Overview
- Portfolio of patents related to mineral extraction
- Intellectual property was developed over 50 years at a cost in excess of $20 million
- The science team will continue to operate under ORF Technologies
- ORF provides a suite of technologies which will compliment and work alongside the licensing agreement with MetaLeach™
- The ORF technology suite can support Temas’ internal La Blache Project development as well as unrelated third-party mining projects
Advantages
- Significantly reduces capital and processing costs (30-50%) and improves recoveries in complex deposits
- Allows for production of metal or high value product on-site
- Greatly enhances the mine gate economics compared to conventional concentrators
- The technologies are especially suitable for high-acid-consuming carbonate (oxide) hosted ores
- Environmentally friendly and reduces carbon footprint when compared to conventional processing methods
- Targeting base metals that are essential for the supply of raw materials for the electric vehicle revolution, energy generation and storage technologies
- Aligned with ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) policies
Comparison of Nickel Technologies
Pyrometallurgical | Caron | HPAL | ORF Laterite | |
Ores that can be treated | Med-high Ni (1.8-2.5 %), low-med Fe | Low Ni (1.2-1.5 %), high iron | Low Ni (1.2-1.5 %), high iron | Both low Fe/MgO and high |
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 (due to water removal from ore and high temperature processing) | High (due to water removal from ore and high temperature processing) | Low (no water removal from ore and low temperature process) | Medium (no water removal from ore and low temperature process) |
Reagents | Not recycled | Not recycled | Not recycled | Recycled |
Residue amount | High volume | High volume | High volume | Lower volume |
Environmental | Slag disposal | Residue disposal containing ammonia | High volume residue disposal | Potentially inert residue |
ORF Technology Processing of Nickel
Comparison of Technologies with ORF Process for TiO2 production
Chloride | Sulphate | ORF | |
Raw material | High cost, rutile | Low cost, Ilmenite | Lowest cost, Ilmenite |
($/ton of TiO2 feed) | ($2000 +) | $300 | $250 |
TiO2 product | High value | Low value | High value |
($/ton of TiO2) | ~4500 | ($3500 +) | ~4500 |
Capex | Highest | Medium | Lowest |
(including front-end) | |||
Opex | Highest | Medium | Lowest |
(including front-end) | |||
Environmental | Medium challenges | Major challenges | Most environmentally friendly |
Flexibility in processing raw material | Limitation (Mn, Mg, size) | Limitation (Cr, V) | Can process |
(Flexible) | |||
Process Condition | High Temp. | High Temp. | Atmospheric |
Chlorine | Sulphuric Acid | Mixed Chloride | |
(800-1000 0C) | (140-180 0C) | (70 0C) | |
Technology | Old | Old | Patented, New |
End to end in one location | Not practiced | Possible | Possible |
Pigment production | Rutile | Rutile/Anatase | Rutile/Anatase |
Commercially Proven process | In practice | In practice | Innovatively applied, will soon be in practice |
Environmental challenges | Disposal of iron and other byproduct chlorides | Disposal of large iron sulphate product and dilute acid | Minimum environmental impact, Iron oxide as byproduct |
Safety Requirements | High | High | Low |
(Cl2 at high and low temperature) | (High temperature acid digestion) | (no pressurized vessel and low temperature) | |
chlorine and carbon/carbon containing chemicals at high temperature | Challenges to handle | N/A | N/A |
Energy consumption | High | High | Efficient |
Sulfur price | No effect | Substantial effect | No effect |
Simplified ORF TiO2 Flowsheet and layout
