IP SPOTLIGHT MAY 11

MINERAL PROCESSING PATENTS Both a cautionary and reassuring tale

The problem for the growing nickel reliant industries, such as stainless steel production, was (and still is) the fact that nickel sulfide reserves are declining. The consequent increase in the nickel price made laterite nickel an interesting proposition despite the technical difficulties. NECESS I TY I S THE MOTHER OF I NVENT ION I S I T NOT? Such conditions were fertile ground for entrepreneurs and for technical people keen to solve the myriad of problems presented by nickel laterite ores. The 1990s and early 2000s saw a slew of patent applications being filed directed to nickel laterite flow sheets, or to specific aspects of those flowsheets. The basic technology employed by each of the Bulong, Cawse and Murrin Murrin projects was a high pressure, high temperature concentrated sulfuric acid leach (HPAL) of a ground laterite ore, after which efforts were made to recover the valuable metals (typically nickel and cobalt) extracted from the ore. The technology had been developed originally by Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd (as they were at the time) and has been used in respect of nickel ores at Moa Bay in Cuba since the 1950s. However, each of the local players gave their own spin to the process in an effort to increase efficiencies and to deal with the specific circumstances in Western Australia and the specific nature of our ores. The original patent applications filed by the Western Australian operators were directed to aspects of the technology that included: – – Solvent extraction techniques to recover largely pure nickel and cobalt streams from the HPAL liquor; – – Selective precipitation of nickel and cobalt, utilising magnesium oxide; and – – The precipitation of a mixed metal hydroxide intermediate product with subsequent re-leaching as a means of removing impurities. WHAT ’S THE POI NT OF A PATENT? Patenting a technique or process can provide a significant boost for a young mining company that is trying to stand out from the crowd, that is trying to create a sustainable competitive advantage, and ultimately seeking to attract investment and build value.

I like to look at patents as an insurance policy over all the R&D time, effort and money expended to create something and build your business. Of course, patents are ultimately a right to exclude others from what you have patented. If that is a new, and technically, environmentally and/or economically attractive mineral processing route or technique that only you, or your licensee can benefit from, that’s a good thing. BUT D I DN ’ T WESTERN AUSTRAL I A’S N I CKEL LATER I TE PLAYS FA I L? Some did fail (in their original incarnations, for their original owners), but not all. Anaconda Nickel’s Murrin Murrin project is still running today despite some early and well known technical challenges. Anaconda changed their name to Minara Resources and is now one of Australia’s largest nickel and cobalt producers (being presently wholly owned by Glencore). And whilst a patent can definitely provide each of the above advantages, if the underlying resource continues to confound those trying to extract value, and the economics don’t (or maybe never did) add up, then even a rock-solid patent won’t necessarily save the project. For example, it’s well known that at Bulong they discovered only at the final plant stage after months of operation that the volume of concentrated sulfuric acid required was even greater than initially anticipated (and that could be sourced locally from WMC) and it became necessary to import it. Rather than being the be-all and end-all, your intellectual property strategy needs to be just one part of, and be perfectly aligned with, a mining business’ overall strategy. It is worthwhile noting that even those projects that were ultimately unsuccessful often resulted in the patents and associated know-how being sold off – realising at least some value for the original owners and allowing the technology to live another life elsewhere.

One thing that continues to surprise me is that I’m often asked by those I meet at networking functions whether mineral processing flowsheets, and the technologies employed in them, are patentable. The short answer is, of course, Yes! I began my career as a patent and trade mark attorney in 1989 upon leaving university. By the early-1990s I was registered and was lucky enough to begin to specialise in chemistry, process engineering and mineral processing patents. In 1997 I became responsible for Wrays’ chemical patents group. This timing, and the fact that I was based in Perth, Western Australia, ensured that I was right amongst a flurry of mineral processing flowsheet/technology developments.

N I CKEL LATER I TES – THE NEXT B IG TH I NG? The developments I’m referring to were born of Australia’s three big nickel laterite plays of the 90s, being Bulong (Resolute Resources), Cawse (Centaur Mining) and Murrin Murrin (Minara Resources Limited). Each project came with their own high profile entrepreneur, amongst them ‘Diamond’ Joe Gutnick at Centaur and Andrew Forrest, in an early, slightly less successful incarnation, at Minara (or Anaconda as they were at the time). Nickel laterites are nickel oxide ores, and are (and have been historically) notoriously difficult to process. This is particularly so when compared with the more commonly relied upon nickel sulfide ores. Nickel laterite nickel grades are typically low, often around 1%, and in Western Australia they come with fine clays that generally make processing the ores difficult, clogging up autoclaves and heaps.

PETER CAPORN Principal

wrays.com.au | 7