©2014 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.

Economic Geology, v. 109, pp. 1813–1841

A Detailed Assessment of Global Nickel Resource Trends and Endowments

Gavin M. Mudd1,† and Simon M. Jowitt2
1 Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
2 School of Geosciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia

Abstract
Nickel is a metal that reflects the technological advances of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, emerg-
ing as critically important for stainless steel and a variety of specialty metal alloys as well as currency, chemicals,
and batteries. Although mineral resources are commonly considered to be limited or finite, global Ni produc-
tion has grown steadily throughout the twentieth century and has been matched by substantial growth in esti-
mated Ni reserves and resources. While there is growing concern about “peak oil,” there is very little research
about “peak minerals.” In this paper, we present a detailed compilation and assessment of globally reported Ni
resources by project and split into standard mineral deposit types for the year 2011. The minimum amount of
Ni reported globally as mineral resources is 296.2 million metric tons (Mt) Ni, split over a total of 253 sulfide
projects containing 118.0 Mt Ni and 224 laterite projects containing 178.1 Mt Ni, with a further 3.38 Mt Ni in
China (excluding Jinchuan, which is included in our sulfide compilation)—i.e., a global total of some 299.6 Mt
Ni. Our data compilation indicates that the majority of global Ni resources are hosted by laterite deposits
(59.5%), especially Ni laterite deposits located around the tropics. In addition, our compiled data indicate
that global Ni resources continue to increase, despite a coincident increase in Ni production over time, along
with declining cut-off and ore grades, increasing awareness of environmental issues and other related aspects.
Overall, there are abundant Ni resources already identified which can meet growing global demands for some
decades to come—the primary factors which govern whether a given project is developed (or not) will be social,
economic, and environmental in nature.

Introduction later, research at the Krupp steelworks in Germany deter-

The availability and use of various metals have been so
important to the evolution and development of modern soci-
ety that historians name major human epochs after them,
as exemplified by the Bronze, Iron, and Atomic ages. Over
several millennia, humanity has evolved from using copper
(Cu), gold (Au), bronze (a copper-tin alloy), silver (Ag) and
lead (Pb), to iron (Fe), steel, nickel (Ni), aluminum (Al), chro-
mium (Cr), and zinc (Zn), and eventually to uranium (U) and
the rare earth elements (REEs), to name the most obvious
metals. Most of these advances have occurred since the dawn
of the twentieth century alongside evolution in technology
and economic development, especially growing consumption
patterns, and the vast majority of metals now have active uses
and demands.
Although Cu, Au, and Fe have been in use for millennia,
the widespread use of Ni is much more recent. Nickel was
first isolated in 1751, and it was largely ignored as a metal
until production from Ni sulfides began in Norway in 1848,
followed by the opening of the New Caledonian Ni laterite
mines in 1875 and the recognition of Ni-Cu sulfide mineral-
ization in the Sudbury field in Canada in 1886 (e.g., Mudd,
2010a). The ramping up of production from Sudbury was
coincident with the development of a Ni-Fe alloy, i.e., steel,
that was both corrosion resistant and strong (Habashi, 2009).
This development was complemented by the discovery of
austenitic (nickel-bearing) stainless steel in Germany in
1914, a development that stemmed from the 1913 discovery
that Cr-bearing steels are resistant to chemical attack. A year
† Corresponding author: e-mail, Gavin.Mudd@monash.edu
*A digital supplement to this paper is available at http://economicgeology.
org/ and at http://econgeol.geoscienceworld.org/.
0361-0128/14/4250/1813-29 1813
mined that the addition of nickel to chromium steel increased
ductility and acid resistance, a discovery that led to the wide-
spread production of kitchen sinks, cutlery, and other kitchen
utensils from austenitic stainless steel, a generic term for a
group of corrosion-resistant steels containing at least 10.5%
Cr. The 1920s saw the discovery of the giant Noril’sk field in
Siberia in northern Russia as well as the extensive platinum
group element (PGE) resources of the Bushveld Igneous
Complex of South Africa; the latter have relatively low Ni
(-Cu-Au) grades but produce significant amounts of by-prod-
uct Ni. Slowly but surely, Ni began a gradual but sustained
rise in production and use, in the main driven by the growing
manufacture of austenitic steel products in the 1930s. The
importance of this material continues today, with austenitic
stainless steel accounting for more than 60% of global nickel
consumption and continuing to be the largest current end
use of primary nickel production.
The natural geologic processes that form mineable metal
deposits, however, are often extremely slow or happen very
infrequently (e.g., with gaps of several million years or more
between mineral deposit-forming events), meaning that,
within human time scales, mineral deposits are nonrenew-
able resources. Over time, new deposits can be found and
exploited, but once depleted, they cannot be replaced. Recy-
cling of metals is, in some cases, relatively easy (e.g., Al, Cu,
Fe), although this is dependent on the pattern of use of a
given metal, and this recycling may not always be straightfor-
ward, based on current technologies and economics (e.g., the
REEs). In addition, although recycling of metals can possibly
meet a portion of existing demands, it is obviously not possible
to recycle enough metals to meet any increases in demand;
in other words, if demand increases to 110% of the metal
Submitted: August 5, 2013
Accepted: February 1, 2014
1814 MUDD AND JOWITT
currently in use, even if all of that metal is recycled, there
is still a 10% shortfall that can only be met by new produc-
tion. This therefore means that it is generally accepted that
mineral resources are finite and that mining is therefore an
unsustainable activity by its very nature (e.g., Mudd, 2009a,
2010b; Amezaga et al., 2011).
Although global mineral and metal production continues
to expand significantly in order to meet increasing demand,
the majority of remaining mineral resources also continue to
grow, and global estimates often indicate that current or even
increasing demand can be met for at least a few decades or
more (Wellmer and Becker-Platen, 2000; IIED and WBCSD,
2002; Mudd, 2012; Mudd et al., 2013a, b). This has been
true for mining throughout the twentieth century, mainly as
a result of decreasing costs, the availability of reliable low cost
energy sources and new mining and processing technologies,
growing demand and continued exploration success (Doggett,
2000; IIED and WBCSD, 2002; Mudd, 2009a, 2010b). How-
ever, it is currently unclear how long these historic patterns
can continue, especially considering that mineral resources
are finite (and noting that some critical inputs such as energy
are rising in costs faster than inflation; see IEA, 2013).
In the 1950s M. King Hubbert first applied the concept
of a “peak” model to annual oil production, where finite oil
resources are discovered and developed, leading to a gradual
rise and inevitable decline in production (Hubbert, 1956).
Although the peak oil problem is now widely recognized and
debated (e.g., Bentley, 2002; Feng et al., 2008; Sorrell et al.,
2009; Smith, 2012), only minimal research into the extent that
the peak concept applies to other minerals and metals has
been undertaken (e.g., Arndt and Ganino, 2012; Prior et al.,
2012), while other researchers try to refute it (e.g., Rustad,
2012).
Although both hydrocarbon and mineral resources form
as a result of geologic processes, the scale of the structures
that host individual reservoirs or orebodies differ significantly.
Hydrocarbon reservoirs are often hosted by large structures
which can be imaged using three-dimensional seismic tech-
niques, whereas mineral deposits are often small features that
can frequently be obscured by regional geologic complexity.
This combination of small target and complex geologic settings
means that it can take a considerable effort to locate a min-
eralized prospect, in addition to the delineation and technical
studies that are required to determine whether this prospect
is economic to mine. The mining industry generally minimizes
exploration and development costs by initially delineating an
extractable reserve using minimal expenditure on drilling,
etc., with the related production financially contributing to
the subsequent and ongoing conversion of resources to mine-
able reserves during the lifetime of a mine, rather than incur-
ring the prohibitive expenditure related to initially delineating
the full extent of an orebody. This approach also uses ongo-
ing greenfield and brownfield exploration in the area around
a mineral deposit that is likely to find new deposits or expand
resources at operating mines, meaning that mining companies
are able to adapt to changing market conditions that can make
a project profitable (or otherwise), and to a certain extent,
able to adopt any new technology that might enable mining of
previously uneconomic projects or subeconomic mineraliza-
tion within a given mining camp.
The most widely used global mineral resource estimates
are provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
who produce approximate estimates of the global resources
of a wide range of metals and minerals in annual “Mineral
Commodity Summaries” (e.g., USGS, 1996−2013). These
summaries use the McKelvey System of mineral deposit
classification, whereby reserves consist of known economic
deposits. Subeconomic and marginal projects are added to
this reserves total to yield a reserves base estimate of the com-
modity in question (although the USGS ceased reporting of
reserves base estimates in 2009). The USGS reserves esti-
mates include the recoverable amount of metal within oper-
ating mines and projects under development, whereas the
previously reported reserves base estimates included reserves
and additional mineral resources reported at known projects
that were under development or at advanced stages of explo-
ration. The last reported USGS Ni reserves base estimate for
2008 and Ni reserve estimates for 2010 and 2011 by country
are shown in Table 1, including equivalent national estimates.
It should be noted that the reserves reported by the USGS
are often (erroneously) thought to represent absolute (or per-
haps finite) amounts, leading to frequent claims that the world
is running out of certain mineral resources. This is exempli-
fied by Cohen (2007), who claimed that current Ni reserves
would only last 57 years at 2007 global consumption rates,
with critical caveats including the exclusion of new discover-
ies and technologies and continuing consumption either con-
stant or allowed to increase at historic rates, none of which
accurately reflects the true situation in the global Ni market.
Table 1. USGS Reserves (2010, 2011) and Reserves Base (2008) for
Nickel (Mt Ni), Including Respective National Resource Estimates
Reserves Reserves Reserves National
Country (2010) (2011) Base (2008) estimate
United States 0.15
Australia 24 24 29 43.8
Dominican Republic 0.96 1 1
Cuba 5.5 5.5 23
Columbia 1.6 0.72 2.7
China 3 3 7.6 9.38
Botswana 0.49 0.49 0.92
Brazil 8.7 8.7 8.3 8.353
New Caledonia 7.1 12 15
Indonesia 3.9 3.9 13
Madagascar 1.3 1.6
Canada 3.8 3.3 15 3.301
Philippines 1.1 1.1 5.2
Greece 0.9
Russia 6 6 9.2
Venezuela 0.49 0.63
South Africa 3.7 3.7 12 3.7
Zimbabwe 0.26
Other 4.5 4.6 6.1
Total1 761 801 1501
Notes: National resource estimates from Australia–2011 (GA,
1992−2012); Brazil–2011 (DNPM, 2008−2012); Canada–2009 (NRC,
1944−2010); China (Hongtao et al., 2011); South Africa (CMSA,
2005−2013)
1 Totals rounded down to two significant figures; it should be noted that
the USGS data for Greece, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe were included in the
“Other” subtotal as a result of page constraints, and Reserves Base data were
deliberately not published by the USGS in 2012 and 2013 as a result of dif-
fering international standards
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1815
The fact that mining companies invest only the minimal
effort and expenditure that is required to prove an ore reserve
is profitable to extract prior to development means that com-
piling formal reserve estimates alone will necessarily exclude
mineral resources that are known but are not quantified in
as much detail as ore reserves. This points to the need for
research into long-term trends in recoverable minerals (i.e.,
50  years plus) to be based on total mineral resources rather
than ore reserves. This approach would show that substantial
known resources are, given current and foreseeable techno-
logical and economic factors, economically extractable. In
addition, and more importantly, other factors are likely to be
more important controls on the future of Ni mining than sim-
ply the fact that there are “x years of Ni left.” These include
social concerns (e.g., economic benefits, labor), environmental
issues (e.g., tailings, waste rock, pollutant emissions), increas-
ingly challenging mining conditions (e.g., depths >1 km),
infrastructure issues, fluctuations in metal prices (especially
important for Ni given the by-product nature of significant
amounts of Ni production and the importance of by-products
from Ni-dominated mining projects), and political issues and
access to areas prospective for mineral exploration (e.g., seri-
ous political hurdles that continue to hamper nickel explora-
tion and development in prospective areas such as Afghanistan,
Eritrea, northeastern Iraq, and northern Yemen, where politi-
cal and security hurdles may not permit even a cursory evalua-
tion, and as exemplified by the 25-year struggle to develop the
Los Camariocas laterite deposit in Cuba).
This study presents a detailed analysis of reported global Ni
mineral resources that provides an ideal baseline for the pre-
cise and accurate forecasting of future scenarios for Ni min-
ing, enabling the identification of key Ni resource trends and
determining whether the concept of “peak nickel” is realistic.
We include an extensive Ni resource database that has been
compiled almost exclusively from 2011 company reporting,
with all resources classified using standard mineral deposit
types (e.g., Naldrett, 2004; Freyssinet et al., 2005). These data
represent a robustly calculated minimum estimate of the cur-
rently available global Ni resources and will prove valuable
for anyone concerned with the future of the Ni mining sector
and related environmental, social, economic, and technology
issues.
Mineral Resource Accounting
Nickel deposit types
All of the Ni resources within our database have been
assigned a mineral deposit type; this classification shows
that the majority of Ni resources are hosted by magmatic
sulfide or laterite mineral deposits. However, there are also
a wide variety of other mineral deposit types that, although
relatively minor in resource and economic terms, also need
to be considered and may prove to be important sources of
Ni in the future; these other mineral deposit types are gener-
ally associated with hydrothermal systems and include skarn,
volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS), sedimentary exhalative
(SEDEX), unconformity uranium, sediment-hosted strati-
form Cu-Co, and serpentinization-associated deposits. In the
rare cases where a mineral deposit type has not been assigned
to a resource or has not been disclosed by the mining or
exploration company, a classification has been assigned based
on the geologic information available.
Magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide deposits form by the segre-
gation of immiscible sulfide liquids from mafic or ultramafic
silicate magmas, with the increased compatibility (i.e., high
sulfide-silicate partition coefficients) of chalcophile elements
such as Ni, Cu, and the PGEs within sulfide melts leading to
the enrichment of magmatic sulfides in these elements (e.g.,
Campbell and Naldrett, 1979; Naldrett, 2004). These depos-
its fall into two broad categories—sulfur-rich Ni-Cu-(PGE)
and sulfur-poor PGE-dominated deposits, although there are
significant overlaps between the two. Magmatic sulfide min-
eralization can form in a wide variety of settings and magmatic
sulfide deposits are preserved throughout most of the geologic
timescale (Naldrett, 2010). Here, we subdivide magmatic
sulfide deposits into a number of subtypes, loosely based on
the classifications of Naldrett (2004, 2010) and Hoatson et al.
(2006):
Archean komatiite: These are magmatic sulfide deposits
that are hosted by komatiites of unequivocally Archean age, as
exemplified by the Kambalda Ni deposits of Western Australia.
Proterozoic komatiite: These are magmatic sulfide depos-
its hosted by komatiites or komatiitic basalts of unequivocally
Proterozoic age, as exemplified by the Thompson and Raglan
deposits of Canada.
Flood basalt-related: These magmatic sulfide deposits are
hosted by mafic intrusions that may have been feeders for
extensive flood basalt extrusions during large igneous prov-
ince (LIP) events. This classification is exemplified by the
Russian Noril’sk-Talnakh deposits that are associated with the
Siberian Trap flood basalts, and deposits of the Duluth Com-
plex of Minnesota, associated with the Keweenawan flood
basalt province.
Layered intrusion: These deposits are hosted by large layered
mafic-ultramafic intrusive complexes. This category, where
possible, is further split into strata-bound contact-type (e.g.,
Platreef of the Bushveld Complex) and strata-bound strati-
form reef-type (e.g., UG-2 and Merensky reefs of the Bushveld
Complex) deposits to reflect the differing positions and contact
relationships of these deposits within layered intrusions.
Alaskan-type deposit: This deposit type is associated with
Alaskan- or Urals-type ultramafic complexes and is exempli-
fied by the Turnagain deposit of British Columbia, Canada.
PGE-discordant intrusion: The only example of this type
of deposit is the Lac des Iles deposit in Canada; the struc-
tural position of this deposit is dissimilar to others within this
compilation.
Magmatic feeder: Deposits within this category are located
within or are genetically associated with feeder zones for
overlying magma bodies and extrusions, although not neces-
sarily on the same scale as flood basalt/LIP-type magmatism.
Intrusion-related: The deposits within this category are
hosted by intrusions that are not definitively layered, are not
definitively contact or stratigraphically controlled, are not
unequivocally komatiitic, and are not definitively related to
contemporaneous flood basalt magmatism. These intrusions
are generally smaller than the layered intrusions within this
compilation, and the nature of this category means that it
includes a number of deposits for which only limited informa-
tion is available.
1816 MUDD AND JOWITT
Meteorite impact melt-related: This class of deposits is
related to melting, the production of significant volumes of
mafic magmas, and the generation of magmatic sulfide miner-
alization by a meteorite impact, as exemplified by the deposits
of the Sudbury area of Ontario, Canada, and the recently dis-
covered Maniitsoq meteorite impact structure of southwest-
ern Greenland.
This classification may in part seem fairly loose, but this is
intentional—a significant number of magmatic sulfide depos-
its within our compilation are poorly characterized, and so,
rather than providing a detailed classification of the type of
magma or hosting body, we have used a more general, but
more robust, classification system.
Although some 64% of Ni production to date has been from
Ni ± Cu ± Co ± PGE sulfide ores (data updated from Mudd,
2010a), the majority of global Ni resources are in fact hosted
by Ni-(Co) laterites (Dalvi et al., 2004; this study). The main
reason for this dichotomy is that the complex mineral pro-
cessing required to economically exploit Ni laterite depos-
its meant that magmatic sulfide ores were considered more
important exploration targets, primarily as the ore within sul-
fide deposits has historically been more easily processed using
conventional concentration and smelting techniques.
Ni laterite deposits are formed by the deep weathering
of Mg-rich ultramafic rocks, with the majority of Ni later-
ites formed from ophiolitic ultramafics, but with a number
of important deposits formed from komatiites or other oliv-
ine-rich or serpentinized rocks (e.g., Freyssinet et al., 2005;
Ernst and Jowitt, 2013). In addition to Ni, laterites often
contain economically extractable quantities of cobalt (e.g.,
Mudd et al., 2013a) and may also be enriched in the PGEs,
although the latter may not be economically extractable (e.g.,
Freyssinet et al., 2005). The majority of laterite deposits are
located in tropical regions, although some are also present in
high latitudes where weathering during preceding periods of
warmer, more humid climate caused the formation of laterite
deposits.
There are three main types of Ni laterite (Golightly, 1981,
2010; Brand et al., 1998; Freyssinet et al., 2005), namely: (1)
oxide laterites that contain Ni that has either substituted into
or is adsorbed onto goethite; (2) hydrous Mg silicate laterites
that contain Ni-enriched hydrous Mg silicates, such as ser-
pentine, talc, chlorite, sepiolite and garnierite; and (3) clay
silicate laterites that are dominated by Ni-rich nontronite and
saponite smectites.
Hydrous Mg silicate laterites generally contain the highest
Ni grades (~1.8−2.5% Ni) and dominate Ni laterite produc-
tion statistics (e.g., Freyssinet et al., 2005) although the com-
position of, and ore types present within, individual Ni laterite
deposits are often poorly reported. The controls on the forma-
tion of these differing styles of laterite deposit are not entirely
clear, as, for example, hydrous Mg silicate laterites are domi-
nantly located in the present-day tropics but are also located
in regions with more temperate climates, and clay silicate and
oxide laterites are present throughout all latitudes (Freyssinet
et al., 2005), although there is no clear link between present-
day climate conditions and the type, size, or grade of Ni laterite
mineralization. The association of some hydrous Mg silicate Ni
laterites with present-day tropical environments and other clay
silicate Ni laterites with present-day semiarid or savannah-like
environments is primarily a function of structural geology, tec-
tonic setting, and geomorphology, all of which exert controls
on erosion and drainage (e.g., Freyssinet et al., 2005; Butt and
Cluzel, 2013). Changes in the climate of an area can also signif-
icantly influence laterite formation, with wet climates forming
hydrous Mg silicate laterites, changes from wet to dry climates
forming both oxide and clay silicate laterites, and changes from
dry to wet climates potentially forming hydrous Mg silicate
and/or clay silicate laterite deposits (Golightly, 1981, 2010).
These climatic changes can also affect the moisture content
of a laterite, a key uncertainty in determining the grade and
tonnage of a nickel laterite deposit (e.g., Golightly, 2010); the
effect of these uncertainties on the Ni laterite resources com-
piled here is discussed elsewhere in this paper.
Protolith composition can also partly influence the type of
laterite deposit that formed during weathering, as clinopyrox-
ene-bearing lithologies are more likely to form clay silicate
laterites, dunitic protoliths are likely to weather to form oxide
deposits, and the degree of serpentinization can influence the
formation of hydrous Mg silicates (Golightly, 1981; Freyssinet
et al., 2005). Conversely, peridotitic protoliths can weather
to form all three types of laterite deposit (Freyssinet et al.,
2005). Other important local factors include local tectonics
(e.g., deeper weathering proximal to local faults) topogra-
phy and drainage (e.g., Elias, 2002; Freyssinet et al., 2005;
Golightly, 2010).
Nickel is moderately to entirely immobile within the major-
ity of hydrothermal systems (e.g., Jowitt et al., 2012) with the
notable exception of systems that contain a significant amount
of arsenic. This means that although Ni is present in a wide
variety of hydrothermal mineral deposits, it is generally pres-
ent in very low concentrations, such that very few of these
deposits have been historically exploited as a source of pri-
mary or by-product Ni (e.g., González-Álvarez et al., 2012).
The comparatively minor hydrothermal Ni deposits within
our database include polymetallic shale-hosted Ni VMS or
SEDEX deposits; these deposits span a range of grades and
tonnages, from low-grade bulk tonnage deposits exemplified
by the Talvivaara deposit in Finland, to high-grade low-ton-
nage Ni sulfide deposits in China and the Yukon (e.g., Jowitt
and Keays, 2012), with the former increasingly becoming an
attractive target for Ni exploration. A range of more tradi-
tional VMS deposits also contain Ni (e.g., Constantinou,
1980; Hannington et al., 1998; Galley et al., 2007), although
only the Outokumpu-type VMS deposits of Scandinavia have
been consistently exploited as a source of Ni (Peltonen et al.,
2008). Another minor type of Ni mineralization is unconfor-
mity-type uranium (U) deposits. In Canada’s Athabasca Basin
in northern Saskatchewan, the rich U grades (0.5−20% U3O8)
are often accompanied by high Ni grades that can range
from 0.1 to 20% Ni in drill intersections but often average
1 to 2% Ni across a deposit (see Dahlkamp, 1978; Ruzicka,
1984, 1993; Flöter, 1987; Donahue et al., 2000; Dill, 2010).
Examples include the Key Lake, Rabbit Lake, Cluff Lake,
and Eldorado-Port Radium deposits, although to date no Ni
production has occurred from these deposits (presumably
due to the difficulty in producing a low radioactivity Ni con-
centrate). Due to the lack of production and resource report-
ing, these deposits are excluded from our database, except
for the Eldorado-Port Radium tailings that are being assessed
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1817
for potential Ni production. Sediment-hosted stratiform Cu
deposits also contain variable amounts of Ni, as exemplified
by the reported Ni within resource estimates for the Kalum-
bila-Enterprise and Nama deposits in Zambia. In addition,
carbonatite deposits are often associated with Ni enrich-
ments (e.g., Corriveau, 2007; Groves et al., 2010), and the
Phalaborwa carbonatite in South Africa produces Ni (511  t
Ni in metal and sulfate in 2011; PMC, 2012) as a by-product
of Cu production, although no Ni resources are reported for
this deposit.
Hydrothermal alteration of ultramafic rocks can also lead
to the formation of a variety of styles of Ni mineralization,
as exemplified by the high-temperature Avebury deposit in
Tasmania, where intrusion of granite caused mobilization of
magmatic sulfides and led to the formation of a skarn-type Ni
deposit (Keays and Jowitt, 2012). Low-temperature serpenti-
nization can also generate Ni mineralization, as exemplified
by the alteration of olivine within an obducted upper Paleo-
zoic-lower Mesozoic ophiolite sequence that led to Ni release
and the formation of Ni-Fe awaruite alloys within the Decar
deposit in British Columbia, Canada (Ronacher et al., 2012).
This deposit is hosted by a serpentinized peridotite and rep-
resents a new style of potential bulk tonnage but low-grade Ni
deposit. The 2011 resource used in our data set was 1,283 Mt
of ore at 0.108% Ni, while the more recent 2013 resource is
~2 billion tons (Gt) of resources at 0.125% recoverable Ni
(reported in Davis Tube Recoverable Nickel Content values,
which only report Ni present as alloys, rather than the total Ni
content of the deposit; some 64% of the total nickel within the
deposit is present as alloys, with the rest hosted by unrecov-
erable silicate minerals in the serpentinized peridotite host).
These two contrasting styles of alteration and the two signifi-
cantly different deposits at Avebury and Decar that resulted
from these alteration events exemplify the wide variety of
mineralizing systems that can form Ni deposits.
Finally, there are also a number of other potential Ni
resources that have been frequently discussed but have been
little explored and have certainly not produced any Ni to date.
The most important of these are oceanic Fe-Mn manganese
nodules and crusts that are found on the ocean floor and on
seamounts; these resources are thought to form by chemical
precipitation within the peripheries of seafloor hydrother-
mal systems. These nodules contain significant amounts of
Ni, Co, and other metals (e.g., Mudd et al., 2013a), and the
Clarion-Clipperton nodule deposit represents the world’s
first (and to date only) code-based deep-sea polymetallic
nodule Ni resource estimate, although the viability of deep-
sea nodule mining as an economically sound commercial
operation is unclear, especially when social concerns and the
ecological and biodiversity implications of deep-sea mining
are considered. However, changes in technology and deple-
tion of terrestrial Ni (and other metal) deposits may improve
the economics and viability of these somewhat speculative
resources.
Mineral resource accounting
A wide range of technical studies, including close-spaced
drilling to delineate a resource, ore processing and metallur-
gical test work (especially for concentrate or product quality
and related marketing aspects), mine design and planning,
environmental impact assessments and social and economic
studies, are needed to define a mineral resource as economic
and convert resources to reserves; only if these relevant cri-
teria are passed can a deposit be classified accordingly and
potentially mined.
The requirements of mining companies to determine the
profitability of a mineral deposit and to both justify the meth-
odology used and communicate this information formally
to the wider public and investors (as the majority of mining
companies are listed on public stock exchanges) has led to the
adaptation of formal regulations and codes for the assessment,
evaluation, and reporting of mineral resources. The majority
of publicly listed mining companies are required to use their
national code, and most major mining nations either have
their own codes or have adopted a code from another nation.
Australian ore reserves and mineral resources are reported
according to the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Code
(Stephenson, 2001; AusIMM et al., 2004), whereas Canada
uses National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101; OSC, 2011),
and South Africa uses the South African Mineral Resource
Committee Code (SAMRCWG, 2009), among others (e.g.,
Russia, China, Europe, United States). The 1994 establish-
ment of the Committee for Mineral Reserves International
Reporting Standards (aka “CRIRSCO”) through the Coun-
cil of Mining and Metallurgical Institutes has enabled inter-
national cooperation on codes for the reporting of mineral
reserves and resources; CRIRSCO member regions and
countries include Australasia, Canada, Chile, Europe, South
Africa, and the United States.
All of these statutory codes consider two primary aspects in
determining whether a mineral resource is profitable, namely
geologic and economic probability. These aspects incorporate
a wide range of modifying factors, including mining, metallur-
gical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and
governmental considerations and impacts. These codes also
typically use two primary categories to classify mineral depos-
its: ore reserves and mineral resources. These categories are
discriminated by the likelihood of profitable extraction of a
given deposit or part of a deposit, where ore reserves have
a very high economic and geologic probability of profitable
extraction, and mineral resources have a reasonable geologic
probability but are less economically certain. These categories
are more precisely referred to in definitions such as:
Ore reserves: Assessments demonstrate at the time of
reporting that profitable extraction could reasonably be justi-
fied. Ore reserves are subdivided in order of increasing con-
fidence into probable ore reserves and proved ore reserves;
Mineral resources: The location, quantity, grade, geo-
logic characteristics and continuity of a mineral resource are
known such that there are reasonable prospects for eventual
economic extraction, although not all modifying factors have
been assessed and hence some uncertainty remains. Mineral
resources are subdivided, in order of increasing geologic con-
fidence, into inferred, indicated, and measured categories.
The majority of statutory codes allow mineral resource
reporting to be either inclusive of or separate to ore reserves,
although some jurisdictions require reporting of mineral
resources to be separate to ore reserves (e.g., the US Secu-
rities and Exchange Commission where mineral resources
need to be reported separately as “mineralized material”).
1818 MUDD AND JOWITT

The USGS uses reserves and reserve base categories that
are broadly similar to ore reserves and mineral resources,
respectively, although the reserves base still excludes inferred
resources. An analysis of various mineral resource reporting
codes is given by Lambert et al. (2009).
As discussed above, the majority of research into globally
available Ni resources has focused on Ni reserves reporting,
with all the issues that this focus entails. We consider that
a more realistic examination of the long-term (>50 years)
future of Ni mining can be achieved by compiling total min-
eral resources as reported by various companies and mines,
including all measured, indicated, and inferred resources
(Mudd et al., 2013a, b). We consider this approach to be more
robust than relying on Ni reserve data alone, primarily as the
majority of the world’s giant or long-lived Ni projects (e.g.,
Sudbury, Noril’sk-Talnakh, New Caledonia laterites; see case
studies presented in this paper) have ore reserves that repre-
sent a small proportion of the known amount of contained Ni,
whereas mineral resources are sufficiently geologically under-
stood to allow long-term project planning and therefore are
more likely to be representative of the amount of mineable Ni
within an orebody or a mining camp. These mineral resources
are very likely to be upgraded to ore reserves over time and
eventually mined (Hoatson et al., 2006; Mudd et al., 2013b),
although it appears that there are no formal studies published
that focus on this conversion of resources to reserves to
production. A brief compilation is provided in Table 2; this
focuses on extensive historic data sets which are available for
some major Ni mines in Australia and Canada (e.g., Mudd,
2009a, b, 2010a, b, and analysis of company reporting), and
a number of other major projects. These projects indicate
that the conversion of mineral resources to ore reserves over
time is generally very successful; that is, 10 of the 12 projects
show cumulative production plus remaining resources greater
than initial reserves-resources. In addition, the past 20 years
has seen a significant increase in total mineable material (i.e.,
cumulative production plus remaining mineral resources)
that has been driven by ongoing exploration and resource-to-
reserve conversion rather than improvements in technology
or economic changes alone. This is not to say that technologi-
cal developments have not impacted on this conversion rate;
for example, increased use of high-pressure acid leaching-
based extraction of Ni from laterites and elevated prices for
Ni and associated by-products in recent years have also been
important factors in the conversion of resources to reserves to
production for some projects (e.g., Murrin Murrin and devel-
oping Ni laterite projects at Ambatovy and Goro).
There are very few studies that assess global Ni resources.
Hoatson et al. (2006) examined global Ni sulfide resources
(which they define as production plus remaining reserves/

Table 2. Ore Reserves, Additional Mineral Resources and Cumulative Production for Selected Major Nickel Projects

Project Operating period Ore reserves Additional mineral resources Cumulative production1

Kambalda Field, Australia 1967–20112 1966: 1.93 Mt @ 4.15% Ni - 1966–20112:

2011: 4.788 Mt @ 3.43% Ni 2011: 18.791 Mt @ 2.07% Ni ~50.20 Mt @ 3.10% Ni
Savannah/Sally Malay, Australia 2004–20112 2003: 3.42 Mt @ 1.56% Ni 2003: 0.32 Mt @ 3.67% Ni 2003–20112:
2011: 4.579 Mt @ 1.28% Ni 2011: 0.686 Mt @ 3.2% Ni 5.060 Mt @ 1.29% Ni
Murrin Murrin, Australia 1999–20112 1996: 117.4 Mt @ 1.02% Ni 1996: 7.9 Mt @ 1.02% Ni 1999–20112:
2011: 186.2 Mt @ 1.00% Ni 2011: 81.79 Mt @ 1.00% Ni ~30.5 Mt @ ~1.34% Ni
Greenvale-Brolga, Australia 1974–1995 1974: 45 Mt @ 1.57% Ni 3 1974–1995:

31.26 @ 1.41% Ni
Lynn Lake, Canada 1953–1976 1952: 12.75 Mt @ 1.223% Ni 7 1952–1976:

20.16 Mt @ 0.98% Ni
Thompson, Canada 1961–20112 1960: 22.68 Mt @ 2.67% Ni 6 1961–20112:

2011: 27.6 Mt @ 1.75% Ni 6 ~119.1 Mt @ ~2.19% Ni

Falconbridge Group, Canada
4 1929–20112 1929: 1.24 Mt @ 2.97% Ni - 1929–20112:
2011: 18.11 Mt @ 1.39% Ni 2011: 32.68 Mt @ 2.29% Ni 153.83 Mt @ 1.43% Ni
Inco Group,5 Sudbury, Canada 1886–20112 1916: 60.33 Mt @ ~2.0% Ni 6 1916–20112:

2011: 105.4 Mt @ 1.17% Ni 6 811.6 Mt @ 1.30% Ni

Giant Hope/Giant Mascot, Canada 1959–1974 1957: 1.2 Mt @ 1.39% Ni 1959–1974:
4.08 Mt @ 0.80% Ni
Raglan, Canada 1998–20112 1993: 18.1 Mt @ 3.13% Ni - 1993–20112:
2011: 9.43 Mt @ 3.07% Ni 2011: 23.07 Mt @ 3.10% Ni 14.29 Mt @ 2.78% Ni
Codemin, Brazil 1982–20112 2001: 5.4 Mt @ 1.37% Ni 2001: 8.5 Mt @ 1.26% Ni 2001–20112:
2011: 4.6 Mt @ 1.35% Ni 2011: 6.0 Mt @ 1.25% Ni 5.62 Mt @ 1.81% Ni
Loma de Níquel, Venezuela 2001–20112 2001: 41.4 Mt @ 1.48% Ni 2001: 4.3 Mt @ 1.46% Ni 2001–20112:
2011: 4.6 Mt @ 1.48% Ni 2011: 7.4 Mt @ 1.33% Ni 10.87 Mt @ 1.64% Ni

1 For period of reserves noted only

2 Stilloperating; all reserve-resource data from company annual reporting (or government in the case of some data), while production reporting is
updated from Mudd (2009a, b, 2010a, b)
3 Recent exploration has established new mineral resources at Greenvale, including scandium-rich ores
4 Now known as Xstrata Sudbury
5 Now known as Vale Inco Sudbury
6 It should be noted Vale Inco only report ore reserves and not additional mineral resources (see case studies for more discussion of this)
7 Corazon Mining have recently established new mineral resources for the Lynn Lake field
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1819
resources), using an extensive compilation of data from Aus-
tralia and Canada with limited data from other countries, and
derive 103.1 Mt Ni from sulfide ores. Based on ~27.5 Mt Ni
being produced from sulfide ores to 2004 (data from Mudd,
2010a), this suggests ~75.6 Mt Ni as remaining Ni sulfide
resources (Hoatson et al., 2006, do not separate production
and reserves-resources). Elias (2002) presented a brief global
assessment of Ni laterites (as of about the year 2000; pre-
sumably based on a compilation of reported resource data,
although the sources and methodology used during compil-
ing these data are not clearly explained); this study reported
9,569 Mt of limonite ore grading 1.17% Ni, yielding 112.2 Mt
contained Ni, and 2,712 Mt of saprolite ores grading 1.79%
Ni containing 48.5 Mt Ni—a total of 160.7 Mt Ni. In addition,
Dalvi et al. (2004) stated that global Ni resources consist of
10,500 Mt of sulfide ores grading 0.58% Ni for 62 Mt Ni, and
12,600 Mt of laterite ores grading 1.28% Ni for 161 Mt Ni—a
global total of 223 Mt Ni, although the source (and therefore
reliability) of their data was not clearly stated (they presum-
ably used a Brook Hunt and/or updated Inco in-house data-
base). The lack of clarity in the methodologies employed and
sources used in the compilation of these global Ni resource
estimates clearly demonstrates the need for an open, trans-
parent, and robust method of assessing global metal and min-
eral resources.
There are also methodologies for estimating undiscovered
resources, primarily to help with exploration targeting and/or
government and industry mineral development policy (e.g.,
Singer, 2008; Mamuse et al., 2010; Rasilainen et al., 2010),
although such approaches are speculative and statutory codes
obviously do not support the reporting of such estimates.
Given that the main focus of this paper is the compilation and
assessment of discovered and delineated Ni resources rather
than estimating potentially undiscovered resources, such lit-
erature and estimates will therefore be excluded.
For this paper, an extensive data set of total mineral
resources containing Ni by individual project was compiled,
as reported under statutory codes, and using 2011 data or the
most recent report. Although Berger et al. (2011) provided
global data for laterite deposits, their study does not have an
explicit focus on the identification and discussion of explicitly
code-based data for remaining Ni-Co laterite resources data
and commonly includes past production in total resource
estimates; as such, we only used data from this study where
no other current source was available. In general, most explo-
ration or mining project resources relate to a single deposit
(e.g., Turnagain, Mount Keith), although some resources
cover a group of individual orebodies or a mining camp
(e.g., Sudbury, Noril’sk-Talnakh, Murrin Murrin, Kambalda).
Some Ni laterite resources are reported as “wet tons” but
with no moisture content; in this case a value of 20% mois-
ture was assumed (adapted from data in Parianos et al., 1998,
and Golightly, pers. commun.). The compiled data set should
be considered a reliable minimum geologic estimate for
global Ni resources in 2011, as the vast majority of resources
contained within this compilation were reported under stat-
utory codes (or similar); with the full project list provided
as supplementary electronic information, and several case
studies of production trends and changes in resources over
time presented for selected Ni projects. Whether all projects
proceed to production, however, is dependent on econom-
ics, mining conditions, processing technology, and charac-
teristics (especially impurities such as arsenic or others),
by-product metal contents, recovery and prices, site-specific
environmental issues (especially land use, water, and mine
waste management), social constraints (e.g., bans on mining
in high conservation value areas), energy sources and costs,
labor costs, etc.
Results and Analysis
Nickel mineral resources
The totals by country for our compiled Ni resources are
shown in Table 3, including 2011 production, cumulative pro-
duction from 1800 to 2011, and the ratio of resources to 2011
production. Our compiled data include a total of 477 projects
with a total of 61.67 billion tons (Gt) of ore, grading 0.48% Ni
and containing 296.2 Mt Ni. In addition to Jinchuan (which is
included in our data), China is reported to have 3.38 Mt Ni
in national resources (Hongtao et al., 2011), while for some
countries with important Ni resources we have old or minimal
data (e.g., Turkey, Cuba, Greece, Brazil). Combining our data
with the Chinese national resources gives at least 299.6 Mt Ni
globally—some 117 years supply at the 2011 annual production
rate of ~1.90 Mt Ni metal per year (assuming a 75% recovery
rate from ore processing). This assessment of 2011 resources
is some 76 Mt Ni greater than the 223 Mt Ni determined by
Dalvi et al. (2004). In the ~10 years between these studies,
cumulative global production was ~12.2 Mt Ni—demonstrat-
ing that global Ni resources continue to increase, although
whether all of this increase can be ascribed to the discovery
of new mineralization (unlikely), or whether the availability
of Ni resource data has increased as a result of easier access
to information (e.g., via the internet) and the development
of new standards for public disclosure is unclear; the most
likely scenario is a combination of the two, with the majority
probably relating mostly to resource expansion and to a lesser
extent new discoveries. It should also be noted that inferred
resources can be very poorly defined and can decrease as they
are better defined, although, as described previously (e.g.,
Jowitt et al., 2013), production at a given mine can be coinci-
dent with ongoing and significant increases in resources. The
majority of Ni is contained Ni laterite resources (59.5%), with
the majority of this centered around the tropics; in contrast,
sulfide Ni resources are dominated by several major camps
(e.g., Noril’sk-Talnakh, Bushveld, Sudbury) with the remain-
der spread around the world.
The trends over time for USGS reserves and reserves base
for the United States and the world with national data for Aus-
tralia, Brazil, Canada, and China are shown in Figure 1; these
data also show a common rise in Ni resources over time. The
last USGS global reserves base estimate was 150 Mt Ni (for
2008) with a 2011 global reserves estimate of 80 Mt Ni (2012
was 75 Mt Ni). A degree of caution is warranted, however,
in comparing and understanding such data. For Australia,
Geoscience Australia (GA) reported 20.4 Mt Ni in economic
resources in 2011, whereas the USGS reported 24 Mt Ni as
reserves (GA also reported an additional 22.5 Mt Ni as sub-
economic resources; GA, 1992−2012). According to Western
Australia’s Minedex online database, Ni reserves in Western
 Table 3. Our 2011 Compiled Ni Resource Data, 2011 and Cumulative Country Production (1800–2011) and Ratio of Resources/2011 Production
1820
Our compilation: Ni laterites Our compilation: Ni sulfides 2011 Prod. (kt Ni) Cum. Prod. (kt Ni)

Ni. Res Cum. Prod. Res./2011

Country Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Co (%) Ni (kt) No. Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Cu (%) Ni (kt) No. Ni (kt) Laterite Sulfide Laterite Sulfide +Res. Ni (kt) Prod. (years)

Australia 4,181.6 0.75 0.046 31,529.0 69 2,033.9 0.58 0.10 11,878.5 55 43,407.6 27.9 187.1 695.1 4,321.4 48,424.1 202
Indonesia 2,071.1 1.61 0.023 33,291.2 16 33,291.2 297.0 3,656.0 36,947.2 92
South Africa 18,361.5 0.18 0.07 33,216.3 45 33,216.3 ~39.8 1,311.0 34,527.3 835
Russia1 413.0 0.96 0.026 3,960.5 5 4,492.6 0.46 0.53 20,457.5 14 24,418.1 ~16.8 237.2 ~2,142 ~8,453 35,080.4 96
Canada 6,376.9 0.34 0.12 21,923.1 54 21,923.1 212.1 14,172.2 36,095.3 84
Philippines 1,565.8 1.15 0.033 18,013.4 25 18,013.4 245.0 1,418.2 19,431.5 74
Brazil 1,077.2 1.38 0.049 14,824.2 18 315.9 0.51 0.15 1,617.5 4 16,441.6 42.7 48.3 1,097.3 147.5 17,686.5 181
Cuba 1,339.5 1.21 0.08 16,174 10 16,174 68.4 2,387.1 18,560.7 236
New Caledonia 808.1 1.86 ~0.1 15,016 23 15,016 131.1 5,212.3 20,228.3 115
China 435.2 1.38 0.87 6,002 3 6,002 89.8 1,414.1 7,416.2 67
United States 48.5 0.87 424.7 2 3,663.3 0.14 0.43 5,072.3 10 5,496.9 365.5 46.7 5,909.1
Finland 2,108.5 0.23 0.43 4,796.3 33 4,796.3 36.0 330.6 5,126.8 133
Côte d’Ivoire 293 1.46 0.11 4,277.8 1 40.6 0.24 0.19 97.5 1 4,375.3 4,375.3
Papua New 430.7 1.00 0.089 4,298.8 3 4,298.8 4,298.8
  Guinea
Guatemala 302.9 1.30 0.05 3,950.3 3 3,950.3 14.5 3,950.3
International 308 1.2 1.1 3,696 1 3,696 3,696.0
  Waters
Zimbabwe 2,315.5 0.16 0.11 3,637.7 9 3,637.7 4.8 460.7 4,098.4 758
Tanzania 219.8 0.87 0.039 1,911.4 2 80.5 2.14 0.30 1,723.5 2 3,634.9 3,634.9
Burundi 266.4 1.34 0.066 3,579.3 3 3,579.3 3,579.3
Columbia 331 0.97 3,227 1 3,227 76.0 1,292.7 4,519.7 42
Greece 300 1.07 3,217.4 3 3,217.4 21.7 780.4 3,997.3 148
MUDD AND JOWITT

Madagascar 232.0 0.99 0.082 2,286.8 3 2,286.8 2,286.8

Myanmar 150 1.45 2,169 2 2,169 2,169.0
India 214.8 0.93 0.067 1,993.0 5 1,993 9.3 2,002.3
Cameroon 323.1 0.61 0.21 1,977.9 2 1,977.9 1,977.9
Serbia 261.6 0.73 ~0.05 1,910.1 3 1,910.1 49.5 1,959.6
Albania 139.0 1.21 1,675.1 2 1,675.1 3.7 183.6 1,858.7 115
Solomon Islands 160.7 1.04 0.088 1,671.8 2 1,671.8 1,671.8
Sweden 4,653.5 0.033 1,534.9 5 1,534.9 1,534.9
Botswana 476.0 0.31 0.32 1,481.5 8 1,481.5 32.4 932.2 2,413.7 46
Dominican 85.8 1.49 1,282.7 2 1,282.7 13.5 1,245.3 2,528.0 95
  Republic
Kazakhstan 155.3 0.81 0.043 1,251.5 3 1,251.5 54.2 1,305.7
Turkey 103.2 1.04 0.018 1,075.2 2 1,075.2 3.2 1,078.3
Oman 150 0.7 1,050 1 1,050 1,050.0
Puerto Rico 84.0 0.88 0.093 742.1 5 742.1 742.1
Zambia 119.4 0.49 ~0.03 587.3 3 587.3 2.9 6.7 594.1 203
Macedonia 43 1.04 0.06 447.2 1 447.2 25.6 132.8 580.0 17
Kosovo 20.5 1.39 0.057 284.0 2 284.0 7.5 24.1 308.1 38
Ethiopia 17 1.3 221 1 221.0 221.0
Venezuela 12 1.39 0.04 167.0 1 167.0 14.2 189.3 356.3 12
Vietnam 21.8 0.75 0.13 163.5 1 163.5 163.5
Togo 12.3 0.83 0.045 101.7 1 101.7 101.7
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1821

Australia were 5.17 Mt Ni in late 2011 with mineral resources

Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Co (%) Ni (kt) No. Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Cu (%) Ni (kt) No. Ni (kt) Laterite Sulfide Laterite Sulfide +Res. Ni (kt) Prod. (years)
Res./2011 of 52.88 Mt Ni1 (inclusive of reserves; WADMP, 2011). Our

Notes: Cumulative and 2011 production data compiled and updated from BREE (2012), Mudd (2009a, b, 2010a, b), Kelly and Matos (2012), and some company data (note—some countries have
Cum. Prod.

3 60.4 0.3 70.0 130.5 201

~154
compiled Ni resources for Australia are 43.41 Mt Ni, with
72.6% of this in laterites, while the USGS reported Australian
reserves as 24 Mt of contained Ni. In examining the differ-

~33,688 ~348,882
ence between the data sources, the USGS reserves are recov-
1 100.8 100.8
1 72.9 41.0 113.9

1 30.8 30.8
18.9
erable metal, whereas Western Australia’s Minedex database
is total mineral resources—although some Minedex project
Ni. Res

1 18.9
data are different from that reported by a company in their
annual report (e.g., Honeymoon Well; also see footnote). The
2011 Prod. (kt Ni) Cum. Prod. (kt Ni)

data for Canada have similar issues, with Natural Resources

Canada (NRC) reporting 3.30 Mt Ni as reserves for 2009, but
~19,242

only including reserves at operating mines or projects under

development (NRC, 1944−2011). Our compiled Ni resources
for Canada are 21.92 Mt Ni, while the USGS reports Cana-
~907.1

dian reserves as 3.3 Mt of Ni (presumably derived from NRC

data). Canadian reserves in 1977 were 7.75 Mt Ni (NRC,
1944−2011), and although it is tempting to assume that the
296,170 ~991.2

current 3.30 Mt Ni suggests a gradual decline in Canadian

Ni resources (see Fig. 1), our compiled data show that there
are clearly considerably more Ni mineral resources identi-
fied in Canada over and above the strict NRC estimate of Ni
1 For Russia, laterite-sulfide historic production is a best guess estimate only (laterite production may be slightly overestimated)

reserves.

Our compilation: Ni sulfides

Our data indicate that, in terms of Ni resources in indi-

vidual countries, Australia has the largest Ni resources of
118,038 253

43.41  Mt Ni, with past production totaling 5.02 Mt Ni, fol-

0.46 72.9
0.25 60.4

0.41 18.9

lowed by Indonesia, South Africa, Russia, and Canada with

33.29, 33.22, 24.42, and 21.92 Mt Ni in resources, respec-
Table 3. (Cont.)

tively, and past production of 3.66, 1.31, 10.66, and 14.17 Mt

Ni, respectively. The appearance of South Africa as a close
0.26 0.18

number three is perhaps unexpected, given South Africa’s

minor role as a Ni producer, but their Ni is an important by-
0.56
0.44

0.41

product from the extensive PGE resources and mines within

the Bushveld Complex (see Tables 4 and 6; also Mudd, 2012).
South Africa’s production to date, 1.31 Mt Ni, is a small frac-
Spain 13.0
Norway 13.8

Argentina 4.6

tion of its Ni resource endowment. In contrast, Canada’s

45,834

cumulative production of 14.17 Mt Ni is still lower than our

compiled resources of 21.92 Mt Ni. The data in Table 3 also
show the value of strong public mineral resource reporting
178,132 224

codes and practices, since the major mining countries of Aus-

0.03 30.8
0.60 100.8

tralia, Canada, South Africa, New Caledonia, and the Philip-

pines are well represented by high numbers of Ni projects.
In comparing cumulative Ni production with reported
Our compilation: Ni laterites

resources for countries with available data it is evident that most

countries have remaining Ni resources higher than cumulative
1.12 ~0.05

production, sometimes considerably so. Although some coun-

tries are close in this regard (e.g., Dominican Republic, Vene-
0.36

zuela), major Ni producers such as Russia and Canada still have

substantially more Ni resources than cumulative production.
data gaps, but these are typically minor)

The relationship between ore grades and ore resources is

8.6
16.8

shown in Figure 2, with contained Ni versus ore grade shown

in Figure 3; both graphs are sorted by primary deposit type.
15,838

1 The Minedex data for the Wildara-Waterloo Ni project appears to be

incorrect, with the Minedex report (20 Dec. 2011) citing 672 Mt ore at 1.95%
Ni for 13.1 Mt Ni—yet current searches of Minedex do not show this historic
Malawi
Poland

data (presumably since it is a clerical error) and the current resource reported
by owner Norilsk Nickel and Minedex is 1.08 Mt ore at 1.73% Ni for 18.7
Total
Country

kt Ni (although Minedex has 11 Mt of probable ore when it should be 11 kt

ore). A more recent Minedex search (5 May 2013) now gives 37.63 Mt Ni of
resources in Western Australia.

1822 MUDD AND JOWITT

160
USA - Reserves
USA - Reserves Base

140 Australia - Economic Resources

Australia - Economic + Inferred Resources
Canada - Reserves

120 Brazil - Reserves

China - Reserves
Economic Ni Resources (Mt Ni)

South Africa - Reserves / Resource Base

100 World - Reserves
World - Reserves Base

80

60

40

20

0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Fig. 1. Nickel reserves and/or resources over time for Australia (GA, 1992−2012), Canada (NRC, 1944−2011), Brazil
(DNPM, 2008−2012), South Africa (CMSA, 2005−2013), and the United States (USGS, 1996−2013).

For sulfides, the highest Ni grades are typically found in kom-
atiites, while the lowest grades are found in hydrothermal
and intrusion/intrusion-related deposits. Examples of almost
all deposits can be found across the ore tonnage range, while
flood basalt-related and layered intrusion-hosted depos-
its commonly have the highest amounts of contained Ni. In
terms of laterites, the highest Ni grades are typically found
in hydrous Mg silicates, while the lowest grades are found in
oxide-related deposits, although the overall laterite database
contrasts sharply with the sulfide data with highly variable ore
tonnage and contained Ni values for all deposit types.
Cumulative frequency curves by ore grade and contained
Ni are shown in Figure 4, showing that the median project
size is 62.1 and 344.3 kt Ni and yielding median project ore
grades of 0.50% Ni and 1.1% Ni for sulfides and laterites,
respectively. Sulfide deposits show greater grade variability
than laterites, which typically show a narrow grade range.
The 10 largest projects for sulfides and laterites are shown
in Tables 4 and 5, respectively, including cumulative produc-
tion to 2011 where available. Surprisingly, layered intrusions
comprise two of the top three sulfide Ni resources, although
if the Noril’sk-Talnakh deposits were grouped together it
would rank as the largest single Ni resource. Conversely, if
the deposits within the Bushveld Complex were amalgam-
ated into a single Ni resource, it would dominate global Ni
resources, with 28,884 kt contained Ni. This emphasizes the
importance of Ni as a by-product of other metal production
(e.g., PGE, Cu, and Co, with Zn in hydrothermal deposits), an
importance that is also reflected by the fact that six of the top
10 projects have Ni grades well below the median sulfide ore
grade of 0.50% Ni, showing the importance of large-tonnage,
low-grade deposits in global Ni resource budgets. Importantly,
these 10 projects alone contain 53.59 Mt of Ni—almost half
of our global sulfide estimate of 118.0 Mt Ni, and five of these
large projects are in commercial operation, whereas five are
currently undeveloped. Perhaps even more surprisingly is the
appearance of the Clarion-Clipperton resource at tenth place
in Table 4, representing the world’s first code-based resource
estimate of a deep-sea polymetallic nodule deposit.
The largest Ni laterite resources contain a wide variety of
deposit types, although the importance of hydrous Mg sili-
cate ores is clear. Unlike the top 10 sulfide deposits, however,
nine of the top 10 laterite deposits have an ore grade equal
to or greater than the median for laterites (1.1% Ni); these
10 projects also contain 47.37 Mt Ni or a quarter of our global
laterite estimate of 178.1 Mt Ni. Finally, only four of the top
10 laterite projects are in operation, with five undeveloped
and one in development.
Overall, this suggests that medium-term expansion in
global Ni production will need to come mainly from brown-
field expansion for sulfides (i.e., expansion of existing mines)
but greenfield projects for laterites (i.e., development of new
mines). However, this does not indicate that greenfield Ni
sulfide discoveries are unlikely and almost certainly will be

Table 4. Ten Largest Ni Sulfide Projects by Contained Ni

Start Cum. Prod. Company

Mine name Status Deposit type Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Cu (%) Co (%) Other Ni (kt) Disc. prod. (kt Ni)1 (% ownership, as of 2011)

Turfspruit Deposit Mag. Sulf.–layered intrusion 3,610 0.22 0.12 PGEs 7,933 1960s Ivanplats100%
Kola Peninsula Operating Mag. Sulf.–magmatic feeder2 1,030.0 0.67 0.33 PGEs 6,907 1920s 1935 »4403 Norilsk Nickel100%
Mogalakwena Operating Mag. Sulf.–layered intrusion 3,510.8 0.18 0.10 PGEs 6,319 1920s 1995 92.1 Anglo American Platinum100%
Jinchuan Operating Mag. Sulf.–magmatic feeder 432 1.39 0.88 0.025 PGEs 6,000 1958 1964 ~1,500 Jinchuan Nickel100%
Dumont Deposit Mag. Sulf.–Archean komatiite 2,105.3 0.27 0.011 PGEs 5,653 1956 Royal Nickel Corp100%
Talnakh Operating Mag. Sulf.–flood basalt-related 1,638.3 0.32 0.53 PGEs 5,215 1920s 1939 »6,1203 Norilsk Nickel100%
Noril’sk-Talnakh4 Operating Mag. Sulf.–flood basalt-related 462.7 0.89 1.85 PGEs 4,118 1920s 1939 Norilsk Nickel100%
Zebediela Deposit Mag. Sulf.–intrusion-related 1,600.5 0.247 PGEs 3,955 No data URU Metals100%
Turnagain Deposit Mag. Sulf.–Alaskan-type complex 1,841.8 0.21 0.013 3,793 1956 Hard Creek Nickel Corp100%
Clarion-Clipperton Deposit Hydrothermal Ni–nodules/chem. prec. 308 1.2 1.1 0.24 Mn 3,696 No data Nautilus Minerals100%

Totals 16,539 0.32 ~0.22 ~0.008 53,588

Notes: Disc. – Discovery year

1 Cum. Prod. = cumulative production (to 2011) is primarily sourced from company reports or available technical literature (e.g., USGS, 1994−2010; 1996−2013)
2 The deposits of the Kola Peninsula are hosted by highly unusual ferropicrites and ferropicritic units and most probably represent feeders for overlying lavas; this is the only significant Ni deposit of

this type
3 Production data from 1996 to 2011 only
4 Inferred mineral resources across both deposits

Table 5. Ten Largest Ni Laterite Projects by Contained Ni

Start Cum. Prod. Company

Mine name Status Deposit type Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Co (%) Ni (kt) Disc. Prod. (kt Ni)1 (% ownership, as of 2011)

Sorowako Operating Hydrous Mg silicate-oxide ~470.7 1.68 7,902 ? 1978 »770 Vale Inco
Halmahera-Weda Bay Deposit Oxide-hydrous Mg silicate 466.0 1.47 0.07 6,864 1995 Eramet59.94%, Mitsubish30.24%, PT Antam10%
Goro Operating Oxide-hydrous Mg silicate ~365 1.56 0.11 5,694 ? 2010     5.1 Vale Inco
Pinares de Mayari Operating Oxide 400 1.1 0.1 4,400 ~1907 1950s? No data Cuban Government100%
Tiuba-Biankouma Deposit Hydrous Mg silicate-clay silicate-oxide 293 1.46 0.11 4,278 1980s Xstrata100% (?)
Punta Gorda Operating Oxide-hydrous Mg silicate 310 1.3 0.11 4,030 ? 1986 No data Cuban Government100%
Koniambo Development Hydrous Mg silicate-oxide 158.6 2.49 3,946 1880s SMSP51%, Xstrata49%
Jacaré Deposit Oxide-hydrous Mg silicate 306.1 1.28 0.13 3,908 1970s Anglo American100%
A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS

Cerro Matoso Operating Clay silicate-hydrous Mg silicate-oxide 331 0.97 3,227 1958 1982 »502 BHP Billiton99.9%
Pulau-Gag Island2 Deposit Oxide-hydrous Mg silicate 187.52 1.652 0.082 3,0922 1912 2020? PT Antam100%

Totals 3,290 1.44 ~0.07 47,372

Notes: Disc. = Discovery year; development is under construction with commercial production expected in the near future (~1−3 years)
1 Cum. Prod. = cumulative production (to 2011) is primarily sourced from company reports or available technical literature (e.g., USGS, 1994−2010; 1996−2013)
2 Assuming 20% moisture in wet ore
1823
1824 MUDD AND JOWITT

Table 6. Nickel Resources by Primary and Secondary Sulfide Deposit Types

Primary deposit Secondary deposit type Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Ni (kt) Count

Fe-Ni alloy Serpentinization-related mineralization 1,283.5 0.108 1,386.2 1

Hydrothermal Ni Hydrothermal Ni 26.45 0.41 109.8 2

IOCG 34.4 0.19 65.4 1
Mn nodules/chemical precipitation 308 1.2 3,696 1
Sediment-hosted Pb-Zn/VMS 6,215.7 0.081 5,004.5 6
Talvivaara only 1,550 0.224 3,476 1
Sediment-hosted polymetallic 84 0.11 95.1 3
Sediment-hosted stratiform Cu 111.1 0.45 497.4 2
Skarn-type hydrothermal Ni 29.4 0.86 251.5 1
Unconformity-related uranium 2.70 0.06 1.6 3
VMS 18.73 0.23 43.8 9

Subtotal hydrothermal 6,831 0.14 9,765 28

Magmatic sulfide Alaskan-type complex 1,841.8 0.21 3,792.8 1

Archean komatiite 3,610.0 0.45 16,181.5 55
Archean tholeiite 13.53 0.54 72.7 2
Flood basalt-related 6,558.2 0.26 16,961.2 18
Flood basalt-related–Duluth complex only 3,434.2 0.12 4,162.5 6
Flood basalt-related–Siberian Traps only 2,364.1 0.43 10,190 4
Impact-related 320.9 1.46 4,679.5 12
Intrusion-related 2,347.1 0.40 9,341.6 34
Layered intrusion 20,928 0.19 38,803.1 78
Layered intrusion–Bushveld only 16,610 0.17 28,884 41
Magmatic feeder 1,549.0 0.86 13,297.8 6
Magmatic sulfide 275 0.31 842.8 1
PGE discordant intrusion 41.75 0.09 36.9 1
Proterozoic komatiite 234.9 1.22 2,871.5 14
Proterozoic tholeiite 0.381 1.33 5.1 2

Subtotal magmatic sulfide 36,990 0.28 102,346 224

Grand total 45,834 0.26 118,038 253

important in any long-term Ni expansion, as exemplified by
recent discoveries in the Ring of Fire, Ontario, the Fraser
Range of Western Australia, the Maniitsoq meteorite impact
structure of southwestern Greenland, and the opening up of
the Proterozoic Voronezh Massif within the environmentally
sensitive Kursk region of Russia, to mineral exploration.
The statistics for all projects by deposit type are summa-
rized in Tables 6 and 7 for sulfides and laterites, respectively.
Contained Ni resources are often dominated by a few deposit
types, with those in turn being dominated by individual
camps. For example, magmatic sulfide Ni resources are domi-
nated by Archean komatiites, flood basalt-related deposits,
and layered intrusions. In turn, flood basalt-related deposits
are dominated by the Siberian Trap LIP in Russia, which
includes Noril’sk and Talnakh, and the Keweenawan LIP-
associated Duluth complex in the United States, whereas the
layered intrusive class of deposit is dominated by the Bush-
veld Complex in South Africa. For laterites, oxides are clearly
a dominant deposit type or component, followed by hydrous
Mg silicates and to a lesser extent by clay silicates. This shows
that although our reliance on published resources with meth-
odologies dictated by public mineral resource reporting codes
and practices allows a robust, accurate, and, more importantly,
precise, assessment of existing global Ni resources, a number
of issues in terms of the allocation of resources to individual
mineral deposit types still remain.
For laterites, there are invariably multiple ore types pres-
ent in a single deposit, primarily due to the weathering pro-
cesses involved in laterite formation, as well as a number
of cases where a single region has several different laterite
deposits that make up a commercial project. Some of these
multideposit mines report total mineral resources only (e.g.,
Murrin Murrin, Koniambo), whereas others report individual
deposits (e.g., Doniambo, Goongarrie, Siberia, and Nornico
groups). In general, we have kept the laterite deposit data as
reported by the company, with the order of listing of ore types
within a given laterite deposit indicating the relative impor-
tance of each form of mineralization; it should be noted that
the majority of companies do not report the distribution of
ore types within each deposit, and so the grouping or other-
wise of data and allocation by deposit types is left as somewhat
arbitrary.
Similarly for sulfides, some projects operate on a single
deposit basis, although a number of single projects in our
database incorporate a number of individual orebodies or
deposits. This is exemplified by the Sudbury camp in Can-
ada, where the two largest producers, namely Vale (formerly
Inco) and Xstrata Nickel (formerly Falconbridge, and now
Glencore Xstrata), each operate several mines to feed cen-
tral mills, smelters, and refineries. Sudbury also contains a
few small mines and delineated resources owned by junior
companies that are generally listed as separate projects in
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1825

Hydrothermal: Sediment-Hosted Hydrothermal: All Other Types

Magmatic Sulfide: Archaean Komatiite Magmatic Sulfide: Proterozoic Komatiite
Magmatic Sulfide: Flood Basalts-related Magmatic Sulfide: Impact-related
Magmatic Sulfide: Intrusion-related Magmatic Sulfide: Layered Intrusive
Magmatic Sulfide: Miscellaneous Fe-Ni Alloy

1
Ore Grade (%Ni)

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Mineral Resources (Mt ore)

2
Ore Grade (%Ni)

Clay silicate-related
Hydrous Mg silicate-related
Oxide-related
0.2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mineral Resources (Mt ore)
Fig. 2. Ore grades vs. ore resources by deposit types: sulfide (top), laterite (bottom).

our database. A similar situation exists in the Kambalda field
in Western Australia, where a central mill, owned by BHP
Billiton (through their 2005 takeover of Western Mining
Corporation), can be supplied with ore from up to a dozen
small mines operated by junior- to medium-sized compa-
nies. These fields, in sharp contrast to the laterites discussed
above, generally only contain a single type of Ni deposit (e.g.,
Archean komatiite for Kambalda or impact-related for Sud-
bury). As for laterites, we have tried to keep sulfide deposit
data as reported by companies; with further detailed analy-
sis of production within selected major Ni camps provided
below as case studies.
The deposit-type data sets presented herein have reason-
ably similar grades and tonnages as previous studies, such
1826 MUDD AND JOWITT

Hydrothermal: Sediment-Hosted Hydrothermal: All Other Types

Magmatic Sulfide: Archaean Komatiite
Magmatic Sulfide: Flood Basalts-related
Magmatic Sulfide: Intrusion-related
Magmatic Sulfide: Miscellaneous
10000
Magmatic Sulfide: Proterozoic Komatiite
Magmatic Sulfide: Impact-related
Magmatic Sulfide: Layered Intrusive
Fe-Ni Alloy

1000
Contained Nickel (kt Ni)

100

10

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 7
Ore Grade (%Ni)

1000
Contained Nickel (kt Ni)

100

10

1
Clay silicate-related
Hydrous Mg silicate-related
Oxide-related
0.1
0.3 1.5 3
Ore Grade (%Ni)
Fig. 3. Contained nickel vs. ore grades by deposit types: sulfide (top), laterite (bottom).

as Cox and Singer (1986), Singer (1995), and Berger et al.
(2011), among others; however, it should be noted that refin-
ing existing grade-tonnage models is not the primary focus
of this paper. A few broad statements can be made on the
distribution of Ni resources by differing deposit types. Com-
pared to global Cu resources that are dominated by porphyry
Cu deposits but with Cu distributed across a wide variety of
differing mineral deposit types (Mudd et al., 2013b), the data
presented here indicate that Ni resources are generally con-
fined to two broad deposit types: magmatic sulfides and Ni
laterites. Global Ni laterite resources are spread across a wide
variety of differing mineral deposit types but Figures 2 and 3
clearly show that even though the highest grades of hydrous
Mg silicate-related Ni laterite deposits have Ni grades that
are higher than any other deposit type, these types of deposit
do not similarly dominate contained Ni statistics. Instead, the
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1827

100 100

~87.5% <1 Mt Ni ~89.9% <2% Ni

Per c en t (c u m u l at i v e)
80 80

Per c en t (c u m u l at i v e)
60 60

Sulfides
Sulfides
Median size Median grade
40 62.1 kt Ni 40 0.50% Ni

20 20

0 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
Contained Nickel (Mt Ni) Ore Grade (%Ni)

100 100

~90.0% <2% Ni
Per c en t (c u m u l at i v e)

80 80
~75.8% <1 Mt Ni Per c en t (c u m u l at i v e)
Laterites

60

Laterites
60

Median size Median grade

40 344.3 kt Ni 40 1.1% Ni

20 20

0 0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
Contained Nickel (Mt Ni) Ore Grade (%Ni)
Fig. 4. Cumulative frequency curves for contained nickel (left) and ore grades (right), with sulfides (top) and laterites
(bottom).

laterite deposits with the highest amounts of contained Ni are
widely distributed between low grade-higher tonnage and
higher grade-lower tonnage deposits, and with no real pattern
discernible in terms of grade-tonnage-contained Ni relation-
ship barring the elevated grades of a subset of hydrous Mg
silicate-related Ni laterite deposits.
Ni sulfide deposits within our database have grades and
tonnages that are directly linked to deposit types, with the
highest grade deposits being dominated by komatiitic Ni
deposits. Hydrothermal Ni deposits are generally low grade,
although there are some higher grade deposits present in our
database, and the hydrothermal Talvivaara deposit is fairly
low grade but high tonnage. The layered intrusive deposits
within our database are all low grade but are generally high
tonnage; the low grades of these deposits reflect the fact that
the majority of this type of mineralization is exploited primar-
ily for the PGE, with Ni-Cu-Au-Co being by-products. This
is exemplified by the multiple deposits (n = 41) within the
Bushveld Complex; as discussed previously, if the low-grade
but medium- to high-tonnage deposits within this complex
are collated, the Bushveld Complex dominates global Ni
resources, with some 28,884 kt contained Ni. The majority
of other deposits types have variable grades and tonnages, as
exemplified by the flood basalt-related deposits within our
database; this class of deposit includes both high grade-high
tonnage (e.g., Noril’sk, Talnakh) and low grade-high tonnage
(Duluth Complex) deposits.
To assess the importance of by-products (or co-products
in some cases), the economic value of reported metals for all
projects was calculated based on 2011 average metal prices;
with the 25 most valuable projects shown in Table 8. Some-
what unsurprisingly, the contained value for half of the proj-
ects is dominated by PGE resources, the majority of which
are produced from deposits that contain Ni as a by-product
rather than the main focus of production (e.g., Bushveld
Complex deposits), while for most the critical importance of
by-/co-products such as Cu, Au, Co, or other metals is clear
(e.g., PGE at Bokoni, Mogalakwena, Marikana, Zimplats, and
Tumela; V at Viken). Sulfide ores make up 20 of the top 25
deposits by value, perhaps unsurprisingly due to their poly-
metallic nature. A curious finding is the value of Sc in the vari-
ous Nornico (Greenvale, Lucknow, Kokomo) group of laterite
projects in northern Queensland, Australia. Although these
deposits are not in the top 25, the value of Sc contained in
1828 MUDD AND JOWITT

Table 7. Nickel Resources by Laterite Deposit Types

Primary deposit type Secondary deposit type Ore (Mt) Ni (%) Ni (kt) Count

Clay silicate Clay silicate 966.7 0.81 7,865.1 21

Clay silicate-hydrous Mg silicate 54.4 1.30 706.1 5
Clay silicate-hydrous Mg silicate-oxide 401.9 0.96 3,872.2 2
Clay silicate-oxide 194.1 0.89 1,720.0 9
Clay silicate-oxide-hydrous Mg silicate 35.6 1.20 426.4 1
Subtotal–clay silicates 1,652.7 0.88 14,589.8 38
Hydrous Mg silicates Hydrous Mg silicate 286.2 1.54 4,401.5 8
Hydrous Mg silicate-clay silicate 213.1 1.18 2,516.6 5
Hydrous Mg silicate-clay silicate-oxide 326.7 1.45 4,727.5 4
Hydrous Mg silicate-oxide 2,426.7 1.57 37,984.0 55
Hydrous Mg silicate-oxide-clay silicate 182.8 0.87 1,585.0 2
Subtotal–hydrous Mg silicates 3,435.5 1.49 51,214.6 74
Oxide Oxide 3,135.9 0.93 29,238.5 37
Oxide-clay silicate 2,089.5 0.77 16,023.6 25
Oxide-hydrous Mg silicate 5,524.7 1.21 67,065.6 50
Subtotal–oxides 10,750.1 1.04 112,327.7 112
Total 15,838 1.12 178,132 224

Table 8. Largest 25 Resources Ranked by Combined Value (US$billion), Including Co-/By-Products and Proportional Value (%)

Deposit Ni Cu Co Au + Ag Pt-Pd-
Project type Value (%) (%) (%) (%) Rh (%) Other (%)

Mogalakwena Sulf 502.51 28.79 6.16 0 4.44 60.62

Turfspruit Sulf 374.42 48.50 10.22 0 5.35 35.93
Zimplats Sulf 338.27 17.47 5.41 0 6.62 70.49
Talnakh Sulf 269.20 44.34 28.29 0 1.78 25.59
Norilsk-Talnakh “inferred” Sulf 231.85 40.66 32.54 0 2.62 24.18
Marikana (Lonmin) Sulf 227.55 7.94 1.56 0 2.97 87.54
Viken Sulf 219.25 9.54 0 0 0 0 U3O8-27.7%, Mo-10.7%, V2O5-52.1%
Kola Peninsula Sulf 193.39 81.75 15.55 0 0.71 1.99
Sorowako Lat 180.88 100 0 0 0 0
Booysendal Sulf 177.49 14.58 1.85 0 3.17 80.41
Jinchuan Sulf 174.65 78.64 19.18 2.18 0 0
Bokoni Sulf 174.64 14.43 2.14 0 3.09 80.34
Halmahera-Weda Bay Lat 168.33 93.33 0 6.67 0 0
Talvivaara (Kuusilampi-Kolmisoppi) Sulf 165.76 48.00 40.39 6.60 0 0 Zn-2.7%, U3O8-2.3%
Tumela Sulf 151.40 11.09 0.99 0 1.90 86.02
Goro Lat 144.72 90.06 0 9.94 0 0
Clarion-Clipperton Sulf 140.55 60.19 21.25 18.56 0 0
Dumont Sulf 139.66 92.65 0 5.62 0 1.73
Der Brochen Sulf 129.32 14.70 1.75 0 3.28 80.27
Sudbury (Vale Inco) Sulf 118.73 58.14 22.82 2.89 3.86 12.30
Spitzkop-Kennedy’s Vale Sulf 117.99 10.92 1.96 0 3.27 83.85
Bafokeng-Rasimone Sulf 116.44 12.51 1.58 0 2.25 83.65
Pinares de Mayari Lat 114.83 87.71 0 12.29 0 0
Tiuba-Biankouma Lat 109.29 89.59 0 10.41 0 0
Modikwa Sulf 106.11 14.02 1.55 0 2.89 81.54

Notes: Economic values based on 2011 price data from USGS (1996−2013) or BREE (2012) and are intended to be indicative only; Cr based on chromite
ore value; Sc price based on 99.0% oxide purity

these resources equals that of the combined Ni and Co within
these deposits, even though there are no known Ni laterite
projects at present which produce Sc. The Syerston Ni laterite
project in central New South Wales, Australia, also reports
low-grade platinum, although the value of this platinum is
minimal compared to the overall value of the contained Ni and
Co within this deposit. Furthermore, many laterite ores also
contain residual chromite that has remained unaltered dur-
ing weathering (e.g., Gleeson et al., 2004) although grades are
rarely reported; chromite historically has not been extracted
from laterites but is being investigated at some projects (e.g.,
Ramu, Papua New Guinea). These data indicate the critical
importance of examining all potentially extractable metals as
potential by-/co-products.
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1829

Case Studies contributions of Falconbridge Sudbury and juniors across the

Here we present a series of case studies of Ni production Sudbury camp.
and the evolution of resources within various well-known The early years of production at the Sudbury field yielded
magmatic sulfide and laterite mining camps. These case stud- moderate to high grades, with Ni ore grades since 1942 being
ies provide examples of the development and resource history relatively stable; Cu ore grades have also been somewhat sta-
of mature mining camps and illustrate the ongoing replenish- ble, although recent Cu grades have increased with the pref-
ment of resources that exemplifies the production history of erence for Cu-PGE-rich ores. The production over time also
the majority of significant mineral deposits, as shown previ- shows the influence that external events can have on mining,
ously for Cu (e.g., Jowitt et al., 2013; Mudd et al., 2013b). with lower production related to economic downturns (early
1920s, early 1930s, late 2000s), prolonged labor strikes (1969,
1978−1979, 2009−2010), or war causing increased demand
Case study 1: Sudbury, Canada followed by a sudden decline (mid-1910s, early 1940s).
The Sudbury field in northern Ontario was initially identi- While it is tempting to assume the resources data sug-
fied in 1858 with the discovery of the Creighton deposit, but gest a decline in the Sudbury field, especially the Inco side,
was not recognized as a significant area of mineralization until the sudden decline in 2006 is due to the takeover of Inco
1883 (with the discovery of the Murray deposit during con- by CVRD (now Vale) from Brazil—who only report reserves
struction of the Canadian Pacific Railway) and did not become and exclude additional mineral resources (this also applies
a major Ni-Cu producer until 1886. However, recognition to Thompson, Voisey’s Bay, and Sorowako). This change in
of the significance of the mineralization at Sudbury and the reporting is reflected by a decrease from the last Inco report
commencement of mining on a substantial scale meant that for Sudbury in 2005 that contained 258 Mt of resources at
Sudbury dominated world Ni production for nearly a cen- 1.35% Ni for 3.49 Mt Ni to the 2011 Vale reserves that con-
tury, as well as being an important producer of Cu, Co, and tain some 105.4 Mt of ore at 1.17% Ni for 1.24 Mt Ni with
the PGEs. Inco Limited was the largest producer (now part no resources reported (plus Cu-Au-Ag-Co-PGEs for both
of Vale Ltd.), followed by junior cousin Falconbridge (now years). Reconciling these data is difficult; there is no doubt
part of Glencore Xstrata Plc) from 1929. The ore grades over that the unreported Sudbury resources are still present,
time for Inco Sudbury and Falconbridge Sudbury are shown but it is not possible to reconcile the 35.8 Mt ore produc-
in Figure 5, while Ni production over time is given in Figure tion grading 1.32% Ni-1.42% Cu by Vale Sudbury between
6 and mineral resources are shown in Figure 7. The produc- 2006 and 2011 with much confidence, given the unknowns
tion shows the dominant role of Inco Sudbury, plus important that include delineation of new resources, the conversion of

10
1887 - 15.07 %Ni+Cu Canada (%Ni) Thompson (%Ni)
1888 - 12.22 %Ni+Cu
Sudbury Field (%Ni) Sudbury Field (%Ni+Cu)

Voisey's Bay (%Ni) Voisey's Bay (%Ni+Cu)

Lynn Lake (%Ni) Lynn Lake (%Ni+Cu)

8
Or e Gr ad es (%Ni , %Ni +Cu , as m i l l ed )

0
1885 1900 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 2005
Fig. 5. Historic trends in ore grades for average Canadian and selected major Ni-Cu projects (data updated from Mudd,
2010a).
 1830 MUDD AND JOWITT

300
Minor Producers Montcalm
Voisey’s Bay Raglan
Thompson Lynn Lake

250 Falconbridge Inco Sudbury

An n u al Ni c k el Pr o d u c t i o n (k t Ni /year )

200

150

100

50
Inco Sudbury

0
1887 1897 1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007
Fig. 6. Actual and proportional Canadian Ni production over time by major company and/or project (data updated from
Mudd, 2010a).

resources into reserves and/or production, and the potential to production with no new delineated resources (a definite
abandonment of resources, especially as Vale will only pro- underestimate) yields a 2012 resource of 222.2 Mt ore for
vide NI 43-101 compliant reserve information as per New Vale at Sudbury, ignoring any changes in overall grade etc.
York Stock Exchange requirements. Assuming 100% con- Despite these uncertainties, however, we have used the 2005
version of resources (a definite overestimate) to reserves Inco resources minus cumulative production 2006 to 2011,

8 320 5 90
Falconbridge
Mt Ni+Cu
Sudbury
Metals Resources (Mt Ni, Cu) , Grades (%Ni, %Cu)

7 280
Met al Res o u r c es (Mt Ni , Cu ), Gr ad es (%Ni +Cu )

4 72
6 240 Ore (Mt)
Ore (Mt) Ore Resources (Mt Ore)
Ore Resources (Mt Ore)

5 200
3 %Ni+Cu 54

4 Mt Ni 160

2 %Ni 36
3 120 Mt Ni+Cu
%Ni+Cu

2 80
1 18
%Ni
1 40 Mt Ni

Inco Sudbury
0 0 0 0
1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 2000 1925 1940 1955 1970 1985 2000

Fig. 7. Ni resources (ore tonnage, ore grades, contained metals) over time for Inco Sudbury (left) and Falconbridge Sud-
bury (right; data updated from Mudd, 2010a).
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1831
as this allows some approximation, albeit potentially crude,
of the extent of mineralization within the Vale Sudbury
leases. This gives an approximate (but noncode compliant)
2011 resource of ~222.2 Mt ore at 1.36% Ni (~3.0 Mt Ni),
1.38% Cu, and minor Au-Ag-Co-PGEs. Given the long and
successful history of Sudbury’s reserve/resource replacement
and cumulative growth, this is a reasonable approach in the
absence of reported mineral resource data.
By the end of 2011, cumulative Sudbury production is esti-
mated to be (data updated from Mudd, 2010a):
Inco: 819.53 Mt ore grading 1.32% Ni-1.28% Cu for
9.30 Mt Ni-9.43 Mt Cu.
Falconbridge: 153.83 Mt ore grading 1.43% Ni-1.12% Cu
for 1.86 Mt Ni-1.55 Mt Cu.
Small producers: 8.50 Mt ore grading 1.00% Ni-1.74% Cu
for 67.9 kt Ni-108.3 kt Cu.
Cumulative Sudbury production also includes about 100 kt
Co and at least 4,500 t Ag, 150 t Au, 900 t PGEs, minor metals
such as tellurium and selenium, and chemicals such as liquid
sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid.
Case study 2: Thompson, Canada
Inco undertook exploration in the Thompson belt of Mani-
toba from at least 1952 onward, discovering the small Moak
Lake deposit before the Proterozoic komatiite-hosted mag-
matic sulfide deposits of the Thompson belt were first discov-
ered in 1956 and quickly developed into a major Ni mining
and metal production field. The ore grades over time for
Thompson are included in Figure 5, while Ni production
over time is included in Figure 6, and mineral resources are
shown in Figure 8. The graphs show the important role of
Thompson as a second major Canadian Ni producer to the
Sudbury camp. By the end of 2011, cumulative production
3.2
2.8
Metal Res o u r c es (Mt Ni ), Grade (%Ni)
2.4
2 %Ni
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Thompson
0 0
1955 1965
Fig. 8. Ni resources (ore tonnage, ore grades, contained metals) over time for the Thompson field (data updated from
Mudd, 2010a).
was 119.1 Mt ore grading 2.19% Ni-0.14% Cu for 2.27  Mt
Ni-0.135 Mt Cu (data updated from Mudd, 2010a; plus
other minor metals). The same issue exists for Thompson’s
reserves and resources as for Sudbury; that is, there are defi-
nitely additional mineral resources present in the Thompson
camp that are not presently reported by Vale. Using the same
approach as for Sudbury, Thompson’s 2011 (noncode compli-
ant) resources can be approximated as ~45.8 Mt ore at 1.41%
Ni and minor Cu-Co-Au-Ag-PGEs.
Case study 3: Other projects, Canada
A variety of Ni projects have been discovered and developed
in Canada, including the Lynn Lake field of northwestern Man-
itoba, Namew Lake in northern Manitoba, Dumbarton-Bird
River in southeastern Manitoba, Rankin Inlet in the Northwest
Territories, Shebandowan and Gordon Lake-Faraday in West-
ern Ontario, the Timmins field in northeastern Ontario (which
includes Montcalm, Texmont, Redstone, and Langmuir), the
Raglan deposits in Nunavik, Giant Mascot in British Colum-
bia, Marbridge Group, Lac Edouard and Hainault in Quebec,
and Voisey’s Bay in Newfoundland; the latter was discovered in
1994 and quickly proved to be a substantial high-grade resource
(see Fig. 5) that was soon acquired by Inco Ltd. Although these
are all magmatic sulfides, some are intrusion related (Giant
Mascot, Hainault, Lac Edouard, Lynn Lake, Montcalm, She-
bandowan, Voisey’s Bay) or are hosted by distinct horizons
within layered intrusions (Dumbarton-Bird River) while oth-
ers are komatiite or komatiitic basalt hosted (Namew Lake,
Marbridge, Raglan, Rankin Inlet, Redstone, Texmont). More
recently, new magmatic Ni sulfide deposits have been discov-
ered in the ~2,730 Ma Ring of Fire complex of the McFauld’s
greenstone belt of northwestern Ontario (Eagle’s Nest deposit
and Eagle Two and AT12 prospects; e.g., Ernst and Jowitt,
120
Ore (Mt) 105
90
Ore Resources (Mt ore)
75
60
Mt Ni 45
30
15
1975 1985 1995 2005
 1832 MUDD AND JOWITT

2013); highlighting the fact that significant conventional mag- In addition, the Lac des Iles palladium mine in Western
matic sulfide Ni deposits are still waiting to be discovered. Ontario, where mineralization is hosted by a PGE discor-
By the end of 2011, cumulative production for these proj- dant-type intrusion, has produced 14.6 kt Ni as a by-prod-
ects is estimated to be (data updated from Mudd, 2010a; plus uct of Pd-dominated PGE production (data updated from
other minor metals): Mudd, 2010a). The Cobalt field northeast of Sudbury, mainly
Voisey’s Bay: 11.26 Mt ore grading 3.49% Ni-2.38% Cu for known as a small but very high grade Ag-Co producer, was
329.4 kt Ni-237.5 kt Cu. also a minor source of Ni, although production records are
Raglan: 14.29 Mt ore grading 2.78% Ni-0.79% Cu for incomplete (some examples include Kanichee-Temagami
343.3 kt Ni-89.8 kt Cu. with 0.25 Mt ore at 0.50% Ni-0.72% Cu for 0.6 kt Ni-1.4 kt
Lynn Lake: 20.16 Mt ore grading 0.99% Ni-0.55% Cu for Cu; Teck Silverfields with 1.34 Mt ore at 0.25% Ni-0.33%
164.7 kt Ni-97.2 kt Cu. Cu-445 g/t Ag for 2.0 kt Ni-0.4 kt Cu and 536.7 t Ag).
Shebandowan: 8.34 Mt ore grading 2.00% Ni-1.2% Cu.
Giant Mascot: 4.14 Mt ore grading 0.80% Ni-0.33% Cu for Case study 4: Kambalda Field, Australia
22.7 kt Ni-11.5 kt Cu. The announcement of the discovery of Ni sulfides in January
Montcalm: 3.96 Mt ore grading 1.36% Ni-0.70% Cu for 1966 at Kambalda in central Western Australia (WA) sparked
43.4 kt Ni-23.7 kt Cu. the great Australian Ni boom of the late 1960s. The Kambalda
Namew Lake: 2.336 Mt ore grading 1.85% Ni-0.64% Cu for field proved to be a newly discovered type of mineralization,
36.4 kt Ni-13.9 kt Cu. namely Archean komatiite-hosted Ni deposits, and contained
Dumbarton-Bird River: 1.905 Mt ore grading 0.87% a large number of small but high Ni grade deposits with gen-
Ni-0.29% Cu for 12.7 kt Ni-4.95 kt Cu. erally low Cu-Co-PGE grades, in addition to larger tonnage,
Langmuir: 1.009 Mt ore grading 1.43% Ni for 12.1 kt Ni. lower grade deposits known farther to the north in central
Rankin Inlet: 0.371 Mt ore grading 3.42% Ni-0.88% Cu for WA (e.g., Mount Keith, Yakabindie, Honeymoon Well). The
9.77 kt Ni-2.58 kt Cu. owner, Western Mining Corporation, developed parts of the
Redstone: 0.604 Mt ore grading 0.88% Ni-0.18% Cu for Kambalda field in less than two years, with first production
4.23 kt Ni-0.90 kt Cu; by mid-1967 and the development of a Ni smelter near Kal-
Renzy-Hainault: 0.717 Mt ore grading 0.46% Ni-0.54% Cu goorlie in 1972 and a Ni refinery at Kwinana south of Perth in
for 2.11 kt Ni-2.88 kt Cu. 1970, eventually forming a fully integrated Ni industry similar
Marbridge Group: 0.818 Mt ore grading 0.95% Ni-0.81% to the Sudbury and Thompson fields in Canada.
Cu for 5.71 kt Ni-5.73 kt Cu. Although Kambalda has gone through several boom-bust
Wellgreen: 0.172 Mt ore grading 2.5% Ni-1.39% Cu for cycles of production related to global market conditions, in
3.42 kt Ni-1.97 kt Cu. the early 2000s Western Mining Corporation sold off all mines
Thierry/Pickle Lake: 5.29 Mt ore grading 0.12% Ni-1.19% and deposits in the Kambalda field to junior companies but
Cu for 1.1 kt Ni-57.1 kt Cu. retained the central mill, buying ore only rather than mining
Bucko Lake: 0.436 Mt ore grading 1.13% Ni-0.1% Cu for and milling. The strategy has proved to be reasonably success-
2.93 kt Ni-0.2 kt Cu. ful, with several junior miners showing a strong track record
Texmont: 0.182 Mt ore grading 0.82% Ni for 1.05 kt Ni. of reserve-resource replacement and expansion. Cumulative
Lac Edouard: 0.082 Mt ore grading 1.5% Ni-0.5% Cu for Ni production and resources trends over time are shown in
0.38 kt Ni-0.15 kt Cu. Figure 9, with a total of 50.20 Mt ore milled by 2011, at a

Cumulative Production (Mt Ni) Cumulative Production + Remaining Resources (Mt Ni) Ore Grade (as milled) (%Ni) Ore Milled (Mt)
2.4 4.8
Nickel Production -Resources (Mt Ni)

2.1 4.2 Ore Milled (Mt) / Ore Grade (%Ni)

1.8 3.6

1.5 3

1.2 2.4

0.9 1.8

0.6 1.2

0.3 0.6

0 0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Fig. 9. Cumulative production and Ni resources (ore tonnage, ore grades, contained metals) over time for the Kambalda
field (data updated from Mudd, 2010a, b).
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1833

grade of ~3.10% Ni-0.23% Cu and yielding ~1,364 kt Ni; this part of the Soviet Union (now Russia) after World War II.
compares very favorably with the earliest 1966 reserve esti- Although the combined field has been in production as long
mate of 1.93 Mt at 4.15% Ni containing 80.1 kt Ni. The total as Noril’sk-Talnakh, its cumulative production is considerably
production is around 65% larger than the remaining resources more modest due to its low ore grades; production from 2000
within the field, with a 2012 resource estimate of 22.5 Mt at to 2011 was 0.439 Mt Ni and 0.24 Mt Cu, with no specific
2.32% Ni, yielding 511 kt contained Ni. PGE production data (it is likely that a small fraction, prob-
ably <5%, of Norilsk Nickel’s reported PGE production is
Case study 5: Noril’sk-Talnakh (Taimyr Peninsula), Russia derived from the Kola Peninsula). As above, Ni production
The Noril’sk-Talnakh Ni-Cu-PGE field in Siberia, north- from the Kola Peninsula projects is on the order of 1.8 Mt
ern Russia, is the only giant Ni camp that is comparable to Ni, with recent production and mineral resources shown in
Sudbury in size. The field was discovered in the 1920s and Figure 10.
began production in 1939 as a state-owned Soviet enterprise,
although the importance of this field as a Ni producer was Case study 7: Other projects, Australia
only realized with the discovery of the Talnakh mineralization Like Canada, there have been numerous Ni deposits dis-
in 1960. However, it is only since reorganization in 1989 and covered and developed in Australia, although unusually they
subsequent privatization of the field as Norilsk Nickel in 1994 are almost exclusively in Western Australia. In the wake of the
that production and resources data have become publicly great Kambalda-led Ni boom, many small to modest-sized
available. Between 1996 to 2011 production was 3.04 Mt Ni projects were developed in central Western Australia (e.g.,
and 6.12 Mt Cu, with production from 2005 to 2011 of 626.7 t Scotia, Carr Boyd, Nepean, Redross, Spargoville, Windarra,
Pd-150.3 t Pt, respectively (Norilsk Nickel, various)—showing Agnew-Leinster), while some discoveries were not devel-
the field’s very high Pd grades. oped or were delayed in development due to the low-grade
Historic Soviet/Russian Ni production is ~10.6 Mt Ni, and nature of the disseminated Ni sulfide mineralization (e.g.,
based on a very approximate split between the Urals Ni lat- Mount Keith, Yakabindie, Honeymoon Well). Other impor-
erites, Noril’sk-Talnakh and the Kola Peninsula projects, tant deposits include Sherlock Bay and Radio Hill in the Pil-
this means that Noril’sk-Talnakh production is on the order bara region, the Sally Malay (now Savannah) deposit in the
of 6.5  Mt Ni. Recent production and mineral resources for Kimberley region, and numerous deposits in the Forrestania-
Noril’sk-Talnakh are shown in Figure 10. Clearly, there are still Lake Johnston region. While the vast majority of deposits and
considerably more Ni-Cu-PGE mineral resources remaining prospects were identified from the late 1960s to late 1970s,
than have been mined to date. notable new discoveries continue to be made across Western
Australia (e.g., Cosmos-Sinclair, Nebo-Babel, Lounge Liz-
Case study 6: Kola Peninsula, Russia ard), as well as the discovery of the Avebury Ni deposit in
The Kola Peninsula contains two major Ni fields—Seve- western Tasmania. Somewhat unsurprisingly, the vast major-
ronickel and Pechenganickel—that are hosted by unusual ity of Australia Ni sulfide deposits are Archean komatiites,
ferropicritic sills and/or flows and are associated with dis- although examples of most magmatic sulfide deposit types
tinct magmatic feeders that host other Ni-Cu-PGE prospects have been discovered in Australia. Another key difference
(e.g., Hanski et al., 2011). The Severonickel project began between Australian and other Ni deposits is the dominance
production in 1935, while the Pechenga field was originally of Ni, i.e., the generally low grades of co-/by-product met-
built by Inco in the late 1930s, just before the onset of World als such as Cu-Co-PGEs. More recently, new magmatic Ni
War II. This region was originally part of Finland but became sulfide deposits have been discovered in the Fraser Range

20 2 20 2
Cumulative Production (Mt Ni) Kola Peninsula
Cumulative Production + Remaining Resources (Mt Ni)
Ore Milled (Mt) / Nickel Prod.-Res. (Mt Ni)
Ore Milled (Mt) / Nickel Prod.-Res. (Mt Ni)

Ore Milled (Mt)

Ore Grade (as milled) (%Ni)
16 1.6 16 1.6
Resource Grade (%Ni)
Ore Grades (%Ni)
Ore Grades (%Ni)

12 1.2 12 1.2

8 0.8 8 0.8

Ore Milled (Mt)

Cumulative Production (Mt Ni)
4 Cumulative Production + Remaining Resources (Mt Ni) 0.4 4 0.4
Ore Grade (as milled) (%Ni)
Resource Grade (%Ni)

Noril'sk-Talnakh
0 0 0 0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Fig. 10. Recent production and Ni resources (ore tonnage, ore grades, contained metals) over time for Noril’sk-Talnakh
(left) and Kola Peninsula (right; data updated from Mudd, 2010a; note production-resource data prior to 2000 not available).
 1834 MUDD AND JOWITT

area of Western Australia (Nova and Bollinger deposits), Case study 8: Greenvale-Brolga, Australia
highlighting that, like Canada, significant conventional mag- The Greenvale Ni project, located in northern Queensland,
matic sulfide Ni deposits are still waiting to be discovered in was Australia’s first major Ni laterite mine with a large refinery
Australia as well as globally. built at Yabulu just outside Townsville. Although the mine was
By the end of 2011, cumulative production for most of these a simple open cut, the refinery was complex and was based on
projects is estimated to be (data updated from Mudd, 2010a; the Caron ammonia leach process to extract Ni and Co. It is
plus other minor metals): also one of the few mining projects that has been completed,
Agnew-Leinster: 33.05 Mt ore grading 2.12% Ni for 566.2 kt from start to finish, although as discussed below substantial
Ni (1994−2004 only; no data reported by BHP Billiton from Ni resources still remain in situ. Operating from 1974 to 1996
2005 onward). (including the smaller Brolga deposit in central Queensland
Mount Keith: 104.5 Mt ore grading 0.61% Ni for 422.6 kt that was mined from 1992−1996), some 31.26 Mt of ore grad-
Ni (1994−2004 only; no data reported by BHP Billiton from ing 1.41% Ni and 0.11% Co were mined and processed to
2005 onward). produce ~327.4 kt Ni and ~14.6 kt Co, as shown in Figure
Black Swan: –9.19 Mt ore grading 2.01% Ni for 151.2 kt Ni. 11 (Mudd, 2009a). From the early 1990s the Yabulu refin-
Cosmos-Sinclair: –3.535 Mt ore grading 4.52% Ni for ery began importing Ni laterite ores from the Philippines,
140.1 kt Ni. Indonesia, and New Caledonia and, despite its high energy
Windarra: 7.471 Mt ore grading 1.34% Ni-0.1% Cu for intensity, remains in operation as of mid-2013. Yabulu now
85.0 kt Ni-6.7 kt Cu. also treats the intermediate product from the Ravensthorpe
Lake Johnston (Emily Ann-Maggie Hays): 4.56 Mt ore project in Western Australia.
grading 1.98% Ni for 67.1 kt Ni. Although the original reserve for Greenvale was reported
Flying Fox: 1.439 Mt ore grading 4.68% Ni for 61.1 kt Ni. as 45 Mt ore at 1.57% Ni (Table 2), only two-thirds of this
Sally Malay-Savannah: 5.060 Mt ore grading 1.29% amount was mined, and recent exploration at Greenvale and
Ni-0.60% Cu-0.066% Co for 56.1 kt Ni-29.3 kt Cu-3.0 kt Co. in the region has demonstrated substantial Ni resources,
Fororestania: 3.806 Mt ore grading 2.01% Ni for 55.2 kt Ni. including some which contain potentially economic quantities
Nepean: 1.060 Mt ore grading 3.15% Ni for 33.6 kt Ni. of the rare metal scandium (Sc). Now known as the Nornico
Radio Hill: 1.517 Mt ore grading 2.22% Ni for 25.3 kt Ni. group, current owner Metallica Metals reports 64.3 Mt ore
Scotia: 0.823 Mt ore grading 2.14% Ni-0.15% Cu for 18.6 kt grading 0.68% Ni and 0.07% Co across six main deposits, with
Ni-1.2 kt Cu. three deposits including ~2,500 t contained Sc.
Redross: 0.403 Mt ore grading 3.37% Ni-0.09% Cu for
13.0 kt Ni-0.4 kt Cu.
Spargoville: 0.601 Mt ore grading 2.37% Ni-0.05% Cu for Case study 9: Kalgoorlie Ni laterite camp, Australia
12.6 kt Ni-0.3 kt Cu. The goldfields of Kalgoorlie, in central Western Australia,
Waterloo: 0.496 Mt ore grading 2.73% Ni for 10.0 kt Ni. are host to extensive Ni laterite resources. Although the min-
Rav8: 0.200 Mt ore grading 3.54% Ni for 5.45 kt Ni. eralization had been known since at least the early 1970s, it was
Avebury: 0.441 Mt ore grading 0.95% Ni for 2.86 kt Ni. considered uneconomic to process and effectively ignored. In
Lounge Lizard: 0.073 Mt ore grading 3.57% Ni for 2.38 kt the mid-1990s, however, high-pressure acid leaching technol-
Ni. ogy was proposed—meaning that these large resources were
Carr Boyd: 0.178 Mt ore grading 1.56% Ni-0.48% Cu for perceived to be a potential major new source of Ni and this
1.95 kt Ni-0.7 kt Cu. caused a Ni laterite miniboom. The Murrin Murrin project was

Cumulative Production (Mt Ni) Cumulative Production + Remaining Resources (Mt Ni) Ore Grade (as milled) (%Ni) Ore Milled (Mt)
0.75 2.5
Nickel Production-Resources (Mt Ni)

Ore Milled (Mt) / Ore Grade (%Ni)

0.6 2

0.45 1.5

0.3 1

0.15 0.5

0 0
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994
Fig. 11. Cumulative production and Ni resources (ore tonnage, ore grades, contained metals) over time for Greenvale-
Brolga (data updated from Mudd, 2010a, b).
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1835
one of the three major high-pressure acid leaching Ni laterite
projects under development in Western Australia in the late
1990s, the others being Cawse and Bulong. Despite promises,
however, Murrin Murrin, Cawse, and Bulong failed to meet
production targets (King, 2005) and only Murrin Murrin was
able to survive long enough until the great mining boom of
the 2000s decade began and Ni prices soared, allowing Mur-
rin Murrin to claw itself out of debt and toward corporate and
operational stability. By the end of 2011, production is esti-
mated to be about 30.5 Mt grading ~1.34% Ni and ~0.1%
Co to produce 334.1 kt Ni and 22.4 kt Co (data updated from
Mudd, 2009a), with substantial mineral resources still remain-
ing, as shown in Figure 12. The limited production from the
failed Bulong project was 1.233 Mt ore grading 1.79% Ni to
0.14% Co to produce ~17.2 kt Ni-1.02 kt Co, while for Cawse
it was 1.128 Mt ore grading 0.94% Ni-0.12% Co to produce
~10.4 kt Ni-1.79 kt Co.
Case study 10: Doniambo-Société Le Nickel Group
and others, New Caledonia
The discovery of rich Ni laterite ores in New Caledonia in
1875 allowed the emergence of Ni as a major modern metal,
and, although these mines were overshadowed by Sudbury
two decades later, Ni laterite mines are still in operation in
New Caledonia and have a growing resource and produc-
tion base. The various mines that have operated since 1875
have dominantly been used to supply the Doniambo metal-
lurgical complex in Noumea (a joint venture between Eramet
and Société Le Nickel), which uses rotary kiln-electric fur-
nace technology. Since the 1960s some ore has also been
directly exported to either the Yabulu refinery in Queensland,
Australia, or other countries such as Japan, South Korea, or
more recently China. In general, most of the mines supplying
Doniambo have been small to modest in scale, with numerous
mines spread across southern New Caledonia. The current
capacity of Doniambo is about 60 kt Ni/year and it processes
almost exclusively saprolite ores (i.e., hydrous Mg silicate-
dominant ores).
Cumulative Production (Mt Ni)
4 3.5
Nickel Production-Resources (Mt Ni)
3.2
2.4
1.6
0.8
0 0
1994 1997
Fig. 12. Cumulative production and Ni resources (ore tonnage, ore grades, contained metals) over time for the Murrin
Murrin project, Kalgoorlie Ni laterite camp (data updated from Mudd, 2010a, b).
Over the past decade, two major new stand-alone projects
have been developed at Goro in the south-east and Konia-
mbo in the north, with Goro using high-pressure acid leaching
processing (a first for New Caledonia) while Koniambo uses
pyrometallurgical processing.
A combination of the available historic production data
for New Caledonia is shown in Figure 13, which exclusively
relates to the Doniambo plant. Cumulative production to 2011
is about 5.21 Mt Ni, and our compiled data show ~15.0 Mt Ni
in remaining resources—with just over one-third in Goro, a
quarter in Koniambo, and the remainder split between Prony
(adjacent to Goro) and the Doniambo-Société Le Nickel
Group of mines. Overall, New Caledonia shows the impor-
tance of trends in ore grades and ore types, both of which are
closely linked to processing technology such as pyrometallur-
gical or hydrometallurgical techniques.
Case study 11: Moa Bay camp, Cuba
The Ni laterites of the Moa Bay area of southeastern Cuba
were discovered in the early 1940s. The Nicaro plant, about
65 km west of Moa Bay, was built at this time to supply mili-
tary needs during World War II and began production in 1943
using the Caron ammonia leach process. The Moa Bay proj-
ect was built by Freeport Nickel (now Freeport McMoRan
Copper and Gold) in the late 1950s using the world’s first
high pressure acid leach plant. The Cuban revolution led to
the nationalization of both of these projects, with the Cuban
government keeping production levels relatively modest at
~30 kt Ni/yr up to the late 1980s when production began to
expand to ~40 kt Ni/yr. The Punta Gorda plant, also using
the Caron process, began production in 1986 but was per-
manently closed down in 2012. In mid-1994, the Moa Bay
plant was reorganized as a 50/50% joint venture between the
Cuban Government and Sherritt International from Canada,
and production was expanded, helping Cuba to reach outputs
of ~70 to 74 kt Ni/year throughout the 2000s. Historic pro-
duction and reserves-resources data are difficult to find for
Moa Bay, primarily as a result of the lack of public reporting
Cumulative Production + Remaining Resources (Mt Ni) Ore Grade (as milled) (%Ni) Ore Milled (Mt)
2.8 Ore Milled (Mt) / Ore Grade (%Ni)
2.1
1.4
0.7
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
1836 MUDD AND JOWITT

14 140
Yield
Assay Grade
Ni production
12 120

Ni c k el Yi el d /Or e Gr ad e (%Ni )

10 100

Annual Ni Production (kt Ni/yr)

8 80

6 60

4 40

2 20

0 0
1870 1885 1900 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 2005
Fig. 13. Historic Ni ore grade and/or yield and production trends for New Caledonia (data combined and/or updated from
RONC, 1917; Bird et al., 1984; Mudd, 2010a; DIMENC, 2012−2013).

by the Cuban Government. However, some recent data have barrier of 0.1% was estimated by Skinner (1976), the applica-
become available through a recent NI 43-101 technical report tion of this approach to Ni is somewhat complicated by the
on Moa Bay for Sherritt (Beaton et al., 2011). From 1995 to fact that a number of mineral deposits, especially sulfide Ni
2010, mine production was 51.84 Mt ore grading 1.24% Ni, deposits, have Ni as a by-product metal, rather than as a main
0.12% Co, and 43.9% Fe while ore fed to slurry plant (i.e., product. This is also the case for Cu, but the majority of Cu
after initial ore beneficiation) was 40.65 Mt ore grading 1.25% deposits are, at least in economic importance, dominated by
Ni, 0.13% Co, and 45.9% Fe (i.e., 508 kt contained Ni); com- Cu, meaning that the mineralogical barrier value for Cu is
pared to measured and indicated resources at the end of 2010 probably more important than for other metals. In compari-
of 66.60 Mt ore grading 1.26% Ni, 0.13% Co, and 43.6% Fe son, the presence of Co, Cu, and the PGE in magmatic sulfide
or 839 kt Ni (Beaton et al., 2011). Cumulative Cuban Ni pro- Ni deposits, a wide variety of other metals in hydrothermal
duction by the end of 2011 was ~2.39 Mt Ni, compared to
the ~16.2 Mt Ni in our data set, demonstrating that laterite
fields in particular can sustain long periods of mining from
their resource base.
Discussion: Assessing Nickel Resources
The Ni resource data presented here raise a number of
issues and provide quantitative evidence that enables a robust
assessment of the current status of global Ni resources, some-
thing that has frequently been missing from mineral resource-
focused debates.
One of the first systematic assessments of globally recov-
Mineralogical
Amount

erable mineral resources was undertaken by Skinner (1976), Barrier

who formalized the “mineralogical barrier” concept for geo-
chemically scarce metals by indicating the importance of min- Current
eralogy to mineral processing and the economic recovery of Mining
metals, shown in Figure 14. This concept indicates that there
is a point when energy costs mean that extraction of a given Grade
metal becomes prohibitively expensive (closely related to the Fig. 14. A conceptual view of grade vs. contained metal for geochemically
change in mineralogy from sulfides to silicates). However, scarce metals, current mining, and the “mineralogical barrier” (redrawn from
unlike Cu (e.g., Mudd et al., 2013b) where a mineralogical Skinner, 1976).
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1837
Ni deposits, and Co (and rarely Sc, Pt) in Ni laterite deposits
complicates matters; this is exemplified by the fact that the
single most important Ni resource within our compilation, the
Bushveld Complex of South Africa, does not contain a single
“primary” Ni mine.
There are two other factors that are important in the discus-
sion of a mineralogical barrier for Ni, namely, the mineral-
ogically variable nature of Ni mineralization, with three main
mineralogically differing types of Ni mineralization (sulfide,
laterite, and awaruite) dominating the resource data presented
here, and the generally mafic-ultramafic hosts for all types of
Ni mineralization that have high background Ni concentra-
tions (in some cases 2,000−3,000 ppm Ni for both fresh and
laterite-weathered ultramafic rocks) that are indistinguishable
from some resource grades. This demonstrates the impor-
tance of mineral processing and mineralogy, as some deposits
in our database, such as Dumont and Turnagain, are only dis-
tinguishable from background concentrations by ore mineral-
ogy and the presence of high tenor sulfides and/or awaruite,
factors that enable the preparation of a concentrate from
material that may otherwise be considered unmineralized in
terms of raw Ni concentrations. The one Fe-Ni alloy awaruite
deposit in our database (Decar) has a grade of 0.108% Ni, at
first glance significantly lower than the background (unminer-
alized) Ni concentrations of the host rocks for many magmatic
sulfide deposits, especially those hosted by komatiites. How-
ever, this deposit has grades reported in Davis Tube Recover-
able Nickel Content values, which only report Ni present as
alloys, rather than the total Ni content of the deposit. Around
64% of the total nickel within the deposit is present as alloys,
with the rest of the unrecoverable and unreported Ni con-
tained within silicate minerals in the serpentinized peridotite
host. This adds a further complication to the determination
of a “mineralogical barrier” for Ni deposits. Hydrothermal Ni
sulfide deposits have highly variable Ni grades, reflecting two
factors, namely variations in the Ni concentration of the host
rock (e.g., the highest grade hydrothermal Ni deposit in our
database, barring the highly enriched Mn nodules of the Clar-
ion-Clipperton resource, is the Avebury Ni deposit, a deposit
formed by skarn alteration of magmatic sulfides within ultra-
mafic rocks that already contained significant background Ni
concentrations; Keays and Jowitt, 2013) and whether a deposit
is exploited primarily for Ni (e.g., Avebury, at 0.86% Ni) or has
Ni as a co- or by-product (e.g., Waterbury Lake, at 0.09% Ni,
significantly lower than the background concentrations of Ni
in many of the deposits discussed here).
The range in laterite Ni concentrations in our database
(0.31−3.74% Ni) is less variable and has a lower minimum value
than the range of magmatic Ni sulfide deposits (0.02−5.97%
Ni) within the database, but is more variable than the range of
hydrothermal Ni sulfide deposits (0.028−1.2%), primarily as
a result of the generally high background Ni concentrations
present in laterites and the fact that the majority of laterite
deposits have Ni as a main product, rather than a by- or co-
product. It is also worth noting that laterite deposits with lower
Ni grades generally have higher co-product grades (generally
Co), again indicating the importance of co- and by-products
on determining a “mineralogical barrier.” The fact that a num-
ber of major Ni resources within our compilation (in terms of
contained Ni) have Ni grades that are <0.1% also indicates the
importance of by-product metals or primary PGE production
in the economics of Ni extraction. These complications mean
that estimating a simple mineralogical barrier value for overall
Ni resources is probably not achievable, although the fact that
both graphs shown in Figure 3 resemble the “current mining”
section of Skinner’s (1976) diagram means that a best guess
estimate of a barrier of 0.02% Ni for sulfide mineralization
(given numerous caveats including the presence of other co-
and by-product metals and the widely differing background Ni
concentrations for the host rocks of these deposits) and 0.3%
Ni for laterite mineralization (a more realistic value given the
lower importance of co- and by-product metals in Ni laterite
mining) can be obtained from these data. It may be possible
to determine a more complex multiple-metal mineralogical
barrier that also incorporates host rock (i.e., background Ni
concentration) and dominant mineralogical (e.g., awaruite vs.
sulfide vs. laterite) variations, although this barrier would nec-
essarily move with supply and/or demand, processing tech-
nology, input costs, price fluctuations, and so on, a detailed
discussion of which is beyond the remit of this paper.
The historic fluctuations in the Ni price are clearly shown in
Figure 15, where both nominal and real prices have declined
and then increased before entering a repeating boom-bust
cycle from the 1970s onward, with significant recent fluctua-
tions clearly evident. This contrasts sharply with Cu prices
that in real terms have gradually declined, even again allow-
ing for numerous boom-bust cycles (Mudd et al., 2013b). This
decline in Cu prices has been attributed to a wide range of
variables, including growing demand, technological innova-
tion, growing dominance of large porphyry deposits, variations
in Cu supply, development of new mines, and other factors
(e.g., Mudd et al., 2013b). However, even though Cu prices
have declined and Ni prices have fluctuated significantly, both
metals have undergone a significant lowering of cut-off grades
for ore that can be processed. This may be a function of the
lack of a clear “mineralogical barrier” to Ni mining and the
intimate relationship between the economics of a given Ni
resource project and the values (or lack thereof) of co-and by-
product metals. This means that the relationship between Ni
and other metals within a deposit, in addition to other factors
discussed below, is likely to control the future production of
Ni, in sharp contrast with the controls on Cu production (e.g.,
Mudd et al., 2013b).
As shown in Figure 15, a linear regression (a conservative
option2) of global Ni production from 1950 to 2011 gives a
coefficient of correlation 0.938. If this is used to extrapolate
production to 2100, annual production reaches ~3.46 Mt/year
by 2100 with a cumulative value of 220.6 Mt Ni—consider-
ably lower than our global estimate of 298.6 Mt Ni. This then
poses the question as to what else may jeopardize the ability of
the mining industry to meet future Ni demands.
The security of available Ni resources is one factor that
needs to be considered, as exemplified by the Bushveld
2 Although an exponential regression of the entire historic production
data gives an R2 value of 93.5%, this predicts annual production in 2100 of
1,079.1 Mt Ni/year—clearly an unrealistic value. Alternatively, a linear re-
gression model of production from 1994 to 2011 gives an R2 value of 87.4%
and 2100 annual production of 5.73 Mt Ni/year. Hence the linear model of
1950-2011 data is a reasonable basis for future projections (as done in Mudd
et al., 2013b).
1838 MUDD AND JOWITT

2 40

Linear Trend Line 35

Nickel Price Nominal & Real (US$1,000 / t Ni)

(1950-2011 only)
An n u al Ni c k el Pr o d u c t i o n (Mt Ni /year )

1.6 ~4.8% growth/year

30

25
1.2 y = 0.0223x - 43.32
R² = 0.9382

20

0.8
Real Price 15
(1998 US$1,000 / t Ni)

10
0.4

5
Unit Price (US$1,000 / t Ni)
0 0
1865 1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005 1865 1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005
Fig. 15. World Ni production over time with a linear regression model (1950−2011 only; left); and world Ni prices over
time, including nominal (price of the day) and adjusted real prices to 1998 US$ (adapted from Kelly and Matos, 2012; right).

Complex of South Africa, the area with the highest total Ni environmental issues faced by Ni projects, with recent leaks
resources in this compilation, but also an area where recent from tailings dams halting or slowing production and poten-
infrastructure problems and civil unrest have significantly tially jeopardizing the future of the mine. However, this is
impacted the mining industry. The engineering challenges not to say that environmental issues cannot be overcome; one
involved in continued extraction from mature mining camps classic example of the overcoming of some, but by no means
must also be considered; a significant amount of Ni sulfide all, environmental issues in the Ni business is the construction
resources are located in areas where mining is becoming of the Inco “Superstack” in 1972 and the increased rejection
increasingly challenging, either because of the greater depths of pyrrhotite to tailings during mineral processing at Sudbury
of the remaining resources (e.g., Sudbury) and/or the nature (e.g., Peek et al., 2011). It should be noted that some of these
of the mineralization (e.g., mining of <1 m reef thicknesses seemingly environmentally driven changes were actually ini-
in addition to mining depths >3,000 m within the Bushveld tially brought in for economic reasons, either to reduce nickel
Complex). These issues have been somewhat offset by the loss and slag production or to produce sulfuric acid as a by-
introduction of new resources, either from areas of known product, with the latter becoming uneconomic as a result of
mineralization that have not been exploited (e.g., the Duluth acid production from sour gas (Peek et al., 2011). The devel-
Complex, where Ni mineralization has been known since 1948 opment of new laterite deposits has also been challenging,
although no Ni has been produced from this complex to date, with failure and mine closure (e.g., Bulong, Cawse) or lower
primarily as a result of low grades and challenging process- than expected production (e.g., Murrin-Murrin) from a series
ing of disseminated mineralization), from previously uniden- of high-pressure acid leaching plants that were commissioned
tified conventional magmatic sulfide and laterite resources during the 1990s, as discussed earlier.
(e.g., the Imiak Hill prospect associated with the Maniitsoq Another important point is that there are known Ni
meteorite impact structure in southwestern Greenland, a resources which have been difficult to develop due to signifi-
~3 Ga impact that has no visible surface expression), or from cant social and environmental concerns, or even opposition.
unconventional Ni deposit types that were not the focus of For example, the Goro and Koniambo projects in New Cale-
previous exploration (e.g., Fe-Ni alloys of the Decar-Baptiste donia have taken well over a decade to be developed as a con-
deposit and hydrothermal Ni sulfides within the Avebury and sequence of wide ranging concerns over mine water impacts
Talvivaara deposits). on adjacent marine ecosystems, social impacts, governance
A steady increase in Ni production from laterites has also issues, and economic benefit sharing, among others (e.g., Ali
offset any declines in the production of Ni from sulfide and Grewal, 2006); Goro and Koniambo only started produc-
resources (e.g., Mudd, 2010a); this, combined with increasing tion in 2010 and 2013, respectively, showing the significant
prices for both Ni and by-products such as the PGE and Cu, delays (and costs) that such concerns can cause. Similarly, the
has meant that the majority of the challenges facing mature Ramu Ni project in Papua New Guinea had similar delays due
mining districts have been offset somewhat. However, Ni pro- to opposition from the local community for the use of marine
duction from these unconventional resources has also been tailings disposal at the project. In particular, mine waste man-
challenging, with production issues at Avebury and Talvivaara agement will continue to be a growing issue for the Ni sector,
either stopping (for the former) or (for the latter) reduc- especially in light of declining ore grades, the increasing scale
ing Ni production. The Talvivaara mine also highlights the of open cut mines and associated waste rock, as well as the
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1839
fact that most laterite projects are in tropical regions subject
to high rainfall and seismic activity. Concern over long-term
environmental risks from mine wastes is commonly a major,
if not the dominant factor in community concern and opposi-
tion to some Ni projects (e.g., Goro, Ramu).
As world progress on greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change policy continues to evolve, there may be some projects
which, for example by reliance on emission intensive coal- or
diesel-based electricity, may be uneconomic when some form
of carbon pricing is factored in. One other consideration is the
potential positive aspects of mining of magmatic sulfide Ni
resources within serpentinized ultramafic host rocks, where
exposure and weathering of tailings can lead to significant CO2
sequestration; for example, Wilson et al. (2009) calculated that
the tailings produced by the Mount Keith magmatic Ni sulfide
mine in Western Australia have the capacity to sequester ten
times the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the mine, a sig-
nificant consideration in an industry that is ever more aware of
CO2 emissions and economic factors such as carbon taxes and
trading. Clearly, there are a range of complex sociopolitical,
environmental, and economic factors which may act against
some Ni resources ever being developed; conversely, these
factors may also act to promote the development of socially
and environmentally acceptable Ni deposits.
The data presented here clearly indicate that abundant
and already identified Ni resources can meet growing global
demands for some decades to come—the primary factors
which govern whether a given project is developed will be
social, economic, and environmental in nature, certainly not
whether there is sufficient Ni known in mineral resources to
meet demand.
Conclusions
The extent of presently known global Ni resources for the
year 2011 has been assessed and analyzed in detail in this
paper, including a comprehensive data set on reported min-
eral resources containing Ni by individual project and deposit
type. Our data show that there is at least 296.2 Mt Ni globally,
split over a total of 253 sulfide projects containing 118.0 Mt
Ni (or ~40.5%) and 224 laterite projects containing 178.1 Mt
Ni (or ~59.5%), with a further 3.38 Mt Ni in China (exclud-
ing Jinchuan, which is included within the magmatic sulfide
database used in this study), as well as other projects with
resources that may not have been reported. Significantly, our
detailed compilation of reported mining company data dem-
onstrates substantial growth in cumulative production and
resources, markedly exceeding the previous estimates of Elias
(2002), Dalvi et al. (2004), and Hoatson et al. (2006). When
comparing our 2011 data against trends over time, it is appar-
ent that global Ni resources continue to grow steadily. Some of
the key trends which underpin growing Ni resources include
technological innovation, growing demand, and declining
mining costs, all of which lead to lowering cut-off grades and
declining ore grades, although the significant influence of by-
product metals, especially for Ni sulfide resources, is another
major controlling factor. In terms of deposit types, our data
show that the majority of total Ni resources are associated
with Ni laterites and magmatic sulfides, with a small amount
of hydrothermal Ni that may become more important with
time, although this is somewhat tempered by the difficulties
faced in bringing these “unconventional” Ni resources into
economic production. The current known Ni resources and
trends presented here indicate that Ni is far from a “peak” in
either known resources or production, and it is more likely
that a range of complex social, environmental, and economic
factors will govern future Ni resources and whether individual
Ni projects are developed (or not).
Acknowledgments
Part of this research has been undertaken as part of the Miner-
als Futures Research Cluster, a collaborative program between
the Australian CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific Industrial
Research Organisation); the University of Queensland; the
University of Technology, Sydney (including Monash Univer-
sity); Curtin University of Technology; CQ University; and the
Australian National University. The authors gratefully acknowl-
edge the contribution of each partner and the CSIRO Flag-
ship Collaboration Fund. The Minerals Futures Cluster is a
part of the Minerals Down Under National Research Flagship.
We thank Paul Golightly and an anonymous reviewer for con-
structive and thoughtful reviews, Larry Meinert for editorial
handling, and Zhehan Weng for a very useful presubmission
review. Extensive information on moisture contents within Ni
laterites and sources for additional Ni resource data was kindly
provided by Paul Golightly.
REFERENCES
Ali, S.H., and Grewal, A.S., 2006, The ecology and economy of indigenous
resistance: Divergent perspectives on mining in New Caledonia: Contem-
porary Pacific, v. 18, p. 361–392.
Amezaga, J.M., Rötting, T.S., Younger, P.L., Nairn, R.W., Noles, A.-J., Oyar-
zún, R., and Quintanilla, J., 2011, A rich vein? Mining and the pursuit of
sustainability: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 45, p. 21–26.
Arndt, N.T., and Ganino, C., 2012, Metals and society: An introduction to
economic geology: Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, 160 p.
AusIMM, MCA, and AIG, 2004, Australasian code for reporting of explora-
tion results, mineral resources and ore reserves: The JORC Code: Parkville,
VIC, Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) of the Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)
and Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG), 20 p.
Beaton, D.W., Kryski, K.M., and Srivastava, R.M., 2011, 43-101 Technical
report on the Central Moa nickel laterite operation in eastern Cuba: Pre-
pared for Sherritt International Corporation, September 2011, 125 p.
Bentley, R.W., 2002, Global oil and gas depletion: An overview: Energy Pol-
icy, v. 30, p. 189–205.
Berger, V.I., Singer, D.A., Bliss, J.D., and Moring, B.C., 2011, Ni-Co laterite
deposits of the world—database and grade and tonnage models: Reston,
Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, 30 p.
Bird, E.C.F., Dubois, J.-P., and Iltis, J.A., eds., 1984, The impacts of opencast
mining on the rivers and coasts of New Caledonia: Tokyo, Japan, United
Nations University.
Brand, N.W., Butt, C.R.M., and Elias, M., 1998, Nickel laterites: Classifica-
tion and features: AGSO Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, v.
17, p. 81–88.
BREE, 2012, Resources and Energy Statistics Annual 2012: Canberra, ACT,
Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics (BREE), 173 p.
Butt, C.R., and Cluzel, D., 2013, Nickel laterite ore deposits: Weathered ser-
pentinites: Elements, v. 9, p. 123–128.
Campbell I.H., and Naldrett A.J., 1979, The influence of silicate:sulfide ratios
on the geochemistry of magmatic sulfides: Economic Geology, v. 74, p.
1503–1506.
CMSA, 2005-2013, Facts and figures 2004-2012: Johannesburg, South Africa,
Chamber of Mines of South Africa (CMSA).
Cohen, D., 2007, Earth’s natural wealth: An audit: New Scientist, v. 26, May
2007, p. 34–41.
Constantinou, G., 1980, Metallogenesis associated with the Troodos Ophiol-
ite, in Panayiotou, A., ed., Ophiolites: Proceedings, International Ophiolite
1840 MUDD AND JOWITT
Symposium, Nicosia, Cyprus, Cyprus Ministry for Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Geological Survey Department, p. 663−674.
Corriveau, L., 2007, Iron oxide copper-gold deposits: A Canadian perspec-
tive: Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division Special
Publication 5, p. 307–328.
Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., eds., 1986, Mineral deposit models: Denver,
Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey, 379 p.
Dahlkamp, F.J., 1978, Geologic appraisal of the Key Lake U-Ni deposits,
northern Saskatchewan: Economic Geology, v. 73, p. 1430–1449.
Dalvi, A.D., Bacon, W.G., and Osborne, R.C., 2004, The past and the future
of nickel laterites: PDAC 2004 International Convention, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, 7−10 March 2004, Prospectors and Developers Association of
Canada (PDAC), 27 p.
Dill, H.G., 2010, The “chessboard” classification scheme of mineral depos-
its: Mineralogy and geology from aluminum to zirconium: Earth-Science
Reviews, v. 100, p. 1–420.
DIMENC, 2012−2013, Productions et Explorations Minieres and Metal-
lurgiques: Direction de l’Industrie, des Mines et de Energie (DIMENC),
Noumea, Nouvelle-Calédonie.
DNPM, 2008−2012, Sumário mineral: Brasilia, Brazil, Departamento Nacio-
nal de Produção Mineral (DNPM) (in Portugese).
Doggett, M.D., 2000, Global mineral exploration and production—the
impact of technology: Workshop on Deposit Modeling, Mineral Resource
Assessment, and Their Role in Sustainable Development, U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1294 (2007), p. 63–68.
Donahue, R., Hendry, M.J., and Landine, P., 2000, Distribution of arsenic
and nickel in uranium mill tailings, Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada:
Applied Geochemistry, v. 15, p. 1097–1119.
Elias, M., 2002, Nickel laterite deposits—geological overview, resources and
exploration: Hobart, University of Tasmania, CODES Special Publication
4, p. 205–220.
Ernst, R.E., and Jowitt, S.M., 2013, Large igneous provinces (LIPs) and metal-
logeny: Society of Economic Geologists Special Publication 17, p. 17–51.
Feng, L., Li, J., and Pang, X., 2008, China’s oil reserve forecast and analysis
based on peak oil models: Energy Policy, v. 36, p. 4149–4153.
Flöter, W., 1987, The Key Lake project: Development of projects for the pro-
duction of Uranium concentrates: Technical Committee Meeting, Vienna,
Austria, 25–28 November 1985, Proceedings, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), IAEA-TC-453.5/16, p. 79–91.
Freyssinet, P., Butt, C.R.M., Morris, R.C., and Piantone, P., 2005, Ore-form-
ing processes related to lateritic weathering: Economic Geology 100th
Anniversary Volume, p. 681–722.
GA, 1992–2012, Australia’s identified mineral resources: Canberra, ACT,
Geoscience Australia (GA).
Galley, A., Hannington, M., and Jonasson, I., 2007, Volcanogenic massive sul-
phide deposits: Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits Divi-
sion Special Publication 5, p. 141–162.
Gleeson, S.A., Herrington, R.J., Durango, J., Velásquez, C.A., and Koll,
G., 2004, The mineralogy and geochemistry of the Cerro Matoso SA Ni
laterite deposit, Montelíbano, Colombia: Economic Geology, v. 99, p.
1197–1213.
Golightly, J.P., 1981, Nickeliferous laterite deposits: Economic Geology
75th Anniversary Volume, p. 710–735.
——2010, Progress in understanding the evolution of nickel laterites: Society
of Economic Geologists Special Publication 15, p. 451–485.
González-Álvarez, I., Pirajno, F., and Kerrich, R., 2012, Hydrothermal nickel
deposits: Secular variation and diversity: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 52, p.
1–3.
Groves, D.I., Bierlein, F.P., Meinert, L.D., and Hitzman, M.W., 2010, Iron
oxide copper-gold (IOCG) deposits through Earth history: Implications for
origin, lithospheric setting, and distinction from other epigenetic iron oxide
deposits: Economic Geology, v. 105, p. 641–654.
Habashi, F., 2009, History of nickel: International Symposium on Pyrometal-
lurgy of Nickel and Cobalt 2009, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum (CIM) Annual Conference of Metallurgists, 48th, Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada, Proceedings, p. 77–98.
Hannington, M.D., Galley, A.G., Herzig, P.M., and Petersen, S., 1998, A
comparison of the TAG Mound and stockwork complex with Cyprus-type
massive sulfide deposits: Proceedings Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific
Results Volume Leg 158, p. 389–415.
Hanski, E.J., Luo, Z.Y., Oduro, H., and Walker, R.J., 2011, The Pechenga
Ni-Cu sulfide deposits, northwestern Russia: A review with new constraints
from the feeder dikes: Reviews in Economic Geology, v. 17, p. 145–162.
Hoatson, D.M., Jaireth, S., and Jaques, A.L., 2006, Nickel sulfide deposits in
Australia: Characteristics, resources and potential: Ore Geology Reviews,
v. 29, p. 177–241.
Hongtao, Z., Qihai, J., Haiqing, H., and Xiaobo, L., eds., 2011, China min-
eral resources: Beijing, China, Ministry of Land and Resources, 110 p. (in
Chinese).
Hubbert, M.K., 1956, Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels: Spring Meeting,
Southern District, Production Division, American Petroleum Institute: San
Antonio, Texas, American Petroleum Institute, 57 p.
IEA, 2013, Key world energy statistics 2013: Paris, France, International
Energy Agency (IEA), 82 p.
IIED, and WBCSD, 2002, Breaking new ground: Mining, minerals and
sustainable development: London, UK, Published by Earthscan for Inter-
national Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Keays, R.R., and Jowitt, S.M., 2012, The Avebury Ni deposit, Tasmania: A
case study of an unconventional nickel deposit: Ore Geology Reviews, v.
52, p. 4–17.
Kelly, T.D., and Matos, G.R., eds., 2012, Historical statistics for mineral and
material commodities in the United States: Reston, Virginia, USA, US Geo-
logical Survey (USGS), Last updated 28 Oct. 2011, Accessed 4 May 2012
(minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/).
King, M.G., 2005, Nickel laterite technology—a new dawn?: JOM, July, p.
35-39.
Jowitt, S.M., and Keays, R.R., 2012, Shale-hosted Ni-(Cu-PGE) mineralisa-
tion: A global overview: Applied Earth Science, Transactions of the Insti-
tute of Mining and Metallurgy B, v. 120, p. 187–197.
Jowitt, S.M., Jenkin, G.R.T., Coogan, L.A., and Naden, J., 2012, Quantify-
ing the release of base metals from source rocks for volcanogenic massive
sulfide deposits: Effects of protolith composition and alteration mineralogy:
Journal of Geochemical Exploration, v. 118, p. 47–59.
Jowitt S.M., Mudd G.M., and Weng Z., 2013, Hidden mineral deposits in Cu-
dominated porphyry-skarn systems: How resource reporting can occlude
important mineralization types within mining camps: Economic Geol-
ogy, v. 108, p. 1185–1193.
Lambert, I., Meizitis, Y., and McKay, A.D., 2009, Australia’s national clas-
sification system for identified mineral resources and its relationship with
other systems: AusIMM Bulletin: Journal of the Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, December 2009, p. 52–56.
Mamuse, A., Beresford, S., Porwal, A., and Kreuzer, O., 2010, Assessment
of undiscovered nickel sulphide resources, Kalgoorlie terrane, Western
Australia. Pt. 1. Deposit and endowment density models: Ore Geology
Reviews, v. 37, p. 141–157.
Mudd, G.M., 2009a, The sustainability of mining in Australia: Key produc-
tion trends and their environmental implications for the future: Melbourne,
VIC, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University and Mineral
Policy Institute, October 2007, Revised April 2009, 277 p.
——2009b, Historical trends in base metal mining: Backcasting to under-
stand the sustainability of mining: Annual Conference of Metallurgists -
Green Technologies for Mining and Metallurgical Industries, 48th, Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada, 23-26 August 2009, Metallurgical Society, Canadian Insti-
tute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), p. 273−284.
——2010a, Global trends and environmental issues in nickel mining: Sulfides
versus laterites: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 38, p. 9−26.
——2010b, The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: Key
mega-trends and looming constraints: Resources Policy, v. 35, p. 98−115.
——2012, Key trends in the resource sustainability of platinum group ele-
ments: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 46, p. 106-117.
Mudd, G.M., Weng, Z., Jowitt, S.M., Turnbull, I.D., and Graedel, T.E.,
2013a, Quantifying the recoverable resources of by-product metals: The
case of cobalt: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 55, p. 87–98.
Mudd, G.M., Weng, Z., and Jowitt, S.M., 2013b, A detailed assessment of
global Cu resource trends and endowments. Economic Geology, v. 108,
p. 1163–1183.
Naldrett, A.J., 2004, Magmatic sulphide deposits: Geology, geochemistry and
exploration: Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
——2010, Secular variation of magmatic sulfide deposits and their source
magmas: Economic Geology, v. 105, p. 669–688.
NN, 1999−2011, Annual Report/Review: Moscow, Russia, OJSC MMC
Norilsk Nickel (NN).
NRC, 1944−2011, Canadian minerals yearbook: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada,
Mining Sector, Natural Resources Canada (NRC).
 A DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL Ni RESOURCE TRENDS AND ENDOWMENTS 1841
OSC, 2011, National instrument 43-101—standards of disclosure for mineral
projects, form 43-101F1 and companion policy 43-101CP: Toronto, Can-
ada, Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), June 2011, 44 p.
Parianos, J.M., Morwood, N.F., and Cook, J., 1998, Brolga nickel-cobalt
deposit, in Berkman, D. A., and Mackenzie, D. H., eds., Geology of Austra-
lian and Papua New Guinean Mineral Deposits: Carlton, VIC, Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, p. 801–806.
Peek, E., Barnes, A., and Tuzun, A., 2011, Nickeliferous pyrrhotite—“Waste
or resource?”: Minerals Engineering, v. 24, p. 625–637.
Peltonen, P., Kontinen, A., Huhma, H., and Kuronen, U., 2008, Outokumpu
revisited: New mineral deposit model for the mantle peridotite-associated
Cu-Co-Zn-Ni-Ag-Au sulphide deposits: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 33, p.
559–617.
PMC, 2012, Annual report 2011: Phalaborwa, South Africa, Palabora Mining
Company Limited (PMC), 156 p.
Prior, T., Giurco, D., Mudd, G.M., and Mason, L., 2012, Resource depletion,
peak minerals and the implications for sustainable resource management:
Global Environmental Change, v. 22, p. 577–587.
Rasilainen, K., Eilu, P., Halkoaho, T., Iljina, M., and Karinen, T., 2010, Quan-
titative mineral resource assessment of undiscovered PGE resources in
Finland: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 38, p. 270–287.
Ronacher, E., Baker, J., Palich, J., Broad, P., and Thesen, C., 2012, Indepen-
dent technical report: British Columbia, Canada, Decar Nickel Property,
156 p.
RONC, 1917, Report of the Royal Ontario Nickel Commission: Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, Royal Ontario Nickel Commission (RONC), 600 p.
Rustad, J.R., 2012, Peak nothing: Recent trends in mineral resource produc-
tion: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 46, p. 1903–1906.
Ruzicka, V., 1984, Unconformity-related uranium deposits in the Athabasca
Basin region, Saskatchewan: Vienna, Austria, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) TecDoc 315, p. 219–267.
——1993, Vein uranium deposits: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 8, p. 247–276.
SAMRCWG, 2009, South African code for the reporting of exploration
results, mineral resources and mineral reserves (the SAMREC Code):
Johannesburg, South Africa, South African Mineral Resource Committee
Working Group (SAMRCWG), Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy (SAIMM), and Geological Society of South Africa (GSSA), 61 p.
Singer, D.A., 1995, World class base and precious metal deposits—a quantita-
tive analysis: Economic Geology, v. 90, p. 88–104.
——2008, Mineral deposit densities for estimating mineral resources: Math-
ematical Geosciences, v. 40, p. 33–46.
Skinner, B.J., 1976, A second iron age ahead?: American Scientist, v. 64, p.
258–269.
Smith, J.L., 2012, On the portents of peak oil (and other indicators of resource
scarcity): Energy Policy, v. 44, p. 68–78.
Sorrell, S., Speirs, J., Bentley, R., Brandt, A., and Miller, R., 2009, An assess-
ment of the evidence for a near-term peak in global oil production: London,
UK Energy Research Centre, 228 p.
Stephenson, P.R., 2001, The JORC Code: Applied Earth Science, Transac-
tions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, v. 110, p. B121–B125.
USGS, 1994−2010, Minerals Yearbook: Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological
Survey.
USGS, 1996−2013, Minerals Commodity Summaries: Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey.
WADMP, 2011, Minedex report by commodity and project—nickel: Perth,
WA, Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum (WADMP),
search date 20 Dec. 2011, minedexext.dmp.wa.gov.au/minedex/external/
common/appMain.jsp.
Wellmer, F.-W., and Becker-Platen, J.D., 2000, Global nonfuel mineral
resources and sustainability: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1294 (2007),
p. 1–16.
Wilson, S.A., Dipple, G.M., Power, I.M., Thom, J.M., Anderson, R.G., Raud-
sepp, M., Gabites, J.E., and Southam, G., 2009, Carbon dioxide fixation
within mine wastes of ultramafic-hosted ore deposits: Examples from the
Clinton Creek and Cassiar chrysotile deposits, Canada: Economic Geol-
ogy, v. 104, p. 95–112.