Processing of Nickel-Cobalt laterites
Tradi&onal methods Innova&ve methods
Sensi6ve to composi6on of ore, high Less sensi6vity to composi6on of ore,
CAPEX intensive, high emissions moderately CAPEX intensive, low emissions
Pyrometallurgy DNi
HPAL Heap leaching
Heap leaching for Nickel-Cobalt
Murrin-Murrin, Western Australia
Dr. Steemson, 2009
Piaui, Brazil
ALTA, 2022
ALTA, 2009
Heap Leaching was developed on an
industrial scale for Ni-Co laterite deposits
What is In Situ
Recovery (ISR)
• In situ recovery (ISR) is
one of the most effec6ve
methods to address
mining costs.
• The key feature of ISR is
transferring a significant
propor6on of the
hydrometallurgical
processing of mineralised
bodies to the subsurface,
to directly obtain ISR takes the Heap Leach method underground
solu6ons of metals. and is poten6ally more efficient.
Opportuni6es – economic aspects
• Lower capital cost.
• Lower opera6onal cost.
• Low produc6on start-up capital costs,
and easily scalable increased produc6on.
• Generates early cashflow from
concentrate produc6on to further
develop the mine.
• Reduced need for borrowed funds.
• Flexible produc6on capacity.
Main types of ISR projects
“Classical” ISR projects. Mineralisa6on is
below the water table. ISR is in “Filtra6on
regime.”
Mineralised body is above the water table.
ISR is in “infiltra6on regime” with collec6on
of pregnant solu6ons on the underground
water table.
Main types of ISR projects
Mineralised body is in open pit walls above
the water table. ISR is in “infiltra6on
regime” with collec6on of pregnant
solu6ons in underground workings.
Mineralisa6on in waste or tailing dumps.
ISR is in “infiltra6on regime” with collec6on
of pregnant solu6ons in trenches/ponds.
Main types of ISR projects
ISR with irriga6on system in an
underground mine of crushed ore or
mineralisa6on in natural condi6ons.
The proposed and poten6ally the most
progressive method of “hypothe6cal ISR” is
using iron(III) as an oxidant by regenera6on
of iron(II) to iron(III) by the use of the
oxygen of natural air in bioreactors.
History of Nickel-Cobalt ISR development
2002-2008 2008-2009 2009-2011 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018 2019 2019-2021
Selec6on of
Start of Field ISR for Ni-
research, sulphurous acid Co ISR by Scoping Study
laboratory tests. as leaching sulphurous acid. for Ni-Co ISR.
(UGTC) solu6ons for Ni- (UGTC/ATS) (CSA Global)
Co ISR. (UGTC)
FS with
Field ISR tests Column tests by processing of Pilot Plant for Ni-
for Ni-Co ISR by sulphurous acid. pregnant Co ISR.
sulphuric acid. (UGTC/ATS) solu6ons ager (Kaznickel/MTS)
(UGTC) HPAL by IX.
(CleanTeQ)
Ural-Kazakhstan Ni-Co
laterite province
• ISR was tested widely in the Ural-
Kazakhstan Ni-Co laterite province.
• In the past deposits in this province
were subject to pyrometallurgical
opera6ons which are now uneconomic.
• The Ural-Kazakhstan province hosts
Mesozoic Ni-Co mainly nontronite
deposits with average grade 0.6 – 1.0%
Ni, uneconomic for HPAL. ISR tests were successfully
completed for several
deposits
• Period: 2008-2009
Ini6al period of
R&D of Ni-Co ISR • Tonnage: 410 t @ 0.61%Ni
technology @ 2.5 t Ni
• Dura6on: 8 months
The most complete field • Leaching Solu6on (Lixiviant):
test was performed on
the Rogozhnsky deposit Sulphuric Acid
(South Ural) (personal • Nickel recovery 8% (1% in month)
communica6ons). • Nickel grade in pregnant solu6ons up to 750 mg/L (average
in the best month 500 mg/L)
• Acid consump6on – 20 t (~50 kg/t or ~400 kg/t for target
nickel recovery 65%
• L/S: 2.1 m /t or ~17 m /t for target nickel recovery 65%.
3
3
Laboratory
column
geometallurgical
tests
Dynamics of
leaching by
sulphurous acid
Natural field tests at the Ekibastuz-Shiderty deposit in 2017-2018
Nickel cathode Cobalt cathode
Test results demonstrate a principal opportunity
to produce a final product of nickel and cobalt
cathode from pregnant solu6ons ager ISR by IX
processing and, following neutralisa6on, SX and
electrowinning processes .
Principal scheme of ISR
opera6on (Mining)
• Opera6onal cells above the water
table (infiltra6on ISR) emulate heap
leaching with ver6cal movements of
leaching solu6ons and collec6on of
pregnant solu6ons at the water
table.
• Opera6on cells below the water
table (filtra6on ISR) are classical style
of ISR, with sub-horizontal
movement of pregnant solu6ons.
General Flowsheet of Ni-Co ISR
• CSA Global prepared the first Scoping
Study for Ni-Co ISR based on UGTC tests,
the CleanTeQ flowsheet.
• Processing of pregnant solu6ons by Ion
Exchange (sorp6on to resin) and
following processing of eluate –
neutralisa6on, solvent extrac6on and
crystallisa6on of final product.
• Power and steam will be produced in a
Sulphurous acid plant and the project will
have almost zero carbon dioxide
emissions due to genera6on of steam
and electrical power.
Different op6ons of final product
Op6on 1 – produc6on Op6on 2 – produc6on Op6on 3 – produc6on
Mixed Hydroxide Cathode Ni and Co sulphate of Ni and Co
Precipitate (MHP)
Opportuni6es –
environmental
aspects Conven6onal
mining / processing
• Minimal landscape
disturbance
• No waste dumps
• No tailing dumps
• No pollu6on of atmosphere
• Self-remedia6on of In-situ recovery
underground waters
• Cleaning contaminated
groundwater ager
conven6onal mining
• Decreased greenhouse gas
emissions.
Monitoring self-cleaning Principal scheme of monitoring Total mineralisa6on, g/L
of groundwater self-remedia6on
1985
The hydrogeological environment reverts to the
natural flow of groundwater ager deple6on of ISR
blocks.
Geological substrate can precipitate self-cleaning of
solu6ons due to: Distribu6on of contaminated
groundwater ager closure of
• Reac6ons between solu6ons and host rocks: opera6on blocks.
neutralisa6on, reducing and sorp6on poten6al of
in-situ rocks. 1997
• Bacterial ac6vity: sulphate-reducing, denitrifying
and hydrogen-forming bacteria.
The process of self-remedia6on must be monitored
and studied in detail.
Solodov, 2018
Solodov, 2018
Remedia6on of groundwater
The restora6on process may be
accelerated by:
• Ar6ficial forcing of cleaning/
neutralisa6on of solu6ons by ar6ficial
penetra6on through unleached rocks.
• Rinsing the por6on of the mineralised
zone in which injec6on and recovery
has occurred, injec6ng sodium
bicarbonate or other agents as
needed to neutralise the
groundwater.
Pilot opera6on of
the Gornostay
deposit
Kaznickel team
constructed a Pilot Block
and Plant at the Gornostay
project in 2018:
• Wellfield
• Acidifica6on block
• IX block
• Neutralisa6on
• Precipita6on MHP
Pilot opera6on at
the Gornostay deposit
• Kaznickel uses mixed sulphurous and
sulphuric acid for nickel leaching.
• Average pumping rate of pumping
wells is 1.6 m /hour.
3
• Nickel grade in pregnant solu6ons
reached up to 350 mg/l, average
150-200 similar to es6mated
parameters in Scoping Study.
Schedule of OPEX & CAPEX
• The schedule of OPEX depends directly on the
actual mining plan and unit costs for reagents,
electrical power, manpower and other expenses.
• The schedule of CAPEX depends on the ini6al
infrastructure construc6on and modular
construc6on of the lixiviant plant & storage,
processing plant for pregnant solu6ons and
refinery / electrowinning plant.
• Wellfield construc6on is con6nuous based on the
Life of Mine period and depends on the cycle of
life of opera6on blocks (depends on dynamic of
leaching).
Cri6cal advantage of ISR
• ISR projects allow start up with
small capacity to generate early
profit which can be re-invested in
expansion.
• This is why the ini6al funds which
are required is not substan6al
compared to HPAL projects, for
example.
Comparison OPEX OPEX:
and CAPEX with
other Nickel laterite OPEX + wellfield cost
3.4 US$ / lb Ni + 2.5Co
projects
• The Project is in the first
quarter of world nickel
projects for opera6ng
cost.
• CAPEX is lower than for CAPEX:
HPAL projects on 35%. HPAL (based on SunRise – CleanTeQ):
Ini6al CAPEX is • Total CAPEX: 1,500 MUSD @ 35,000 tpa Ni @ 43 USD / 1 tpa Ni
drama6cally lower than • Ini6al CAPEX: 1,500 MUSD
ISR (based on Gornostay), without wellfield construc6on
for HPAL. Total CAPEX: 570 MUSD @ 20,000 tpa Ni @ 28 USD / 1 tpa Ni
• Ini6al CAPEX: 105 MUSD
Features of the Ural-Kazakhstan province
Possibly nearly all known Ni-Co laterite deposits are suitable for ISR
Development of Ni-Co ISR projects
Recommended
Stage Level of inves6ga6on Minimal requirements
requirements
Concept Study Desktop overview of poten6al scenarios
Economic parameters are assumed based on Mineralogical inves6ga6ons, Plus push-pull or two-wells in situ
Mineral Resources, limited technical data for collec6on of all hydrogeological leaching test without processing
Scoping Study project and technical data/inves6ga6ons for parameters, laboratory leaching of pregnant solu6ons.
analogous projects. Overview of several
Confidence Increasing
scenarios for selec6on of 1-2 scenarios for next tests for different parameters, Laboratory extrac6on metals
reagents and oxidants.
from pregnant solu6ons.
stage inves6ga6on.
Economic Parameters are es6mated based on
Measured/Indicated Mineral Resources, detail
technical data/inves6ga6ons for project. Two-wells in situ leaching test, Mul6-wells in situ leaching test;
Inves6ga6on of 1-2 basic scenarios with
Prefeasibility Study various op6ons for each part of the project extrac6on metals from pregnant extrac6on metals from pregnant
(e.g. design of opera6on blocks, type of resin, solu6ons in laboratory. solu6ons in a pilot plant.
size of IX columns etc.).
Economic Parameters are es6mated based on
Measured/Indicated Mineral Resources,
Feasibility Study detailed technical data/inves6ga6ons for Mul6-well in situ leaching test with processing of pregnant solu6ons
in a pilot plant.
project. Detail for one basic scenario.
Development of Ni-Co ISR projects
ISR opera6ons
in Australia
• Permissions for ISR is an
important issue for
development of Manyingee (U)
technology for mining.
• Three ISR uranium mines Beverley & Four Mile (U)
are in opera6on in SA.
Honeymoon (U)
• Field ISR test was Kapunda (Cu)
completed in WA.
• Field test for copper ISR ISR opera&ons
was permiqed in SA.
ISR test completed
ISR test permiYed
GSA Global
Experience in
ISR Projects
Slides for Q&A
Q & A Key Parameters for Ni-Co ISR
Parameters Favourable Probably favourable Unfavourable
Below water table, waterless Waterless mineralisa6on with
Hydrogeological condi6ons Artesian or confined aquifer above water table with water deep water table from the
table level close to surface surface
High permeability High or low permeability (>5 m/ Very low permeability
(> 5–10 m/day) day or 0.2–1 m/day) (<0.1–0.2 m/day)
Permeability Permeability of mineralisa6on
Homogeneous permeability Uneven permeability
much less than waste rocks
Selec6ve leachability of useful Selec6ve leachability of useful
Leachability compounds without harmful compounds without adsorp6on No selec6ve leachability of
useful compounds
components of harmful components
Between grains of other Predominantly included in other
Loca6on of mineralisa6on In fissures, open pores
minerals minerals (non-leachable)
No minerals with high Low grade of minerals with high High grade of minerals with high
Chemical composi6on
adsorp6on adsorp6on adsorp6on
Depth of mineralisa6on Shallow deposits Deep deposits Very deep deposits
below surface (<150 m) (150–750 m) (> 750–900 m)
Q & A Key Parameters for Ni-Co ISR
Parameters Favourable Probably favourable Unfavourable
Morphology of Flat, tabular deposits Shallow angle deposits Steep angle deposits
mineralisa6on
Thickness High thickness (> 5–10 m) Moderate thickness (2–5 m) Thin thickness (< 2 m)
Grades Low grades Low-moderate grades High grades
Grade-thickness High grade-thickness Moderate grade-thickness Low grade-thickness
Type of mineralisa6on Oxidised, Mixed Mixed, Reduced / Primary Reduced / Primary
Distribu6on of
mineralisa6on Even distribu6on Uneven distribu6on Highly uneven distribu6on
Size of mineralisa6on Finely-dispersed, amorphous Fine-medium crystalline Coarse crystalline
Developed region and not
Loca6on Undeveloped region Usable area
usable (available) area
Topography Flat plain Undula6ng low hilly relief Steep mountainous terrain
No water intakes close to
Environmental No water intakes Water intakes close to deposit
deposit
Q & A Technical and Environmental Risks
Risk has been classified from minor to major, which can be further clarified as:
• Major Risk: the factor poses an immediate danger of a failure, which if uncorrected, will have a
material effect (>15% to 20%) on the project cash flow and performance and could poten6ally lead to
project failure.
• Moderate Risk: the factor, if uncorrected, could have a significant effect (10% to 15% or 20%) on the
project cash flow and performance unless mi6gated by some correc6ve ac6on.
• Minor Risk: the factor, if uncorrected, will have minimal effect (<10%) on project cash flow and
performance.
The likelihood of a risk must also be considered. Likelihood within a seven-year 6meframe can be
considered as:
• Likely: will probably occur
Likelihood of
• Possible: may occur risk (within 7 Consequence of risk
• Unlikely: unlikely to occur. years) Minor Moderate Major
Likely Medium High Extremely
Possible Low Medium High
Unlikely Low Low Medium
Q & A Technical Risks
Consequence
Risk/Opportunity Descrip6on Likelihood Risk
ra6ng
Geology
Mineral Resources Unexpected decrease of Mineral Resources. Unlikely Moderate Low
Nickel and cobalt grades Unexpected decrease of grades of nickel and cobalt. Unlikely Moderate Low
Higher grades of carbonates Some zones of Mineral Resources should be excluded Likely Minor Low
in weathering crust from acid ISR.
Hydrogeology
Poten6al impermeability of Part or all serpen6nites below mineralised bodies may Unlikely Major Medium
serpen6nites above the be impermeable and pregnant solu6ons cannot be
water table collected in the water table, poten6ally reducing
recoverable Mineral Resources.
No con6nuous of Pregnant solu6ons cannot be collected in the water Likely Minor Medium
underground water horizon table, poten6ally reducing recoverable Mineral
in fractured serpen6nites Resources, may be managed by watering of these zones.
Risk of dropping of water Possible dropping of water table level due to Possible Moderate Medium
table level in ISR process acidifica6on and leaching in disbalance of injec6on/
pumping – increase of volume of serpen6nites which
should be leached.
Permeability of Permeability and rate of leaching may be less than Possible Moderate Medium
mineralisa6on and rate of assumed in Scoping Study – longer period of ISR, more
leaching blocks in opera6on.
Q & A Technical Risks
Consequence
Risk/Opportunity Descrip6on Likelihood Risk
ra6ng
Mining/Geometallurgy
ISR of nickel-cobalt ISR for nickel-cobalt has not been implemented at the industrial Unlikely Major Medium
scale. Risk is included due to absence of industrial scale ISR nickel-
cobalt mines; however, engineering solu6ons have been collected
in several natural tests, successful heap leaching projects as well
as in ISR uranium, copper and gold industry. This risk may be
excluded ager the first ISR nickel-cobalt mine is in produc6on
over several years.
Oxida6on of sulphurous Decreasing of pH, oxida6on of Fe(II) to Fe(III), is poten6ally Possible Moderate Medium
acid to sulphuric acid in required in the neutralisa6on of pregnancy solu6ons before
sorp6on on resin TP-207. This risk may be excluded ager the first
ISR process ISR nickel-cobalt mine is in produc6on over several years.
Producing sulphurous acid There is not industrial-scale procedure of dissolu6on SO in Unlikely Major Medium
2
water, only for producing liquid SO in cylinders. Poten6al risk is
2
impossibility of cheap producing sulphurous acid on site.
However, issue of dissolu6on of SO in water is in developing now
2
by Germany companies and on the Mt. Thirsty Cobalt laterite
project in Western Australia. This risk should be excluded in the
Prefeasibility Study stage.
Q & A Technical Risks
Consequence
Risk/Opportunity Descrip6on Likelihood Risk
ra6ng
Mining/Geometallurgy
Acid consump6on Acid consump6on in the real ISR process may be higher than Likely Moderate Medium
defined based on laboratory tests – a common situa6on for ISR
projects.
Nickel and cobalt Nickel and cobalt recovery in the real ISR process may be lower Likely Moderate High
recovery than defined in laboratory tests due to chemical recovery factor
and sweep factor – a common situa6on for ISR projects.
Leaching of serpen6nites The volume of leached serpen6nite may be higher than Possible Minor Low
assumed in the Scoping Study.
Impurity components in Poten6al increase in impurity components (Ca, Mg, Fe) Likely Moderate Medium
solu6ons concentra6ons in solu6ons with increasing L:S ra6o (cycles of
leaching). Neutralisa6on and precipita6on of impurity
components from barren solu6ons may be required.
Dilu6on of pregnant Poten6al decrease in nickel and cobalt grade in pregnant Likely Minor Medium
solu6ons by surrounding solu6ons, especially for edge cells.
water
Density of opera6onal Grid density may be not enough for leaching of full volume of Likely Moderate Medium
wells grid mineralisa6on – decrease of metal recovery. May be managed
by increasing injec6on wells.
Q&A Technical Risks
Consequence
Risk/Opportunity Descrip6on Likelihood Risk
ra6ng
Processing
Refinery of eluate ager The Clean TeQ refinery process was developed for eluate ager Unlikely Moderate Low
desorp6on HPAL and there is risk associated with processing of poorer eluate
ager sorp6on/ desorp6on of pregnant ISR solu6ons. There are
alternate technologies of processing including two stages of
sorp6on.
Processing/Handling Lower yields. Possible Minor Low
Lower plant produc6on levels. Possible Moderate Medium
Higher plant produc6on costs. Possible Moderate Medium
Plant reliability. Possible Moderate Medium
Handling system. Unlikely Moderate Low
Costs and implementa6on
Capital and opera6ng Project 6ming delays. Possible Moderate Medium
costs Mine management – plan. Unlikely Minor Low
Capital cost increases – start-up. Possible Moderate Medium
Capital costs – ongoing. Unlikely Minor Low
Opera6ng costs underes6mated. Possible Moderate Medium
Project implementa6on Cri6cal path delays. Possible Moderate Medium
Q&A Environmental, Social and Regulatory Risks
Consequence
Risk/Opportunity Descrip6on Likelihood Risk
ra6ng
Environmental social approvals
Risk of losses of pregnant Poten6al losses of pregnant solu6ons along faults and Unlikely Moderate Low
solu6ons by other unpredictable ways – losses of metals and
impact on environment including rivers – managing by
monitoring wells.
Air pollu6on Poten6al air pollu6on risks; should be managed by Unlikely Moderate Low
monitoring.
Risk with tenement Poten6al cancelling of tenement due to issues with Unlikely Major Medium
contract condi6ons or no prolonga6on of tenement.
Social Community, internal and external stakeholders. Unlikely Moderate Low
Opera6ons Management Team issues with possibili6es to start of opera6on on- Unlikely Major Medium
6me.
Water discharge non-compliance. Possible Minor Low
Significant unpredicted subsidence. Possible Minor Medium
Regulatory consent/varia6on delays. Possible Minor Low
Q&A Difference between Scoping Study and pilot test on Gornostay
Parameter Scoping Study (based on Field Test on the Gornostay Comments
UGTC and CleanTeQ) (Kaznickel)
Lixiviant Sulphurous Acid Sulphuric Acid Economic assessment
demonstrated that ISR by
Sulphuric Acid is
uneconomic
Paqern of opera6on cells Raw or square system Hexagon cells with diameter Paqern of opera6on cells in
across natural flow of 25-40 m with seung of Scoping Study was prepared
groundwater by 10x10 m, injec6on and produc6on with taking account natural
seung of injec6on wells wells in mineralised body geological and
above groundwater table – without taking account hydrogeological condi6ons
for emula6on heap leaching ini6al groundwater level. as well as copper ISR above
with collec6on pregnant Later pumping wells were groundwater table.
solu6ons of groundwater re-drilled for seung filters Kaznickel tried to use
table. below water table. paqern from uranium
industry.
Q&A Difference between Scoping Study and pilot test on Gornostay
Parameter Scoping Study (based on Field Test on the Gornostay Comments
UGTC and CleanTeQ) (Kaznickel)
Groundwater level Opera6on with using Rising groundwater table for Rising water table leads to
natural hydrogeological opera6on in watered spreading of leaching
regime without rising condi6ons. solu6ons together with
groundwater level. groundwaters due to ac6ve
Opera6on in dry condi6ons natural hydrodynamic of
(heap leaching emula6on) groundwaters in weathering
and in watered condi6ons in crust. As a result, high
some zones below consump6on of lixiviant and
groundwater table. an uneconomic process.
Cobalt in pregnant solu6ons Cobalt gives 20-25% of Cobalt was not measured in ISR process without
revenue due to dissolu6ons pregnant solu6ons, extrac6on cobalt is likely
by Sulphurous acid. Kaznickel assumed that uneconomic or low-
cobalt is not presented in profitable.
pregnant solu6ons.
Q&A Difference between Scoping Study and pilot test on Gornostay
Parameter Scoping Study (based on Field Test on the Gornostay Comments
UGTC and CleanTeQ) (Kaznickel)
Sorp6on and desorp6on Resin TP-207 with Resin TP-207 with Time of sorp6on-desorp6on
satura6on up to 15 kg Ni / t satura6on up to 7 kg Ni / t impacts to OPEX (resin,
resin. Sorp6on-desorp6on resin. Sorp6on-desorp6on electrical power
cycle is ~12 hours based on cycle is 3-4 days consump6on and
CleanTeQ tests manpower) and CAPEX
(ini6al loading of resin,
sorp6on & desorp6on
colums)
Q&A Development of Ni-Co ISR to Prefeasibility Study: Indica6ve budget
Indica6ve Indica6ve
Parameter Preliminary Parameter Preliminary
Cost, US$ Cost, US$
Field pilot test Ini6al inves6ga6ons for PFS
Construc&on of pilot block and plant Cluster hydrogeological tests 350,000
Cost of sulphur oven 350,000 Single hydrogeological tests 150,000
Cost of pilot plant construc6on (in sea container) 1,500,000 Hydrodynamic model prepara6on 200,000
Resin for pilot test 280,000 Laboratory leaching tests 350,000
Laboratory installa6on 100,000 Sorp6ona and desorp6on tests 150,000
Pilot test above water table (main test) Refinery tests 150,000
Drilling, sampling, and construc6on of pumping wells 100,000 Marke6ng 50,000
Drilling, sampling, and construc6on of injec6on wells 80,000 Tailing dam 50,000
Cost of sulphur for test 250,000 Environmental & Social 150,000
Other expenses for test 200,000 Other works 100,000
Pilot test above water table (addi&onal test) Supervising 100,000
Drilling, sampling, and construc6on of pumping wells 100,000 Total 1,700,000
Drilling, sampling, and construc6on of injec6on wells 60,000 PFS report prepara6on
Cost of sulphur for test 50,000 PFS program prepara6on 100,000
Other expenses for test 40,000 Environmental & social report prepara6on 250,000
General expenses for pilot test PFS report prepara6on 150,000
Cost of assaying 300,000 JORC / NI 43-101 report prepara6on 40,000
Other expenses 200,000 Total 540,000
Supervising 100,000
Total 3,610,000 Summary 5,850,000
About CSA Global
CSA Global is a leading mining and geological
About CSA Global consul6ng company providing strategic advice
and high-quality solu6ons to clients in the
global mining industry.
Crea6ng a world-leading
advisory service
• CSA Global became part of ERM in 2019.
• ERM have a long track record of providing EHS/
Sustainability consul6ng services to the mining
sector.
• From explora&on to mine closure, our
combined experience and capabili6es provide a
service offering aligned with client's business
processes.
• Together we provide greater depth,
knowledge and competency to help clients
manage their projects.
Countries CSA Global has worked in
CSA Global is supported by a further 134 ERM offices
For more informa6on
Dr. Maxim Seredkin
Technical Director & ISR Coordinator
[email protected]
Kambalda
The Australian Nickel Company
Bre$ Lambert Non-Execu3ve Chairman
October 2022
Important No3ce Disclaimer
This presenta3on (Presenta3on) has been prepared by Mincor Resources NL (MCR) and is authorised by the Board of Directors of MCR.
By retaining this PresentaMon, you (the Recipient) acknowledge and represent to MCR that you have read, understood and accept the terms of this Important NoMce. If you do not accept these terms, you should immediately destroy or delete this PresentaMon. This PresentaMon
does not purport to contain all the informaMon that a prospecMve investor may require in connecMon with any potenMal investment in MCR or its underlying business. Each Recipient must make its own independent assessment of MCR before acquiring any securiMes in MCR
(SecuriMes). You should not treat the contents of this PresentaMon, or any informaMon provided in connecMon with it, as financial advice, financial product advice or advice relaMng to legal, taxaMon or investment maXers. Before acquiring any SecuriMes, you should consult your
own advisers and conduct your own invesMgaMon and analysis in relaMon to MCR.
No representaMon or warranty is made by MCR or any of its advisers, agents or employees as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the informaMon in this PresentaMon or provided in connecMon with it. No informaMon contained in this PresentaMon or any other
wriXen or oral communicaMon in connecMon with it is, or shall be relied upon as, a promise or representaMon and no representaMon or warranty is made as to the accuracy or aXainability of any esMmates, forecasts or projecMons set out in this PresentaMon. No liability will
aXach to MCR or its advisers with respect to any such informaMon, esMmates, forecasts or projecMons.
MCR does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage suffered or incurred by you or any other person or enMty however caused (including, without limitaMon, negligence) relaMng in any way to this PresentaMon including, without limitaMon, the informaMon
contained in or provided in connecMon with it, any errors or omissions from it however caused (including without limitaMon, where caused by third parMes), lack of accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability or you, or any other person or enMty, placing any reliance on this
PresentaMon, its accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability.
MCR does not accept any responsibility to inform you or any maXer arising or coming to MCR's noMce a\er the date of this PresentaMon which may affect any maXer referred to in this PresentaMon. Any liability of MCR, its advisers, agents and employees to you or to any other
person or enMty arising out of this PresentaMon including pursuant to the Australian SecuriMes and Investments Commission Act 2001, CorporaMons Act 2001 and the CompeMMon and Consumer Act 2010 or any other applicable law is, to the maximum extent permiXed by law,
expressly disclaimed and excluded.
The distribuMon of this PresentaMon may be restricted by law in certain jurisdicMons. Recipients, and any other persons who come into possession of this PresentaMon must inform themselves about, and observe any such restricMons.
Future Ma$ers
This PresentaMon contains reference to certain intenMons, expectaMons, future plans, strategy and prospects of MCR. Those intenMons, expectaMons, future plans, strategy and prospects may or may not be achieved. They are based on certain assumpMons, which may not be
met or on which views may differ and may be affected by known and unknown risks. The performance and operaMons of MCR may be influenced by a number of factors, many of which are outside the control of MCR. No representaMon or warranty, express or implied, is made
by MCR or any of its directors, officers, employees, advisers or agents that any intenMons, expectaMons or plans will be achieved either totally or parMally or that any parMcular rate of return will be achieved.
Given the risks and uncertainMes that may cause MCR's actual future results, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expected, planned or intended, Recipients should not place undue reliance on these intenMons, expectaMons, future plans, strategy
and prospects. MCR does not warrant or represent that the actual results, performance or achievements will be as expected, planned or intended.
Monetary values: Unless otherwise stated, all dollar values are in Australian dollars (A$).
Competent Person(s)
The informaMon in this report that relates to ExploraMon Results is based on informaMon compiled by Dr Zoran Seat, who is a Member of The Australasian InsMtute of Mining and Metallurgy. Dr Seat is a full-Mme employee of Mincor Resources NL. Dr Seat has sufficient
experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisaMon and type of deposit under consideraMon and to the acMvity that he is undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2012 EdiMon of the Australasian Code for ReporMng of ExploraMon Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves. Dr Seat consents to the inclusion in the report of the maXers based on his informaMon in the form and context in which it appears.
The informaMon in this report that relates to LN04a nickel Mineral Resource is based on informaMon compiled by Mark Muller, who is a Member of the Australasian InsMtute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Muller is an employee of Mincor Resources NL and has sufficient
experience relevant to the style of mineralisaMon and type of deposit under consideraMon, and to the acMvity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 ediMon of the ‘Australasian Code for ReporMng of ExploraMon Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Muller consents to the inclusion in this report of the maXers based on his informaMon in the form and context in which it appears.
The informaMon in this presentaMon that relates to nickel Mineral Resources (other than LN04a) is based on informaMon compiled and reviewed by Rob Hartley, who is a Member of the Australasian InsMtute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM). Mr Hartley is an employee of
Mincor Resources NL. Mr Hartley has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisaMon and type of deposit under consideraMon and to the acMvity that he is undertaking to qualify as Competent Person as defined in the 2012 EdiMon of the Australasian Code for
ReporMng of ExploraMon Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Hartley consents to the inclusion in the presentaMon of the maXers based on his informaMon in the form and context in which it appears.
The informaMon in this presentaMon that relates to nickel Ore Reserves at Cassini and Long is based on informaMon compiled by Dean Will, who is a Member of the Australasian InsMtute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Will is a full-Mme employee of Mincor Resources NL and has
sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisaMon and type of deposit under consideraMon, and to the acMvity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 ediMon of the "Australian Code for ReporMng of ExploraMon Results, Mineral
Resources and Ore Reserves". Mr Will consents to the inclusion in this report of the maXers based on his informaMon in the form and context in which it appears.
The informaMon in this presentaMon that relates to nickel Ore Reserves at BurneX, Miitel and Durkin North is based on informaMon compiled by Paul Darcey, who is a Member of the Australasian InsMtute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Darcey is a full-Mme employee of Mincor
Resources NL and has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisaMon and type of deposit under consideraMon, and to the acMvity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 ediMon of the "Australian Code for ReporMng of
ExploraMon Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves". Mr Darcey consents to the inclusion in this report of the maXers based on his informaMon in the form and context in which it appears.
MINCOR RESOURCES NL – www.mincor.com.au I HIGH GRADE NICKEL DEVELOPMENT & PRODUCTION 2
Delivery scorecard: A transforma3onal past 12 months
Consistent achievement of key milestones underpins our transi3on to produc3on
Highlights
Produc3on First producMon from two new nickel deposits
Revenue First cashflow from nickel sales
Development ProducMon ramp-up gaining momentum
Discovery Golden Mile IniMal Mineral Resource
Fully Funded A$30M Corporate revolver secured
Employment +240 (MCR + Contractors)
Sustainability Delivered inaugural sustainability report
Index ASX300
1
1 S&P DJI Quarterly Rebalance Announcement 02 September 2022
MINCOR RESOURCES NL – www.mincor.com.au I HIGH GRADE NICKEL DEVELOPMENT & PRODUCTION 3