ORF Technologies


The ORF technology suite can support Temas’ internal La Blache Project development as well as unrelated third-party mining projects

Mineral Extraction Patents

Portfolio of patents related to mineral extraction

Decades of IP Development

Intellectual property was developed over 50 years at a  cost in excess of $20 million

Ongoing Metallurgical Expertise

The metallurgical specialists will continue to operate under ORF Technologies

ORF Technologies: 

50% ownership of a metallurgical process portfolio – key to commercialization of the TiO2 portfolio


The innovative technologies in question substantially lower both capital and processing expenses by 30-50%, while also enhancing recovery rates in complex deposits. They enable on-site production of metal or high-value products, significantly improving the economics at the mine gate compared to traditional concentrators. 

These technologies are particularly effective for high-acid-consuming carbonate (oxide) hosted ores, offering an environmentally friendly alternative that reduces the carbon footprint compared to conventional methods. They focus on base metals crucial for the electric vehicle revolution and energy generation and storage technologies, aligning perfectly with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies.

Comparison of Nickel Technologies​

Versatility in Ore Processing

ORF Laterite technology is uniquely versatile, capable of treating both low and high iron/magnesium oxide (Fe/MgO) ores. This contrasts with the more limited ore requirements of the Pyrometallurgical, Caron, and HPAL methods.

High Recovery Rates

ORF Laterite demonstrates impressive recovery rates of over 90% for both nickel and cobalt, outperforming the Caron method and closely matching the high recovery rates of Pyrometallurgical and HPAL processes.

Environmental Efficiency

The ORF Laterite method offers potentially lower environmental impact with the production of inert residue and reduced residue volume. Additionally, it operates at medium energy requirements without the need for water removal from ore, suggesting cost-effective and energy-efficient operations compared to the other methods.

Comparable Table
Feature Pyrometallurgical Caron HPAL ORF Laterite
Ores Treated Med-high Ni, low-med Fe ores Low Ni, high Fe ores Low Ni, high Fe ores Both low and high Fe/MgO ores
Ni Recovery ~95% ~75% ~95% >90%
Co Recovery None <50% ~95% >90%
Fe Recovery No No No Yes
Mg Recovery No No No Yes
Capital Cost High Medium High Can be lower
Operating Cost High Medium High Can be medium
Energy Requirement High (water removal, high temp) High (water removal, high temp) Low (no water removal, low temp) Medium (no water removal, low temp)
Reagents Not recycled Not recycled Not recycled Recycled
Residue Amount High volume High volume High volume Lower volume
Environmental Slag disposal Residue disposal (ammonia) High volume residue disposal Potentially inert residue

ORF Technology Processing of Nickel

Comparisons with ORF Process for TiO₂ production

Cost and Efficiency Advantages

The ORF process offers the lowest cost for both raw materials (using ilmenite) and TiO2 feed ($250 per ton), coupled with the lowest capital and operating expenses. This positions it as a highly cost-effective option compared to the Chloride and Sulphate processes.

Environmental and Safety

ORF is characterized as the most environmentally friendly option, with minimal environmental impact and low safety requirements. This contrasts with the medium to major environmental challenges and high safety requirements associated with the Chloride and Sulphate methods.

Technological Superiority

The ORF process employs patented, new technology and allows for flexible processing of raw materials under atmospheric conditions, indicating a significant advancement over the older technologies used in Chloride and Sulphate processes that require high temperature and have limited flexibility.
Comparable Table
Feature Chloride Sulphate ORF
Raw Material High cost (rutile) Low cost (ilmenite) Lowest cost (ilmenite)
Cost per Ton of TiO2 Feed >$2000 $300 $250
TiO2 Product Value High value Low value High value
Price per Ton of TiO2 ~$4500 >$3500 ~$4500
Capital Expenditure (Capex) Highest Medium Lowest
Operating Expenses (Opex) Highest Medium Lowest
Environmental Impact Medium challenges Major challenges Most environmentally friendly
Flexibility in Processing Raw Material Limited Limited Flexible
Process Conditions High Temp. High Temp. Atmospheric
Technology Old Old Patented, New
End-to-End Processing in One Location Not practiced Possible Possible
Pigment Production Rutile/Anatase Rutile/Anatase Rutile/Anatase
Commercial Viability In practice In practice Innovatively applied, will soon be in practice
Environmental Challenges Disposal of byproducts Disposal of byproducts Minimum environmental impact
Safety Requirements High High Low
Handling of Chemicals at High Temperatures Challenges N/A N/A
Energy Consumption High High Efficient
Sulfur Price Impact No effect Substantial effect No effect

Simplified ORF TiO2 Flowsheet and layout