, laboratory-scale drum (0.3 m diameter and
0.2 m in length) granulator operated at 60 rpm rotational speed (Fig. 3). The selection of
drum speed was based on preliminary agglomeration tests at 40, 60 and 80 rpm which
showed 60 rpm to be more efficient, taking into consideration the batch time and energy
4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
consumption required to get desired product size distribution. To investigate the effect of feed
particle size on agglomeration and column leaching behaviour of Ni laterites, four types of
feed ore material: (i) -15 mm ROM, (ii) -2 mm crushed from the -15 mm material, (iii) -38

m fraction obtained from stirred milling of -2 mm crushed material (Tong et al., 2013) and

IP

(iv) -15 mm/-38 m blend (60/40 by weight) were used to produce agglomerates. The
justification for stirred milling of -2 mm ore and using the -38 m product for agglomeration

SC
R

and column leaching was the noticeably higher Ni grade of the stirred mill product (Tong et
al., 2013; Quast et al., 2013). The concept of feed ore pre-concentration and upgrade before
acid leaching is often used in industrial practice, one example being its incorporation in the

NU

design of the Ravensthorpe Ni laterite plant to treat a Western Australian Ni laterite deposit
(Adams et al., 2004; Miller, 2000; Miller et al., 2004).

MA

For all agglomeration tests, the dry feed ore and 30% w/w H2SO4 used as liquid binder
were first pre-mixed in a tray by quickly (~2 min) hand spraying the latter and subsequently
transferring the mixture into the drum to commence agglomeration. During the agglomeration

process, where necessary, the drum was periodically stopped for 30 s to scrape the particles

TE

and agglomerates that were adhering to the drum walls using a spatula. A maximum batch
time of 14 min for which agglomerates in the size range 540 mm were produced was used.

CE
P

The relatively long batch time used in this study, compared with 1-2 min residence time often
used in plant agglomeration drums, is ascribed to large amounts of scats (e.g., 15-25 mm) and
moisture (e.g., 25 wt.%) in plant feed ores, both promoting fast agglomeration. With finer

AC

particles and lower moisture contents (e.g., < 10 wt.%) of the feed ores used in this study,
they could be agglomerated to desired product size only after significantly longer time. The
full details of agglomeration procedure are reported elsewhere (Nosrati et al., 2012a). For
column leaching studies, all the agglomerates were air-dried for 48 h at room temperature
(~25 C and 30% relative humidity), prior to loading in the columns.
2.3. Agglomerate characterization
Evolution of agglomerate size distribution with time was characterized by fresh/moist
product sieving and cumulative mass fractions under size against mean agglomerates size
plots. The agglomeration tests were reasonably reproducible, with substantially similar
agglomerate products size distributions obtained from three replicate agglomeration tests. For
single agglomerate strength measurements on both wet and dry states, a bench top
compressive strength testing machine (Hounsfield, UK), which enables compressive force5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
distance measurements to be performed, was used. Compression consisted of applying a load
to an agglomerate held between two parallel flat surfaces, one of which was held stationary
while the other was attached to a constant velocity drive. The resultant force was measured

using a load cell (of known compliance) attached to the upper drive surface. Based on the

IP

agglomerate diameter and the measured maximum applied uniaxial force (Pmax) at which
breakage or fracture occurred, the fracture stress was calculated from Eq. (1) (Hiramatsu,

SC
R

1966):

2.8Pmax
d 2

(1)

NU

where f is stress to failure and d is the diameter of the agglomerate.

The micro-CT analysis was conducted on ~15 mm air-dried agglomerates using an Xradia

MA

microXCT-400 tomography machine (Xradia, USA). Agglomerates were scanned in the 010
interval rotation using a 0.225 scan rotation step producing 800 images. The collected

2.4. Column leaching tests

TE

2009; Dhawan et al., 2012).

projections were reconstructed, using Xradia XMReconstructor software (Miller and Lin,

CE
P

The column leaching tests were conducted using Perspex columns, 125 mm in diameter
and 2 m long (Fig. 4). A layer of ~20 mm size quartz chips approximately 140 mm deep was
placed in the bottom of each column to prevent the agglomerates from plugging the pregnant

AC

solution outlet. A known mass of air-dried/cured agglomerates (produced from 5 kg dry feed
ore) was gently placed in the column to a depth of ~0.5 m. This was followed by another layer
of coarse silica chips which facilitated the even distribution of the lixiviant (200 g/L H2SO4)
over the bed of agglomerates. The leach solution was metered over ~100 days without recycle,
and checked periodically to allow calculation of the acid consumption. The irrigation rate for
each column was 96 mL/h corresponding to ~8.5 L/m2.h which is within typical irrigation rate
range (5-10 L/m2.h) for Ni laterites heap leaching (Dhawan et al., 2013; Hunter et al., 2013).
Pregnant leach solutions were sampled daily for the first 30 days, and then every four days for
the remainder of the test. The elemental concentrations measured were for Ni, Co, Al, Fe, Mg
and Mn by standard ICP. The extractions of elements other than Ni and Co have previously
been reported by Quast et al. (2013) and will not be reported here. The height and slumping of
the ore bed was recorded periodically by % slump=(change in height/initial column
height)100. In order to simulate the effect of hydrostatic load and hence increasing the bed
6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
height up to 3.5 m on the strength and slumping of the agglomerate beds during heap leaching,
weights up to 30 kg were added on top of the agglomerate beds after the columns had been
irrigated for approximately 100 days. Thereafter, irrigation was continued while the slump was

measured.

IP

3. Results and discussion

SC
R

3.1. Agglomeration behaviour: effect of feed ore mineralogy and particle size distribution
The agglomeration behaviour and binder dosage requirement of -2 mm SG, G and SAP
ores are shown in Fig 5. For all three ore types, 5 40 mm agglomerates were produced within

NU

8 min. For initial feed powder wetting and nucleation, however, SAP ore required significantly
greater acidic solution (agglomeration medium) addition compared with SG and G ores

MA

mainly due to its higher acid-consuming clay content as well as greater fines content. Taking
into account (i) the key role of binder dosage in controlling the hydro-texture of solid-liquid
mixtures and hence, their agglomeration behaviour, and (ii) the fact that agglomeration of

different feed ores (e.g., in terms of mineralogy, PSD) with similar binder dosage was not

TE

practicable, considerable attempt was made via preliminary tests to wet all feed powders to the
similar extent before agglomeration. This ensured that the hydro-texture of all mineral-binder

CE
P

mixtures were as close as possible and consistent, despite the differences in their binder
dosages. The data in Fig. 5 show that in the presence of adequate binder liquid, regardless of
the mineralogy of -2 mm feed ores, agglomerate growth occurred via coalescence and pseudo-

AC

layering as major and minor growth mechanisms, respectively.

Fig. 6 shows that -15 mm ROM nickel laterite ores (which contain larger fraction of coarse
particles) display noticeably different binder dosage requirement and agglomeration behaviour
compared with -2 mm ores. The presence of competent coarse fraction in the former leads to
(i) less binder dosage requirement due to reduced particle specific surface area or wetted
perimeter, (ii) enhanced initial agglomerate growth rate (no need for nucleation to start
agglomeration due to presence of coarse particles), (iii) absence of massive coalescence
(layering of fines around coarse particles/agglomerates becomes major growth mechanism),
and (iv) narrower product size distribution. Fig. 6A specifically highlights the critical role of
binder dosage on feed powder wetting and promotion of agglomerate size growth. For -15 mm
SG ore, whilst addition of 12 wt.% binder appeared to completely wet the powder, it was not
enough to promote reasonable size growth. Increasing the binder dosage to 15 wt.%, however,
led to production of 5 30 mm agglomerates within 8 min.
7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The data in Fig. 6B also indicate that after initially faster and more efficient agglomeration
observed for -15 mm ROM ores within 8 min (compared with -2 mm ores), prolonged
agglomeration time of 14 min had no effect on further agglomerate size growth. This is

opposite to the agglomeration behaviour of -2 mm feed ores where longer agglomeration time

IP

leads to formation of very large agglomerates due to massive coalescence (Fig. 7A). The effect
of feed ores PSD on predominant agglomerate growth mechanism is also further clarified in

SC
R

Fig. 7 (A & B). For agglomeration of -38 m feed ores; greater binder dosage values were
required due to increased particle surface area while they displayed growth behaviour very
similar to that of -2 mm feed ores. During agglomeration of -15 mm/-38 m blends, on the

NU

other hand, the mixtures displayed growth behaviour similar to that of -15 mm ores.
3.2. Single agglomerate structure and strength: effect of ore mineralogy and PSD

MA

Fig. 8 shows the typical internal structure of agglomerates produced from -15 mm feed
ores, where they generally exhibit a distinct coarse particle core/fine particle shell structure.

As expected, this structural feature is not seen in agglomerates of finer feed ores (e.g., -2 mm).

TE

The presence of coarse (e.g., 5 15 mm), competent particles (e.g., goethite, hematite and
quartz) in feed is also expected to facilitate the formation of more robust agglomerates which

behaviour.

CE
P

lead to enhanced agglomerate bed strength/stability and hence, good acid percolation

Fig. 9A shows the effect of ore mineralogy and agglomerate drying state (residual moisture

AC

content) on compressive strength of 10-15 mm agglomerates produced from -2 mm feed ores.

The results indicate that (i) all freshly made (wet) agglomerates display statistically similar
compressive strength, (ii) their strength noticeably increases upon air-drying or curing at high
temperature (e.g., 50 C), and (iii) dry G agglomerates exhibit dramatically higher
compressive strength than dry SG and SAP agglomerates. It is worth mentioning that the
results from single agglomerate compression testing alone cannot be used as basis for
evaluation or prediction of agglomerate bed strength and stability during column/heap
leaching process. This is due to the limitations of this test as it does not take into account the
effect of other parameters such as dynamic loading and re-wetting which agglomerates
experience under heap/column leaching conditions.
Enhanced agglomerate strength upon drying is attributed to moisture evaporation and
solidification/recrystallization of acid-leached species within agglomerates also leading to
slight agglomerate shrinkage. Greater dry strength of G agglomerates compared with SG and
8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SAP ones is also linked to larger fraction of ultrafine particles in the former. Upon
agglomerate drying, these very fine particles can act as intra-agglomerate cementing/bonding
media further enhancing the compressive strength. The dry agglomerate strength enhancement

with increasing feeds fine content can also be linked to increased density and lower porosity.

IP

This hypothesis is supported by Fig. 9B where increasing the feed ores fine content markedly

SC
R

enhances agglomerate compressive strength.

3.3 Column leaching: effect of agglomerates feed ore mineralogy and particle size
A summary of the column leaching results on agglomerates produced from different feed

NU

ores is given in Table 3. The symbols in Table 3 are: SM means stirred mill material, B means
blocked; NM means Ni recovery not measured and NL means no load i.e., no additional load
(30 kg) was applied. It is worth mentioning that columns loaded with un-agglomerated -15

MA

mm ores blocked overnight indicating the need for and importance of agglomerating the nickel
laterite ores prior to leaching. Some Ni leaching kinetic and acid consumption data are also

given in Figs. 10 to 13.

TE

The data for SG in Table 3 clearly show the advantage of further crushing the
agglomeration feed finer (from -15 to -2 mm) prior to agglomeration and leaching. This leads

CE
P

to a higher Ni release rate at lower acid consumption. Thus, by reducing the size of feed ore
particles, more Ni-bearing material is liberated and available to the acid, and less acid is being
consumed by the acid-resistant and coarser Ni-poor phases. This is evidenced by the -15 mm

AC

SG feed consuming more than 100 kg/t of acid, accompanied by 10% less Ni recovery
compared with -2 mm SG feed. Agglomeration and column leaching tests were also conducted
on -38 m material from stirred milling because this technique has shown to be effective in
selectively grinding the softer higher Ni-bearing material, resulting in an increase in Ni grade
by rejecting the coarse material (Tong et al., 2013). It is worth mentioning that the -38 m SG
stirred-mill product contained 80% of the original sample mass at ~1.3% Ni grade. The
rejected +38 m components comprised 25% of the quartz, 14% of the clays, 12% of the
goethite and ~30% of the amorphous material in the original mill feed. The data in Table 3
shows that for both SGs stirred milled fines (-38 m) and its blend with -15 mm SG (40/60
mass ratio) the Ni recovery is higher than that of -2 mm SG whilst the acid consumption is
lower.
The data for G agglomerates in Table 3 show that column leaching was successful only for
agglomerates produced from -15 mm feed ore whilst columns with agglomerates made of -2
9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
mm, -38 m and -38 m/-15 mm G feed ores blocked after 1, 20 and 24 days, respectively.
This not only indicates the key role of coarse particles (e.g., scats) but also highlights the
negative impact of too much fines in the feed ores. The results also show that the column

leaching of agglomerates produced from -38 m SAP ore failed after 2 days due to blockage.

IP

The column leaching performance of agglomerates produced from -38 m G and SAP feeds
was opposite to that of -38 m SG agglomerate. For the latter, not only the column did not

SC
R

block, but also it showed an enhanced Ni release compared with agglomerates produced from
its -15 mm and -2 mm feeds. Furthermore, despite displaying highest dry strength (Fig. 9A), G
agglomerates were generally less stable/robust than SG and SAP ones under wet leaching.

NU

This is mainly due to the G feed ores low silicate/aluminosilicate clay content which can
enhance agglomerate robustness/stability via acid cementation and formation of intra-

MA

agglomerate solid bridges (Nosrati et al., 2012c). Hence, it explains why the -38 m G/-15
mm SG blend agglomerates showed good stability under column leaching conditions. SG ore
provided more silicate component to the blend which facilitated intra-agglomerate

cementation and also enhanced structural support.

TE

Column slumping during leaching was relatively low for SG agglomerate beds, but higher
for the G and SAP agglomerates (Table 3). Values of slump are typical of high slumping

CE
P

laterites reported by Eliot et al. (2009), with columns containing coarser feeds (-15 mm)
generally giving lower slumps than for agglomerates made from finer material. This is
probably due to the presence of competent coarse particles in the agglomerates (Fig. 8)

AC

causing a network structure to be developed where the competent particles support the
agglomerate material made from the finer particles. This would simulate the effect of the
addition of scats to the Murrin Murrin heap leach to reinforce its geotechnical strength or
stability (Readett and Fox, 2009). Taking into account the small scale of columns and initial
agglomerate bed heights (0.5 m), the overall loaded slump values recorded for different SG
agglomerates were reasonably close (9-16%). In other words, despite differences in the SG
feed ores particle size distribution, all agglomerates were reasonably robust leading to stable
agglomerate beds during >100 days of irrigation.
The recovery of Ni and Co from -15 mm SG, G and SAP feed ores as a function of
leaching time and their acid consumption as a function of Ni recovery are shown in Fig. 10.
The agglomerated ores released Ni in the order of SAP>SG>G in line with their mineralogy,
i.e. relative abundance of oxide and layer aluminosilicate mineral content (Fig. 1). For Co

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
release, however, the order changes to SAP>G SG. At 60 days, Ni recovery for these feeds
was G (35%), SG (60%) and SAP (85%). For Co, on the other hand, the recovery at 60 days
was SG (35%), G (43%) and SAP (66%). Acid consumption over the equivalent period for G,

SG and SAP was approximately 280, 450 and 420 kg/t, respectively (Fig. 10 C). Completed

IP

100 day column leaching tests for -15 mm SG, G and SAP agglomerates showed maximum Ni
extractions and acid consumptions of 72%/680 kg/t, 55%/450 kg/t and 97%/500 kg/t,

SC
R

respectively. According to Robertson and van Staden (2009), low grade Ni laterite processing
is normally associated with very high sulphuric acid consumption (typically 500 kg/t), so the
acid consumptions shown in Fig. 10C are in line with operating practice. Robertson and van

NU

Staden (2009) also reported an almost linear increase in acid consumption with increasing Ni
recovery, with acid consumptions of ~400 kg/t for Ni recoveries of 70%. Eliot et al. (2009)

MA

reported acid consumption rates of 200-800 kg/t for similar Ni recovery values. From the data
in Figs. 10 and 11 it can also be seen that -15 mm SAP ore which is dominated by
silicate/aluminosilicate mineralogy, exhibited superior Ni and Co leaching performance,

yielding a lower acid consumption for a given Ni recovery.

TE

It is worth noting that both SG and SAP columns show two-stage Ni release behaviour with
an initial fast early release (up to 50-60% Ni recovery) followed by a slower, final release

CE
P

period. We attribute this behaviour to the quick extraction of Ni from fine, clay-type minerals,
followed by the slow acid attack of the goethite component of the ores. In terms of acid
consumption per kg Ni recovered, all three ores fell within the range of 30-95 kg acid/kg Ni,

AC

depending on the leaching time, i.e. fast or slow release regimes (Fig. 11). Post-leach loading
of all the three columns to 3.5 m equivalent heap height indicated good column stability, even
though irrigation was continued throughout the time of additional loading. This would indicate
that constructing and operating agglomerated Ni laterite heap heights of ~3.5 m should be
possible with these materials, even in the absence of scats which would increase the bulk
density of the bed of agglomerates in many commercial operations.
Fig. 12 clearly shows the enhanced Ni/Co release and leach kinetics for SG ore upon (i)
decreasing the agglomeration feed particle size (from -15 to -2 mm) and/or (ii) upgrading/size
reduction of agglomeration feed via stirred milling (-38 m). The effect of further grinding is
understandable and anticipated since the higher surface area of the initial feed particles will
give a greater area of contact with the lixiviant. These agglomerates have been shown to be
porous (Nosrati et al., 2012b), providing good contacts between acid and soluble species in the

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
agglomerate. The data in Fig. 13 indicate that both size reduction and upgrading has no effect
on overall SAP leaching behaviour and Ni/Co recovery. Furthermore, the blends of coarse and
fine sizes for SG and SAP ores follow very similar trends in Ni extraction, consistent with

faster release from the finer component in the initial stages, followed by a slower release rate.

IP

The agglomerated -38 m G/-15 mm SG blend, produced to mitigate failure of the fine G
column collapse, ran for 74 days without blockage, which coincided with the end of the

SC
R

project (Fig. 13). This trial highlights the role of clay content for agglomerate integrity and the
presence of coarse supporting material. Overall, the incorporation of the -38 m material in

NU

the agglomerates gives similar leaching rates to the pure -38 m material.
3.4 Overall discussion of column leaching results

The un-agglomerated -15 mm ores column blocked within a day, indicating the key role of

MA

agglomeration and superiority of agglomerates for leaching Ni laterites. A balance between

silicate/aluminosilicate and goethite composition is essential for sustained Ni release and long-

term agglomerate integrity/stability (good percolation) under heap leaching conditions. The

TE

good performance of SG ore, compared with SAP and G ores, is due to an optimum balance
between the compositions mentioned above. Size reduction in upgraded agglomerate feed

CE
P

generally benefits the Ni/Co release rates and enhances the final recovery due to more
exposure of Ni-bearing phase and increased available surface area. Feed size deduction,
however, may not be considered a favorable option due to generating further fines which can
pose a real challenge to successful heap leaching. Sized blend (e.g., -38 m/-15 mm) also

AC

gives a fast initial Ni release rate from fine components followed by a slower release;
however, total Ni benefit may or may not be significant in the long term (100 days) depending
on the ore type. Ore blending needs to be considered if the main feed ore lacks the mineral
components which are essential in generating strong and robust agglomerates. Slumps
observed during >100 days of column leaching varied between 5 and 15% for SG and SAP
ores and >20% for G ore. These together with post-leach loading of the columns to 3.5 m
equivalent heap height indicated good stability of agglomerate beds under leaching conditions.
4. Conclusion
Agglomeration and column leaching behaviour of 3 different Ni laterite ores with varying
sizes are reported in this paper. The results suggest that:

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Agglomeration is shown to be crucial pretreatment step for successful heap leaching of

run-of-mine and/or comminuted Ni laterite ores. The columns filled with unagglomerated ores blocked within 24 h indicating the key role of agglomeration.
Feed ores mineralogy and average particle size exert significant impact on (i) binder

IP

dosage requirement during agglomeration, (ii) agglomeration behaviour, (iii) single

strength and column leaching performance.

SC
R

agglomerate structure/strength, and more importantly (iv) agglomerate beds structural

For agglomerated ores during column leaching, Ni release rate follows the order of

NU

SAP>SG>G, which is in line with their mineralogy. The Co release rate also follows the
order of SAP>G SG indicating that Ni and Co are not disseminated similarly in different

MA

mineral phases of the feed ores.

A balance between acid reactive clay (for acid cementation and Ni/Co release) and

goethite (higher acid resistance and longer term structural support) content in the feed ore

TE

is essential to produce robust agglomerates with acceptable column leaching performance.

Size reduction in agglomerate feed enhance the Ni/Co release rates and final recovery,

CE
P

however, it generally leads to less stable columns due to increased fine fraction.
Up to 90% Ni and 70% Co recovery was achieved within 100 days of column leaching of

AC

agglomerated Ni laterite ores. The observed acid consumption and Ni recoveries are in
good agreement with the data reported in literature.
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank CSIRO through their Minerals Down Under National Research
Flagship for their in-kind and generous financial support for the Nickel Laterite Cluster
project. Micro-CT analysis of agglomerates was performed at the South Australian node of the
Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF-SA) under the National Collaborative
Research Infrastructure Strategy. The authors also thank Ms Zofia Swierczek for

QEMSCAN data.

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References
Adams, M., van der Meulen, D., Czerny, C., Adamini, P., Turner, J., Jayasekera, S.,
Amaranti, J., Mosher, J., Miller, M., White, D., Miller, G., 2004. Piloting of the

beneficiation and EPAL circuits for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations. In: Imrie, W.P., et

IP

al. (Ed.), Proceedings, International Laterite Nickel Symposium. The Minerals, Metals

SC
R

and Materials Society, pp. 193202.

Agatzini-Leonardou, S., Dimaki, D., 1994. Heap leaching of poor nickel laterites by
sulphuric acid at ambient temperature. Hydrometallurgy 94, 193-208.
Bouffard, S.C., 2008. Agglomeration for heap leaching: Equipment design, agglomerate

NU

quality control, and impact on the heap leach process. Minerals Engineering 21 (15),
1115-1125.

MA

Chamberlin, P.D., 1986. Agglomeration: Cheap insurance for good recovery when heap
leaching gold and silver ores. Mining Engineering, 38, 1105-1109.
Dalvi, A.D., Bacon, W.G., Osborne, R.C., 2004. The past and the future of nickel laterites. in

PDAC 2004 International Conference Trade Show and Investors Exchange, Toronto,

TE

Canada.

Dhawan, N., Safarzadeh, M.S., Miller, J.D., Moats, M.S., Rajamani, R.K., 2013. Crushed ore

CE
P

agglomeration and its control for heap leach operations. Minerals Engineering, 41, 5370.
Dhawan, N., Safarzadeh, M.S., Miller, J.D., Moats, M.S., Rajamani, R.K., Lin, C.L., 2012.
Recent advances in the application of X-ray computed tomography in the analysis of heap

AC

leaching systems. Minerals Engineering, 35, 7586.

Elias, M., 2002. Nickel laterite deposits Geological overview, resources and exploitation.
in: David, R.C., June, P. (Eds.), Giant ore Deposits: Characteristics, Genesis and
Exploration. Codes Special Publication, vol. 4, pp. 205220.
Eliot,A., Fletcher, H., Li, J., Watling, H., Robinson, D.J., 2009. Heap leaching of nickel
laterites-a challenge and an opportunity. in Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy of Nickel
and Cobalt 2009, edited by J.J. Budac, R. Frazer, R. Mihaylov, L. Papangelakis and D.J.
Robinson, CIM, Montreal, Canada, (2009) pp. 537-552.
Gleeson, S.A., Butt, C.R.M., and Elias, M., 2003. Nickel laterites, a review. SEG Newsletter,
54, 1118.
Hernandez, R., Schlitt, W.J., Lopez, M.E., 2003. The El Abra run of mine leach testwork
program. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003, 5th International Conference. Leaching and
Process Development, vol. VI, November 30December 03, Santiago, pp. 1329.
14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hiramatsu, Y.O., 1966. Determination of the tensile strength of rock by a compression test of
an irregular test piece. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Society, 3,
89-99.

Hunter, H.M.A., Herrington, R.J., Oxley E.A., 2013. Examining Ni-laterite leach mineralogy

IP

& chemistry a holistic multi-scale approach. Minerals Engineering, 54, 100109.

SC
R

Kyle, J., 2010. Nickel laterite processing technologieswhere to next? ALTA Nickel/Cobalt/
Copper Conference, 2427 May, Perth, Western Australia (pp. 36).
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2008. Development of experimental procedures to
analyze copper agglomerate stability. Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, 28 (2), 110-

NU

116.

Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009. Effect of agglomeration binders on the copper

MA

solvent extraction process. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 26 (3), 121126.

McDonald, R.G., Whittington, B.I., 2008. Atmospheric acid leaching of nickel laterites
review Part I. Sulphuric acid technologies. Hydrometallurgy, 91, 35-55.

Miller, G., 2000. Pilot plant testwork and design of the Ravensthorpe beneficiation plant.

TE

Proceedings, Ni/Co ALTA conference (17 pp.).

Miller, G.W., Sampson, D., Fleay, J., Conway-Mortimer, J., Roche, E., 2004. Ravensthorpe

CE
P

Nickel Project beneficiation prediction MLR and interpretation of results. In: Imrie, W.P.
(Ed.), Proceedings, International Laterite Nickel Symposium. The Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society, pp. 121136.

AC

Miller, J.D., Lin, C.L., 1990. High resolution X-ray micro CT (HRXMT) - advances in 3D
particle characterization for mineral processing operations, International Seminar on
Mineral Processing Technology (MPT-2009), Bhubaneswar, India, 2009.
Mudd, G.M., 2010. Global trends and environmental issues in nickel mining: Sulfides versus
laterites. Ore Geology Reviews, 38, 9-26.
Nosrati, A., Addai-Mensah, J., Robinson, D.J., 2012a. Drum agglomeration behaviour of
nickel laterite ore: effect of process variables. Hydrometallurgy, 125-126, 90-99.
Nosrati, A., Skinner, W., Robinson, D.J., Addai-Mensah, J., 2012b. Microstructure analysis
of Ni laterite agglomerates for enhanced heap leaching. Powder Technology, 232, 106112.
Nosrati, A., Robinson, D.J., Addai-Mensah, J., 2012c. Establishing nickel laterite
agglomerate structure and properties for enhanced heap leaching. Hydrometallurgy 134135, 6673.
15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Oxley, A., Sirvanci, N. and Purkiss, S., 2007. Caldag nickel laterite atmospheric heap leach
project. Metalurgija Journal of Metallurgy, 13 (1), 5-10.
Quast, K., Xu, D., Skinner, W., Nosrati, A., Hilder, T., Robinson, D.J., Addai-Mensah, J.,

2013. Column leaching of nickel laterite agglomerates: Effect of feed size.

IP

Hydrometallurgy, 134-135, 144-149.

SC
R

Readett, D.J., Fox, J., 2009. Development of heap leaching at its integration into the Murrin
Murrin operations. in Proceedings ALTA Nickel Cobalt Conference 2009, Perth.
Readett, D.J., Fox, J., 2010. Commercialisation of heap leaching at Murrin Murrin
operations. XXV International Mineral Processing Congress 2010 Proceedings, Brisbane,

NU

QLD, Australia.

Robertson, S.W., van Staden, P.J., 2009. The progression of metallurgical testwork during

MA

heap leach design. Hydrometallurgical Conference 2009, Southern African Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 31-42.

Stamboliadis, E., Alevizos, G., Zafiratos, J., 2004. Leaching residue of nickeliferous laterites

as a source of iron concentrate. Miner. Eng. 17, 245252.

TE

Steemson, M.L., Smith, M.E., 2009. The development of nickel laterite heap leaching
projects. Proceedings of ALTA 2009 Nickel/Cobalt Conference, ALTA Metallurgical

CE
P

Services, Perth, Australia, May 2009.

Sudol, S., 2005. The thunder from down under: everything you wanted to know about
laterites but were afraid to ask. Canadian Mining Journal. 126 (5), 8-12.

AC

Swierczek, Z., Quast, K., Addai-Mensah, J., Connor, J., Li, J., Robinson, D.J., 2011.
Mineralogical characterisation of a sample of an Australian nickel laterite. in Proceedings
of CHEMECA 2011, (Engineering a Better World), Sydney, 18-21 September, 2011.
Swierczek, Z., Quast, K., Addai-Mensah, J., Connor, J., Li, J., Robinson, D.J., 2012.
Challenges in the mineralogical characterisation of low-grade nickel laterites. in
Proceedings of XXVI International Mineral Processing Congress, New Delhi, India, pp.
5352-5364, September 2012
Tong, T., Klein, B., Zanin, M., Quast, K., Skinner, W., Addai-Mensah, J., Robinson, D.J.,
2013. Stirred milling kinetics of siliceous goethitic laterite for selective comminution.
Minerals Engineering, 49, 109-115.
Watling, H.R., Elliot, A.D., Fletcher, H.M., Robinson, D.J., Sully, D.M., 2011. Ore
mineralogy of nickel laterites: controls on processing characteristics under simulated
heap-leach conditions. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 58 (7), 725-744.
16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Watling, H., Das, G., Elliot, A., Li, J., McDonald, R., Robinson, D., 2010. Process options
for difficult arid-region nickel laterites. Proceedings, XXV International Mineral

IP

Processing Congress, Brisbane, Australia, September, pp. 417427.

Tables

SC
R

Table 1: Run-of-mine ores chemical analyses

Ore type

Element

Siliceous Goethitic

Saprolitic

Ni (%)

0.96

1.0

0.92

Co (%)

0.065

0.068

0.039

Mg (%)

0.42

2.9

5.90

Fe (%)

42.2

20.0

21.8

Mn (ppm)

4600

2800

2200

Zn (ppm)

380

265

380

Cu (ppm)

130

20

25

5.06

1.85

3.55

1.34

1.19

1.70

Ca (%)

0.02

0.03

0.03

Si (%)

5.10

23.0

17.0

Cl (%)

1.57

1.23

1.70

MA

AC

CE
P

Cr (%)

TE

Al (%)

NU

Goethitic

Table 2: Major mineral deportment

Mineral

Ore type
Goethitic

Siliceous Goethitic

Saprolitic

Goethite

D in all size fractions

D in all size fractions

SD

Hematite

D in coarser sizes

M in fine sizes

SD

Quartz

D in coarser sizes

D in coarser sizes

Kaolinite

SD

VM

Serpentine

D in coarser sizes

Smectite

VM

D in intermediate size fractions

D in fine fractions

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3: Summary of column leaching data
Feed

Days

(mm)

Ni Recovery

Cum. Acid

Final loaded

(%)

Cons. (kg/t)

slump (%)

102

71

684

-2 mm

104

81

569

SM -38 m

101

89

IP

16

541

SM -38 m/-15 mm

101

89

510

13

-15 mm

106

55

453

28

-2 mm

1 (B)

SM -38 m

20 (B)

NM

NM

22 (NL)

SM -38 m/-15 mm

24 (B)

NM

NM

25 (NL)

97

502

SAP
101

SM -38 m

2 (B)

CE
P

BLEND

TE

SM-38 m/-15 mm

-15 mm

MA

12

21 (NL)

98

92

614

74

53

312

20 (NL)

AC

-38 m G/-15 mmSG

SC
R

-15 mm

NU

SG

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure Captions
Figure 1: Typical laterite deposit structure comprising the three ore types and their
mineralogical summary.

SC
R

Figure 3: The laboratory scale batch drum agglomerator.

IP

Figure 2: QEMSCAN images from -300 + 150 m goethitic sample showing asbolane in
blue, magnetite in dark brown, hematite in grey and goethite in light brown (from Swierczek
et al.(2012)).

Figure 4: Photograph of a section and packed columns of Ni laterite agglomerates used in the
column leach tests.

NU

Figure 5: The agglomerate size distribution for the -2 mm siliceous goethitic (A), goethitic
(B) and saprolitic (C) ores with 22.5, 22.5 and 32.5 wt.% binder dosage (30% w/w H2SO4),
respectively, as a function of agglomeration time.

MA

Figure 6: The agglomerate size distribution for the -15 mm siliceous goethitic (A), goethitic
(B) and saprolitic (C) ores with 22.5, 22.5 and 32.5 wt.% binder dosage (30% w/w H2SO4),
respectively, as a function of agglomeration time.

TE

Figure 7: Agglomeration behaviour of (A) -2 mm and (B) -15 mm goethitic ores as functions
of agglomeration time.

CE
P

Figure 8: 2D micro-XCT images of the internal cross sectional area of agglomerates made of
(A) -15 mm and (B) -2 mm SG feed ores, respectively.
Figure 9: (A) Effect of ore mineralogy and moisture mass content on strength of 10 mm size
agglomerates made of -2 mm feed ores. (B) Effect of fine (-150 m) particles mass content
in -2 mm feed ore on dry SG agglomerate compressive strength.

AC

Figure 10: Comparison of Ni/Co extraction (A/B) and acid consumption (C) data from
column leaching of agglomerates made of different -15 mm Ni laterite ores.
Figure 11: Cumulative Ni mass recovery as a function of cumulative acid consumption.
Figure 12: Effect of SG agglomerates feed PSD on Ni/Co recovery (A/B) and acid
consumption (C) during column leaching tests.
Figure 13: Comparison of Ni/Co leaching data for some laterite ores.

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1

Ferricrete
Cap
G

SC
R

IP

Goethitic (or Limonitic): 66% goethite, 9% magnetite/

hematite, 5% kaolinite, 2% quartz, 1% nontronite and
0.5% Mg-bearing silicates.
Siliceous Goethitic: 25% goethite, 3% hematite/
magnetite, 19% nontronite, 9% Mg-bearing silicates
and 36% quartz.

NU

S
G

Saprolitic: 14% goethite, 6% hematite/ magnetite, 16%

nontronite, 12% quartz and 38% Mg-bearing silicates.

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

SA
P

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

NU

SC
R

IP

Fig. 2

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

NU

SC
R

IP

Fig. 3

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

NU

SC
R

IP

Fig. 4

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 5

SC
R

Binder dosage:
22.5 wt.%

IP

SG

20 mm

MA

NU

8 min

Binder dosage:
22.5 wt.%

CE
P

TE

AC

8 min

20 mm

SAP
Binder dosage:
32.5 wt.%

8 min

24

20 mm

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 6

0.8

SG
Binder dosage:
12 wt.%
15 wt.%

SC
R

IP

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

10

NU

Cumulative mass fraction under

1.0

20

30

Feed
8 min
8 min
40

Size (mm)

MA
G

TE

0.6
0.4

0.8

CE
P

Cumulative mass fraction under

1.0

Binder dosage:
18 wt.%
Feed
8 min
14 min

0.2
0.0

Cumulative mass fraction under

AC

10

20

30

40

Size (mm)

1.0

C
0.8
0.6

SAP
Binder dosage:
18 wt.%

0.4
0.2

Feed
8 min

0.0
0

10

20
Size (mm)

25

30

40

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 7
1.0
0.8

IP

0.6

SC
R

0.4

0.0
0

10

20

NU

0.2

30

40

50

Size (mm)

0.8

B
Pseudo-layering

TE

0.6
0.4

CE
P

Cumulative mass fraction under

AC

Feed
0 min
2 min
8 min
14 min

-2 mm G: 22.5 wt.%
binder dosage

1.0

C
u
m
ul
ati
ve
wt
.
fr
ac
tio
n
pa
ssi
ng

Massive coalescence

MA

Cumulative mass fraction under

C
u
m
ul
ati
ve
wt
.
fr
ac
tio
n
pa
ssi
ng

Feed
0 min
2 min
8 min
14 min

-15 mm G: 18 wt.%
binder dosage

0.2
0.0

10

20

30

Size (mm)

26

40

50

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 8

SC
R

IP

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

NU

5 mm

27

5 mm

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4x106

G agglomerates
SG agglomerates
SAP agglomerates

SC
R

IP

3x106

2x106

0
0

10

NU

1x106

20

30

40

MA

Agglomerate compressive strength (Pa)

Fig. 9

2x106

TE

1x106

800x103

AC

CE
P

Dry agglomerate compressive strength (Pa)

Agglomerate moisture content (wt.%)

400x103

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Fine (-150 m) particles mass ratio in -2 mm SG feed ore

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 10
100

T
IP

60

SC
R

Ni Extraction (%)

80

40
20

20

NU

0
40

60

80

SG
G
SAP

100

120

MA

Leaching time (day)

100

D
TE

60
40

CE
P

Co Extraction (%)

80

SG
G
SAP

20

Acid Consumption (kg/t)

AC

20

40

60

80

100

120

Leaching time (day)

800

600

400

200

SG
G
SAP

C
0
0

20

40

60

Ni Recovery (%)

29

80

100

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

NU

SC
R

IP

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

IP

0.03

SC
R

0.02

0.01

SG
G
SAP

NU

Cumulative Ni mass recovery (kg)

Fig. 11

0.00

0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cumulative acid consumption (kg)

AC

CE
P

TE

MA

0.0

31

3.5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 12

100

T
IP

Ni Extraction (%)

80

SC
R

60
40

-15 mm
-2 mm
-38 m

0
0

20

40

NU

20

60

80

100

120

MA

Leaching time (day)

100

Co Extraction (%)

80

TE

60

CE
P

40

B
-15 mm
-2 mm
-38 m

20
0

20

AC

40

60

80

100

120

Leaching time (day)

Cumulative Ni mass recovery (kg)

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03

C
0.02

-15 mm
-2 mm
-38 m

0.01
0.00
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Cumulative acid consumption (kg)

32

3.5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 13

100

T
IP

60

SC
R

Ni Extraction (%)

80

40

-15 mm SAP
-38 mm/-15 mm SAP
-15 mm SG
-38 mm/-15 mm SG
-38 mm SG
-15 mm G
-38 mm G/-15 mm SG

0
0

20

40

NU

20

60

80

100

120

MA

Leaching time (day)

TE

60

40

CE
P

Co Extraction (%)

80

-15 mm SAP
-38 mm/-15 mm SAP
-15 mm SG
-38 mm/-15 mm SG
-38 mm SG
-15 mm G
-38 mm G/-15 mm SG

20

AC

20

40

60

80

Leaching time (day)

33

100

120

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Research highlights

CE
P

TE

MA

NU

SC
R

IP

Ni laterite acid agglomeration is an essential pre-treatment for heap leaching.

Ore mineralogy and particle size impacts on agglomeration and leaching behaviour.
Ore blending is an option to enhance heap leaching performance of agglomerates.
Up to 90% Ni and 70% Co recovery was achieved within 100 days of column
leaching.

AC

34