Ni-Co Laterite Deposits of the World—Database and 

Grade and Tonnage Models 

By Vladimir I. Berger, Donald A. Singer, James D. Bliss, and Barry C. Moring 

Open-File Report 2011-1058 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Marcia K. McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

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: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1058

[http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1058/]

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
iii

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Rule Used .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Data Fields (Characteristics and Preliminary Analysis) ..................................................................... 3

Deposit Name ................................................................................................................................ 3

Locations........................................................................................................................................ 4

Mineralogical Subtypes of Ni-Co Laterite Deposits........................................................................ 5

Activity............................................................................................................................................ 6

Grades and Tonnages ................................................................................................................... 8

Ore Processing .............................................................................................................................. 8

Shape and Size of Ni Laterite Deposits ......................................................................................... 9

Geologic Setting........................................................................................................................... 11

Tectonic Setting ........................................................................................................................... 11

Source Bedrock............................................................................................................................ 11

Other Bedrock.................................................................................................................................. 11

Weathering Age ............................................................................................................................... 12

Spatially Related Deposits............................................................................................................... 15

Preliminary Analysis—Grade and Tonnage Model.......................................................................... 15

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ 16

References Cited ............................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Figures 

Figure 1. World map of explored Ni-Co laterite deposits of different age groups ............................ 17 

Figure 2. Box plot of deposit tonnages by nickel-cobalt laterite mineralogical subtype................... 17 

Figure 3. Box plot of average nickel grades of deposits by mineralogical subtype ......................... 18 

Figure 4. Box plot of average cobalt grades of deposits mineralogical subtype.............................. 18 

Figure 5. Bivariate fit of deposit size by area of Ni-Co laterite deposits .......................................... 19 

Figure 6. Bivariate fit of log deposit thickness by log laterite thickness ........................................... 19 

Figure 7. Box plot of deposit tonnages by shape groups of plateau and hill ................................... 20 

Figure 8. Box plot of deposit tonnages by age group ...................................................................... 20 

Figure 9. Box plot of average nickel grades by age group .............................................................. 21 

Figure 10. Box plot of average cobalt grades age group................................................................. 21 

Figure 11. Cumulative frequency of ore tonnages of Ni-Co laterite deposits ................................ 22 

Figure 12. Cumulative frequency of nickel grades of Ni-Co laterite deposits ................................. 23 

Figure 13. Cumulative frequency of cobalt grades of Ni-Co laterite deposits ................................. 24
iv

Tables 

Table 1. Country names and country codes used in this report ....................................................... 4 

Table 2. Tonnage and grades of mineralogical subtypes of Ni-Co laterite deposits.......................... 5 

Table 3. Frequency of main nickel-bearing minerals ......................................................................... 7 

Table 4. Frequency of main non-nickeliferous minerals of Ni-Co laterites ........................................ 8 

Table 5. Mineralogical subtypes of Ni-Co laterite deposits and processing methods........................ 9 

Table 6. Tonnage and grades of Ni-Co laterite deposits of different shape types........................... 10 

Table 7. Frequency of source bedrock associated with laterites and other bedrock ....................... 12 

Table 8. Tonnage and grades of the three age groups of Ni-Co laterite deposits ........................... 13 

Table 9. Geographical distribution of Ni-Co laterite deposits by latitude decimal............................ 14 

Table 10. Grade and tonnage models of laterite nickel-cobalt deposits .......................................... 16 
Ni-Co Laterite Deposits of the World—Database 

and Grade and Tonnage Models 

By Vladimir I. Berger, Donald A. Singer, James D. Bliss, and Barry C. Moring 

Introduction 

Nickel is an important metal in modern metallurgy with major uses in stainless 

steel (about 45 percent) and nickel-based alloys (about 39 percent) (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2010). Since 1950, world Ni output continued to increase almost exponentially, 

reaching 1.43 Mt of mined nickel production in 2009. The London Metal Exchange Ni 

price at the end of 2010 was more than $11 per pound. Ni consumption in the United 

States was 152 Kt Ni in 2009. The United States has no active nickel mines or nickel 

reserves. 

Ni-Co laterite deposits provide one of two major natural sources of nickel and 

cobalt. The economic importance of this deposit type expands in direct relation with 

industrialization of developing countries. Until now, the world nickel supply has been 

predominantly from sulfide deposits. According to Gleeson and others (2003), Dalvi and 

others (2004), and Mudd (2010), laterites contain about 70 percent of world nickel 

resources, have been mined for more than 100 years, and account for about 40 percent of 

world nickel production. 

Included in this report is a database of 120 explored N-Co laterite deposits found 

worldwide (appendix A). The database is a compilation of geologic and tonnage and grade 

data. Relevant data were collected from published and online Web sites and were found in 

recent issues of technical journals. The Ni-Co laterite deposits involved in our analysis are 

mostly well explored and are partially or entirely mined. These deposits contain reliable 

quantitative data on ore tonnages and Ni and Co grades. 

The database, containing 66 fields, was compiled using File Maker Pro 8 software 

exported to Excel and tab-delineated spreadsheets. JMP 8 software was used for statistical 

tests and analyses. The compiled information on Ni-Co laterite deposits included the 

following topics: location, mineralogical subtypes, ore-processing methods related to the 

subtypes, development state, tonnage and grades, geological setting, morphological 

grouping, deposit age and distributions, and tonnage-grade models. Topic characteristics 

are presented and tested quantitatively. Statistical tests were performed to determine if 

delineated subtypes and groups of Ni-Co laterite deposits (such as mineralogical, shape, 

and age groups) are significantly different. Analysis of variance tests were made of 

differences in tonnage, mean nickel, and cobalt grades (logarithms). For this purpose, 

analysis of variance was used with means comparisons for each group using Student’s ttest. Results of tests are expressed in tables 2, 6, and 8 and are illustrated by figures 2–4

and 7–10.
2

Grade and tonnage models are important in mineral-resource assessments. One 

purpose of this report is to update a prior Ni laterite model by Singer (1986a, 1986b). New 

information about known deposits, as well as data on new deposits, published during the 

last decades are used in the models and summaries found in this paper. The compiled 

database (appendix A) contains data from 120 explored Ni laterite deposits, for which a 

subset of 117 deposits with more confident data was included in the grade-tonnage model. 

In the present updated grade-tonnage model, 46 more deposits were added than were 

found in the previous Ni laterite model prepared by Singer (1986a, 1986b). Ni-Co laterites 

develop by chemical weathering of ultramafic rocks and supergene enrichment of 

weathering products mostly under tropical climatic conditions. Resources of most deposits 

are mostly in place residuum, but a few are also redeposited lateritic material. Ni-Co 

laterites occur along the present or paleo- surface above weathered bedrock. With respect 

to known classifications, three mineralogical subtypes of Ni-Co laterite deposits (Fe oxide, 

Mg hydrous silicate, and clay silicate) are selected by the dominant Ni-bearing mineral 

assemblage and statistically tested. The most economically important Ni laterite belt is 

confined to equatorial latitudes between 23.6 N to 23.0 S and includes almost all the 

youngest deposits and 72 percent of Cretaceous-Tertiary deposits. 

Mineral-deposit models are important in exploration planning and quantitative 

resource assessments for two reasons: (1) grades and tonnages among deposit types vary 

significantly, and (2) deposits of different types are present in distinct geologic settings 

that can be identified from geologic maps (Singer and Menzie, 2010). Mineral-deposit 

models combine the diverse geoscience information on geology, mineral occurrences, 

geophysics, and geochemistry used in resource assessments and mineral exploration. 

Globally based deposit models allow recognition of important features and demonstrate 

how common various features are. Well-designed deposit models allow geologists to 

deduce possible presence of mineral-deposit types in a given geologic environment, and 

the grade and tonnage models allow economists to estimate the possible economic 

viability of these resources. Thus, mineral-deposit models play a pivotal role in presenting 

geoscience information in a useful form to policy makers. The foundation of mineraldeposit models is information about known deposits. 

The latest geologic data and newly developed grade and tonnage models for Ni-Co 

laterite deposits in digital form are presented. Included are computer files with information 

about deposits from around the world. Text files allow locations of all deposits to be 

plotted in geographic information system (GIS) programs. The data are presented in 

FileMaker Pro, as well as in text files, to make the information available to a broadly 

based audience. The deposits are positioned on a Google Earth image, where each deposit 

is supplied by concise information about geographical coordinates, tonnage, and grades, 

and a file is provided to show locations of deposits in Google Earth. The value of this 

information and any derived analyses depends critically on the consistent manner of data 

gathering. For this reason, we first discuss the rules used in this compilation. Next, the 

fields of the database are explained and analyzed. Finally, we provide new a new grade 

and tonnage model and analysis of the information in the file. 

The main contributions of this project in the Ni laterite deposit model are the 

following: 
3

• Widening deposit data on Ni laterites around the world, increasing the number of 

deposits by 65 percent in the database, and improving confidence in the tonnage-grade 

model. 

• The notable change in the Ni laterite grade and tonnage model since the model by 

Singer (1986b) is that reporting Co has expanded from 20 percent to 56 percent of all 

deposits in the data set. This expansion allowed the addition of the 50th percentile for 

Co grades in the present model. 

• Statistical investigations of mineralogical subtypes, age groups, and shape-size groups 

of deposits resulted in proper testing of quantitative characteristics to provide 

additional tools for resource assessments. 

Rule Used 

A mineral deposit is a mineral occurrence of sufficient size and grade that might, 

under the most favorable circumstances, be considered to have economic potential (Cox 

and others, 1986). Deposits sharing a wide variety and large number of attributes are 

characterized as a “type,” and a model representing that type can be developed. 

Ni-Co laterite deposits are tabular bodies consisting of a weathered mantle of 

ultramafic massifs. Serpentinized ultramafics are commonly present and probably are 

supergene. Defining the sample to be used is an important consideration during datagathering efforts. Grade and tonnage data are available at various levels of aggregation for 

districts, deposits, and mines. The following rule was used to determine which ore bodies 

were combined: data for all mineralized rock or lateritic rock within two (2) kilometers 

were combined. The effect of this rule is the exclusion of three of the 120 deposits in the 

database from the tonnage and grade models: (1) Taganito/Adlay in the Philippines 

consists of two closely located ore bodies that were explored by different companies (2) 

The Murrin Murrin deposit in Western Australia combined data two sites, South and 

North, separated by a distance of 9 km, (3) The Onça-Puma Project in Brazil combined 

data two deposits, Onça and Puma, located 16 km apart. Tonnage-grade data were listed 

under “Comments” in these cases. 

Data Fields (Characteristics and Preliminary Analysis) 

Information on the explored Ni-Co laterite deposits included in the database and 

grade and tonnage models is contained in the files Ni-Co Laterite DB.fp8, Ni Laterite 

DB.xls, and Ni Laterite DB.txt, which are FileMaker Pro 7, Excel, and tab-delineated text 

files, respectively. The fields in the files are described and preliminarily analysis is given 

below. The “n.d.” abbreviation in various fields indicates “no data,” “not detected,” or 

“not defined.” 

Deposit Name 

The most recent deposit name is used in the “NameDeposit” field. There is another 

field, “OtherNames,” which contains alternative names that have been used for the deposit. 

A third field, “Includes,” provides the names of deposits and sites that have been 

combined with the primary deposit as a result of the two-kilometer minimum separation 

rule. 
4

Table 1. Country names and country codes used in this report. 

Country State, Province Country Code

Albania ALBN

Australia Queensland AUQL

Australia South Australia AUSA

Australia West Australia AUWA

Brazil BRZL

Burundi BRND

Cameroon CMRN

Colombia CLBA

Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) IVCO

Cuba CUBA

Dominican Republic DMRP

Ethiopia ETHP

Greece GREC

Guatemala GUAT

India INDA

Indonesia INDS

Kazakhstan KAZN

Kosovo (Serbia) KSOV

Macedonia MACA

Madagascar MDGS

Myanmar (Burma) MYAR

New Caledonia NCAL

Papua New Guinea PPNG

Philippines PLPN

Puerto Rico PTRC

Russia RUSA

Serbia SRBA

Solomon Islands SLMN

Turkey TRKY

United States Oregon USOR

Venezuela VNZL

Locations 

A number of fields are provided to show the deposit’s location. “Country” and 

“StateProvince” are used for general locations. “CountryCode” is an abbreviated version 

of the country information (table 1). Degrees, minutes, and seconds of longitude and 

latitude are provided in separate fields. Decimal degrees of latitude (“LatitudeDecimal”) 

and longitude (“LongitudeDecimal”) are calculated from the degrees, minutes, and 

seconds fields. Southern latitudes and western longitudes are negative values. 
5

Longitudes and latitudes of all localities were checked visually and corrected using 

Google Earth 5.1.Deposits included in the database and tonnage and grade models are 

located on the world map (fig. 1) and are plotted on the Google Earth 5.1 image using the 

Ni Laterite.kmz file. The deposit symbols are divided by color into three age groups. The 

detailed description of the age groups of Ni laterite deposits is in the Weathering Age 

section of this report. In addition to map figure 1, we have included a file (of2011-

1058.kmz) that plots the locations of the deposits in Google Earth and a shapefile folder (in 

of2011-1058_shapefile.zip) to allow ease of mapmaking. 

Mineralogical Subtypes of Ni-Co Laterite Deposits 

According to common mineralogical classifications (Freyssinet and others, 2005; 

Gleeson and others, 2003), three Ni-Co laterite deposit subtypes are recognized as (I) clay 

silicate, (II) Mg hydrous silicate, and (III) Fe oxide. Brand and others (1998) pointed out 

that these mineralogical subtypes usually are confined to different layers of the same 

profile and that most laterite deposits contain both silicate and oxide Ni laterites. Detailed 

consideration of special fields of “Laterite Profile” and “Mineralogy” has confirmed the 

three subtypes are mixed in a majority of Ni laterite deposits. Deposits of a “pure” endmember subtype found in this database are rare and the deposit classification used depends 

on dominant nickel-bearing mineral assemblages in the laterite profile. 

 Table 2. Tonnage and grades of mineralogical subtypes of Ni laterite deposits. [Significant differences 

at the one percent level or less are indicated in bold. Tonnage reported in millions of metric tonnes (Mt); the column 

designed “Tonne” gives the sum of tonnes of all deposits given within each category] 

Subtype of Ni-Co laterite Total ore tonnage

deposits 

Number of 

deposits 

Tonne % Median

Median Ni 

grade, % 

Median Co 

grade, % 

I. Clay silicate 12 879 7 25 1.27 0.06

II. Mg hydrous silicate 44 4,077 32 47 1.44 0.06

III. Fe oxide 61 7,629 61 66 1.14 0.09

117 (total) 12,585 100 56 1.3 0.08

Short definitions of nickeliferous subtypes are placed in the “Type” field, including 

number indicators of the determined subtype. The major mineralogical subtype is 

commonly associated with some subordinate subtype named in parentheses. Quantitative 

characteristics of the three subtypes, including median values of tonnage and nickel and 

cobalt grades, are shown in table 2. Frequency of nickel-bearing minerals and other 

minerals of the nickeliferous laterites are displayed in tables 3 and 4. 

Although original descriptions of the profiles are mostly schematic, the integrated 

lateritic sequence consists of the follows units (from top to bottom): (1) overburden, 

moved or formed in place, (2) duricrust, including ferricrust, silcrete, and calcrete; 

ferruginous laterite, often named ‘limonite zone’ (3) argillaceous saprolite; coarse 

saprolite; and weathered ultramafic source rock. The nickel-bearing minerals listed in 

table 3 are grouped according to their composition and laterite subtype. Minerals of the 

serpentine group, talc, and chlorite are dispersed and ubiquitous. 

Given the compilation (table 2) is representative of all Ni-Co laterites, the most 

important and widely distributed subtype, Fe-oxide, composes 61 percent of the world Ni 

laterite tonnage, or more than 7,600 Mt. The Mg hydrous silicate subtype contains 32 
6

percent of the world tonnage or 4,100 Mt. The clay silicate subtype includes 12 deposits 

that have small tonnages compared to the two common subtypes named above. 

While the clay silicate subtype is rare as a pure end-member, clay minerals are 

abundant and widespread in nearly all parts of laterite profiles. A seemingly distinct 

classification is affected by the mixed mineralogy of real laterite profiles. The median 

tonnages appear to be different among the three subtypes (fig. 2), but statistical tests show 

that the values are not significantly different. 

Meanwhile the assumption that nickel and cobalt grades in the two main subtypes 

are the same was rejected (figs. 3 and 4). Higher nickel grades in Mg hydrous silicates 

likely are due to the positive associate of Ni with Mg in subtype II. Higher Co grades in 

subtype III may be due to the association of Co with Mn oxide. 

Activity 

Characteristics of the activity at the deposits are described in four fields containing 

a name of the company or companies in the “OwnerOperator” field. Where the discovery 

date is known, it is recorded in the “DiscoveryDate” field. The startup date of mining is 

listed in the “StartUp” field. The current state of deposits (exploration, feasibility study, 

development, and mining) is noted in the “Status” field. The “Status” field is used to 

record the exploration and development situation of the property, including theproduction 

condition, if appropriate. The “Status” field allows an estimation of general current 

economic conditions production condition, if appropriate. The “Status” field allows an 

estimation of general current economic conditions in the nickel laterite industry. Among 

120 known deposits included in the database, development and mining operationsare 

reported at 44 deposits, 34 deposits are in exploration, 19 deposits underwent past 

exploration and are mostly abandoned or idle, 20 deposits are past producers, and eight 

deposits mined out. Given these observation are representative, 67 percent of Ni laterite 

deposits are part of a current activity of one type or another. This may suggest a 

forthcoming increase of laterite nickel-cobalt production, however, Ni-Co production can 

be hampered by unforeseen, unfavorable market conditions and by implementation of 

environment-protection actions. 
7

Table 3. Frequency of main non-nickeliferous minerals of Ni-Co laterites. [Count, number of deposits; %, 

percentage of deposits containing the mineral.] 

Minerals Count %

 Clay silicates

smectite and illite 92 77

nontronite 88 73

gibbsite 72 60

clay minerals (not differentiated) 20 17

kaolinite 8 7

montmorillonite 5 4

saponite

 Mg (Ni) hydrous silicates and associated 

 Mg (Ni) minerals of talc-serpentine group

serpentine 77 64

garnierite 40 33

talc 38 32

kerolite 19 16

pimelite 16 13

nepouite 13 11

lizardite 11 9

antigorite 10 8

sepiolite 9 8

pecoraite 8 7

willemseite 6 5

falcondoite 2 2

 Fe and Mn oxides

goethite 92 77

limonite 88 73

hematite and maghemite 72 60

Mn-oxide (including cryptomelane, 

pyrolusite, ramsdelite) 20 17

todorokite and chalcophanite 8 7

lithiophorite 5 4
8

Table 4. Frequency of main non-nickeliferous minerals of Ni-Co laterites.[Count, number of deposits; %, 

percentage of deposits containing the mineral.]

Minerals Count %

chromite and Cr-spinel 70 58

magnetite 65 54

quartz 78 65

chalcedony 21 18

opal 19 16

tridymite 2 2

magnesite 21 18

siderite 11 9

dolomite 8 7

calcite 7 6

Grades and Tonnages 

Data gathered for each deposit include the average grade of each metal or mineral 

commodity of possible economic interest and the associated tonnage based on the total 

production, reserves, and resources at the lowest available cutoff grade. Each of these 

categories are characterized by a separate set of fields, including “standard” codes of 

estimated reserves and resources, such as JORC (Australia), NI 43-101 (Canada), and “A, 

B, and C categories” of the former Soviet classification. Additionally, reserves are defined 

as proven, probable, possible, and historic; resources are determined as measured, 

indicated and inferred, and potential and historic. The final set contains total tonnagegrade data are used in the models’ creation. All tonnages reported here (“Tonnage”) are in 

millions of metric tons (Mt) and tonnes. In some sources, reported tonnages are defined as 

“wet” or “dry” ore (noted in “Comments”), but most data contain only tonnage values 

without giving this ore characteristic. Nickel and cobalt grades are reported in percentages. 

Unlike ubiquitous data on tonnages and nickel grades, cobalt grades are reported only in 

67 deposits, so cobalt grades that are not available are treated as zero. The "Comments" 

field contains supplementary information about available Au and PGE grades. Three 

significant digits are used for tonnage and grades. The special field of “Source 

TonnGrade” indicates sources of tonnage-grade data that corresponds to “References”. If 

required, details about reserves, resources, and production is placed in “Comments.” In 

some deposits, the resources are outlined only by drilled sites nested within a wider 

nickeliferous laterite areas and open on the flanks. 

Ore Processing 

Different processing methods applied to Ni laterite ores are divided in three 

groups: pyrometallurgical (ore smelting), hydromellurgical (ore leaching), and a Caron 

process that combines pyro- and hydro- processes (Speriadi, 2005; Wedderburn, 

2009,2010). Hydrometallurgical processing includes atmospheric leaching (for example, 

direct nickel, chloride, and sulfation) and HPAL (high pressure and temperature acid 
9

leach). All these groups are generalized in the database to four fields, NiFe Smelt, Atm 

Leach, HPAL, and Caron, defined on the alternative basis as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (the last one 

presented by empty space). In compilation of metallurgical features, we used data not only 

on mined deposits but also on explored deposits in the process of being developed for 

production. These fields are accompanied by a “Recovery Ni%” field. The data, in spite of 

their incomplete character, allow approximate estimation of the role of ore processing 

methods on mineralogical subtypes. Table 5 shows numbers of the actual or proposed ore 

processing method after metallurgical testing. 

Table 5. Mineralogical subtypes of Ni laterite deposits and ore-processing methods. 

Subtype of Ni-Co Ore-processing methods

laterite deposits

Number of 

deposits 

Number of 

processing 

records

NiFe smelt HPAL Atm Leach Caron

I. Clay silicate 12 8 5 1 2 -

II. Mg hydrous 

silicate

44 35 26 7 2 -

III. Fe oxide 61 47 9 21 7 10

Total 117 90 40 29 11 10

The scant reporting on subtype I, clay silicate, raises concerns about how 

representative the data are on processing. Better reporting on subtypes II and III may 

assure that these data are more likely representative. Among processing methods applied 

to deposits of subtype II, Mg hydrous silicate, smelting is prevailing, with 74 percent of 

the reporting deposits processed in this manner. Ores of subtype III, Fe-oxide, are 

processed mostly by the advanced HPAL method (45 percent), as well as by three other 

traditional methods: Caron (21 percent), smelting (19 percent) and atmospheric leaching 

(15 percent). In some deposits, such as Jacaré, Brazil, and Koniambo, North Caledonia, 

oxide and silicate ores are processed by different methods, hydrometallurgical and 

pyrometallugical, respectively. 

Shape and Size of Ni Laterite Deposits 

A number of fields are used to record the deposit’s shape and size. Besides source 

data, these categories were defined and measured through detailed study of the Google 

Earth 5.1 images, where it was possible to identify and measure actual deposit sites. 

In order to capture information consistently about the size (“DepositArea”) and 

shape of Ni-Co laterites, as presented in two-dimensional projection to the surface, the 

shortest dimension is measured as the distance between parallel lines that just touch the 

object (“DepositWidth”). After the short dimension is determined, the long axis is 

measured perpendicular to it using the same criteria (“DepositLength”). Where published 

estimates of the projected area of the body are not available we estimated the area using 

the standard formula for an ellipse area (S=3.14159 LW/4), where S is area in km2, L is 

length, and W is width, in kilometers (km), of the measured site. Thickness (m) of the NiCo laterite ore body is recorded in the “DepositThick” field that is a part of the total 

laterite mantle thickness (“LateriteThick”). 

Bivariate statistical analysis (fig. 5) shows the positive correlation between deposit 

area and tonnage, with the correlation coefficient r=0.56 significant at the 1-percent level. 
10

The linear fit on the plot matches the equation (with rounded numbers): y=1.29+0.5x, 

where y is in log10 Mt, and x is in log10 km2. The equation may have a practical application 

to prospective Ni-Co laterite regionalassessments. Statistical tests show no significant 

correlations between deposit tonnages and deposit or laterite thicknesses. 

Meanwhile, there is a positive correlation between log10 total laterite thickness and 

thickness of a nickeliferous layer at thedeposit, with a correlation coefficient of r=0.77

which is significant at the 1-percent level (fig. 6). The linear fit on the plot matches the 

equation (with rounded numbers): y=0.0 +0.82x , where y is the log10 deposit thickness, 

and x is the log10 total laterite thickness. This equation also may be applied to Ni-Co 

laterite regional assessments. 

The “DepositShape” field contains a short description of the configuration and 

geomorphology of Ni-Co laterite occurrences either as a single laterite blanket, or as a 

group of sites combined in one deposit. According to original deposit characteristics and 

remote image analyses, three generalized types were recognized: plateau Ni-Co laterite, 

hill Ni-Co laterite, and linear Ni-Co laterite. These types are indicated in three respective 

fields: “plateau”, “hill”, and “linear “, each witha ‘yes’ or ‘no’ option (the latter represents 

empty space). The shape fields are added with two detailed fields: “low relief”, and 

“karst”, typical of only a few linear deposits. 

Plateau type (n=40) indicates a laterite blanket covering a considerably flat, wide 

extensive area, elevated above adjacent lands and dissected by ravines in some deposits. 

Table 6. Tonnage and grades of Ni laterite deposits of different shape types. [Significant differences at 

the 1-percent level or less are indicated in bold. * L, length, and W, width, of the Ni-Co laterite deposit area. ** 

Tonnage reported in millions of metric tons. *** Explanation in the text.] 

Shape type of Ni- Ore tonnage**

Colaterite deposits

Number of 

deposits

Median 

area, sq. 

km

Median 

ratio 

L/W*

Tonne Median

Median 

grade Ni 

%

Median 

grade 

Co %

Plateau Ni-Co 

laterite 

40 14.9 2 5,484 71 1.27 0.08

Hill Ni-Co laterite 65 8.2 2.5 6,001 40 1.3 0.08

Linear Ni-Co 

laterite

11 4.2 *** 1,057 46 1.07 0.06

Not defined 1 - - 43 - - -

117 (total) 12,585 

(total)

56 1.3 0.08

Hill type (n=65) represents remnants of partially eroded plateau laterite mantles 

preserved at planar top, summit, terrace, and gentle slope areas, including downslope 

lateritic material, as described by Golightly (1979). Linear type (n=11) indicates 

morphological elements, such as a long gentle ridge or flat valley extending along strike of 

ultramafic bodies and fault zones. Low relief (n=9) and Karst (n=4) features are further 

details of the smaller group of linear type deposits and are related to the higher erosion 

along linear controlling structures. 

Quantitative characteristics of the three main Ni laterite shape types are tabulated 

(table 6). The only variable found to be significantly different was mean values of tonnage 

of the two main types, Plateau and Hill (fig. 7). 
11

The substantially larger median tonnage of the Plateau type versus the Hill type 

probably correlates with the larger median area of the Plateau-type deposits and is simply 

another expression of the positive correlation between deposit tonnages and areas outlined 

above. The median area of the Hill type is notably smaller due to more extensive erosion. 

Statistically, the difference between areas of the two major morphological types is not 

significant. This also is true for the median nickel and cobalt grades. Although linear NiCo laterites also are defined in table 6, their number is likely too few to compare with 

other surface shape types. The Linear type contains only deposits of the two older groups, 

among them Mesozoic deposits of the Urals and southern Europe which are highly eroded, 

the variables about them may not be representative of younger deposits. 

Geologic Setting 

The geologic setting of the deposits is characterized in several data fields: tectonic 

setting, source bedrock and other bedrock, deposit shape and size of area occupied, laterite 

profile, and nickel-bearing and other minerals. 

Tectonic Setting 

The Tectonic Setting field contains information about age, regional name, and 

conventional tectonic type of the Ni-Co laterite-bearing tectonic zone. An age of such zone 

encompasses the entire geological scale from Archean in cratons until Cenozoic in modern 

island arcs. Four tectonic settings are defined in the database (with number of contained 

deposits in parentheses): ophiolite terranes of fold belts and magmatic arcs (n=70), 

ultramafic fragments (blocks and sheets) of oceanic plates obducted onto continental 

terranes (n=30), greenstone belts of cratons (n=8), and single-layered mafic-ultramafic and 

alkaline-ultramafic complexes (n=5). 

Source Bedrock 

Rocks below and around the Ni-Co laterite deposits are recorded here using the 

same terms as those used in the published maps and reports. We have used two fields in an 

attempt to provide some specific information. The field SourceBedrock is used for rocks 

that are only represented in the deposit itself and are covered by nickeliferous laterite, so 

they might be considered as a source of nickel and cobalt concentrations. This field 

includes those listed magmatic rocks associated with laterites. Table 7 shows the 

frequency of these rocks in the deposits. Serpentinite and serpentinized ultramafic rocks 

are present in the majority of deposits (87 percent), dunite (65 percent) and harzburgite (53 

percent), along with widespread peridotite (46 percent), are the main source rocks. The 

nickel and cobalt content of unaltered and serpentinized source rocks is 0.2–0.3 wt. 

percent and 0.01–0.02 wt. percent, respectively. Notably higher nickel and cobalt 

concentrations are found in bedrock associated only with three deposits: Kastoria, Greece, 

0.3–0.4 wt. percent Ni; Loma di Hierro, Venezuela, 0.3–0.4 wt. percent Ni; and Riddle, 

United States, 0.29–0.52 wt. percent Ni. 

Other Bedrock 

Country rocks that are present both in the deposits and on a regional map are 

placed in the field OtherBedrock, which also contains the geologic age of the rocks (in 

parentheses after rock definitions). In table 5, the country rocks can be divided into several 
12

categories with respect to their setting. Chromitite pods, gabbro, and norite are common 

(>50 percent) components of the source mafic-ultramafic complexes. The next essential 

group consists of basalt, diabase, ophiolitic mélange, and chert (total 66 percent), 

corresponding to ophiolite zones of different ages that host many Ni laterite deposits. 

Ophiolites mostly are accompanied by metamorphic rocks (70 percent) of prevailing 

Precambrian ages, and also by clastic (33 percent) and carbonate (20 percent) sedimentary 

rocks. The presence of limestone and other carbonate rocks may lead to laterite 

accumulations in karst. However, karst topography development is not necessarily limited 

to carbonate rocks and can develop in peridotite rocks (Golightly, 2010) and, perhaps, 

other rock types under extreme weathering conditions. 

Table 7. Frequency of source bedrock associated with laterites and other bedrock. [Count, number of 

deposits; %, percentage of deposits with associated rock type. Many deposits are associated with more than one 

rock type. In addition, there are one or two instances of carbonatite, syenite, websterite, wehrlite, and ijolite in the 

database rock fields.]

Source Bedrock Count %

serpentinite, serpentinized ultramafics 102 87

dunite 77 64

harzburgite 62 53

lherzolite 17 15

peridotite 55 46

pyroxenite 24 21

Other Bedrock

metamorphic rocks (gneiss, marble, quartzite, 

schist) 70 60

gabbro, gabbro-norite, norite 66 56

basalt (including metabasalt, diabase) 47 40

clastic sedimentary rocks (conglomerate, 

sandstone, shale, siltstone) 39 33

carbonate sedimentary rocks (dolomitic 

limestone, limestone) 23 20

intrusive rocks (granite, granodiorite, 

plagiogranite, diorite, tonalite) 24 21

chert 19 16

chromitite 19 16

ophiolite, ophiolitic melange 12 10

Weathering Age 

Nickel-cobalt laterite deposit development requires three main features: presence 

of ultramafic rocks; peneplain topography; and humid, tropical climates. Laterization is a 

chemical and physical weathering process leading to the dissolution and mobilization of 

many soluble elements at the surface (Golightly, 1981; Elias, 2002; Freyssinet and others, 

2005). The laterization process results in the loss of a number of elements and the 

concentration of other elements to sufficient grades that might be considered as economic 

for extraction. Gleeson (2005) has named five general epochs of laterite formation from 

the Carboniferous to the Pliocene. Direct age determinations of Ni laterites, such as 

radiometric, palynological, and paleomagnetic, are very rare and may not be exact. For 
13

example, an age of the known Murrin Murrin deposit in Western Australia was defined 

widely by paleomagnetic dating as Mesozoic and Tertiary (Wells, 2003). Determinations 

of weathering ages shown in the database were taken from publications related to the 

deposits. Such determinations are made mostly based on observed local geological and 

geomorphological relations. Using these relations, time periods of the laterite-forming 

weathering processes, and hence, approximate ages of Ni-Co laterite deposits were 

grouped into three age groups, designated as ‘a, b, c’ for use in the Age Group field 

(table 8, figs. 8–10). 

Table 8. Tonnage and grades of the three age groups of Ni laterite deposits. [Significant differences at 

the one percent level or less are indicated in bold. Tonnage reported in millions of metric tonnes.] 

Total ore tonnage Age Group 

of Ni-Co 

laterite 

deposits

Number of 

deposits

Tonne % Median

Ni median 

grade, %

Co median 

grade, %

‘a’ 

Miocene 

to present

52 6,894 55 87.5 1.3 0.072

‘b’ 

Cretaceous 

to EarlyMid 

Tertiary

43 4,171 33 47.3 1.3 0.08

‘c’ 

Mesozoic

22 1,520 12 42 1.11 0.06

117 

(total)

12,585 

(total)

100 56 1.3 0.08

Determinations of weathering ages shown in the database were taken from 

publications related to the deposits. Such determinations are mostly based on observed 

local geological and geomorphological relations. Using these relations, time periods of the 

laterite-forming weathering processes and hence Ni-laterite deposits approximate ages 

were grouped into three age groups, designated as ‘a, b, c’ for use in a field designated as 

Age Group (table 8, figs. 8–10). 

The ‘a’ group of ‘Miocene to present’ consists of deposits with ages reported as 

being post-Oligocene, Miocene-Pliocene, Miocene-Quaternary, Miocene-Holocene, 

Miocene to present, Pliocene to present, and Late Tertiary to present. This group of 52 

deposits is 44 percent of all deposits in the data set, and it cumulatively contains 6,894 Mt 

of Ni-Co mineralization, or 55percent of all Ni-Co mineralization used in the analysis. 

The ‘b’ group of ‘Cretaceous to Early-Mid Tertiary’ ages includes deposits with 

ages reported as being Cretaceous-Cenozoic, Late Cretaceous-Tertiary, Late CretaceousOligocene, Early Tertiary, Tertiary, late Eocene-Oligocene, and late Eocene. These 43 

deposits are 37 percent of the data set and cumulatively contain 4,170 Mt of Ni 

mineralization and 33 percent of all mineralization found in the data set. These Ni-Co 

laterites can be partially or completely overlapped by Quaternary alluvium and moved 

debris. 
14

Table 9. Geographical distribution of Ni-Co laterite deposits by latitude. 

Number of 

deposits

Total ore tonnage Number of deposits by age group

a, Miocene to 

present

b, Cretaceous to 

Mid Tertiary

c, Mesozoic

Latitude 

interval 

(decimal)

Count % Tonne Median 

tonne

Count % Count % Count %

59.7 N–

38.5 N 23 20 1,583 43 1 2 - - 22 100

23.6 N–

23.0 S 87 74 9,998 60 51 98 36 84 - -

24.7 S–

33.6 S 7 6 1,004 140 - - 7 16 - -

117 

(total) 100 12,585 (total) 56 52 100 43 100 22 100

The ‘c’ group of ‘Mesozoic’ age deposits includes deposits that are designated as 

being Early Mesozoic, Mesozoic, pre-Jurassic (Triassic?), Triassic-Jurassic, Late TriassicEarly Jurassic, Jurassic-Early Cretaceous, Early Cretaceous, and pre-Tertiary. Even Late 

Paleozoic laterites were presumed to be in some of the Urals Ni-Co laterite deposits 

(Mikhailov, 2004). The group is made up of 22 deposits, or 19 percent of all deposits in 

the data set. There total content of Ni-Co mineralization is 1,520 Mt, or 12 percent of all 

Ni-Co mineralization. The group is distinctive because it is capped by Late Cretaceous and 

Eocene carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks; some deposits exhibit low-grade 

metamorphism, are slightly deformed, and may be redeposited in paleokarsts. Millerite, 

pyrite, and pyrrhotite, along with phlogopite and rhodochrosite, may be present in some 

deposits of this group and probably are products of low-grade metamorphism. 

The age of each successive group of Ni-Co laterite deposits corresponds to a 

decline in the number of deposits reported, size, and nickel and cobalt grades. This steady 

trend is confirmed statistically. A significant difference exists among quantitative 

characteristics of groups ‘a’ and ‘c.’ The ‘b’ group appears transitional between the two 

extremes (see table 8).The clear decrease of deposit size and nickel-cobalt grades with 

increasing deposit age likely is due to increased erosion and natural leaching of the older 

deposits. The deposits of the ‘c’ group can be considered to represent remnants of much 

larger Ni laterite population isolated on older paleosurfaces. 

Ni laterite deposits of different age groups are confined to three latitudinal belts 

(table 9; fig. 1). The northern belt extends between 59.7 N and 38.5 N latitude consisting 

only of older Ni laterite deposits of the ‘c’ group, mainly located in two regions of 

southern Europe and the Urals. The Miocene Riddle deposit (42.96 N, Klamath mountains, 

Oregon, United States) is the only ‘a’ group deposit that falls into the belt. 

The most economically important equatorial belt includes all younger deposits of 

the ‘a’ group (besides the Riddle) and 72 percent of ‘b’ group deposits, confined to latitude 

interval 23.6 N– 23.0 S. Gleeson and others (2003, p.1) pointed out that “many recently 

formed, and actively forming deposits are situated in equatorial latitudes” found between 

20oN and 20oS. The southern belt (24.7 S–33.6 S) includes the eight remaining deposits of 

the ‘b’ group (Cretaceous to Early-Mid Tertiary) present in Australia and South America. 
15

Worldwide belts like these might be important guides in developing tracts for use in either 

global or regional assessments of Ni laterites.

Spatially Related Deposits 

What other deposit types are within 10 km (“Assoc Deposits less 10km”) of each 

Ni-Co laterite deposit? In many situations, these spatially relateddeposits merely are 

occurrences and not economic mineral deposits. Nevertheless, many of these occurrences 

can be typed, and their types might provide important information about the possible 

association with Ni laterite deposits. Each deposit type is coded with the deposit type 

number and deposit type as listed in U.S. Geological Survey Bulletins 1693 (Cox and 

Singer, 1986) and 2004 (Bliss, 1992). Within 10 km, 31 other Ni laterite deposits are 

recognized. In addition, there are 21 podiform Cr deposits noted which appear to be 

closely associated with the same ultramafic source rocks from which the Ni laterite 

deposits in this study were formed. Besides listed deposit types, six Au-quartz vein 

deposits and one Cu-Zn VMS deposit are found within 10 km. 

Preliminary Analysis—Grade and Tonnage Model 

Grade and tonnage models of mineral deposits are useful in quantitative resource 

assessments and exploration planning. Having some idea of the possible values of 

alternative kinds of deposits that might be sought is critical to good exploration planning. 

In quantitative resource assessments these models play two roles: first, grade and tonnage 

models can help classify the known deposits in a region into types and therefore aid in 

delineation of areas permissive for types; second, the models provide information about 

the potential value of undiscovered deposits in the assessment area and are key to 

economic analyses of these resources. Construction of grade and tonnage models involves 

multiple steps; the first is the identification of a group of thoroughly explored deposits that 

are believed to belong to the mineral deposit type being modeled. Thoroughly explored 

here means completely drilled in three dimensions. However, some Ni laterite deposits 

involved in the tonnage-grade models remain open on flanks. After deposits are identified, 

data from each are compiled. These data consist of average grades of each metal or 

mineral commodity of possible economic interest and tonnages based on the total 

production, reserves, and resources at the lowest available cutoff grade. Here we use the 

deposits that have tonnages recorded in the Total Tonnage field and the associated average 

grades. 

Many grade and tonnage models are presented in a graphical format to make it 

easy to compare deposit types and to display the data. The grade and tonnage plots show 

the cumulative proportion of deposits versus the tonnage or grade of the deposits. 

Individual symbols represent the deposits, and intercepts for the 90th, 50th, and 10th 

percentiles are plotted. Percentiles of grades that contain unreported values, such as Co, 

were based on the observed distributions. Co grades in Ni-Co laterite deposits were not of 

economic interest until recent years, so the unreported Co grades should not necessarily be 

considered to be lower than the Co grades reported here. The reported Co grades might be 

a reasonable model of the unreported grades in this deposit type.Frequency distributions of 

the tonnages and the nickel and cobalt grades for the deposits of the thoroughly explored 

deposits reported in the file can be used as models of the grades and tonnages of 

undiscovered deposits. The frequencies for the total tonnage and average Ni and Co grades 
16

for the general Ni laterite grade and tonnage model are plotted in figures 11–13 and are 

summarized in table 10. Based on the Shapiro-Wilk W test, tonnages of these deposits are 

significantly different from lognormal at the 1-percent level. Average Ni grades are not 

significantly different from lognormal distributions at the 1-percent level, but Co average 

grades are significantly. The significant difference for Co grades is due solely to one 

deposit with a very low reported grade. One notable change in the Ni laterite grade and 

tonnage model since the one published by Singer (1986b) is that Co grade reporting has 

expanded from 20 percent to 56 percent of all deposits in the data set. The larger number 

of deposits in the present model allowed the addition of the 50th percentile for Co grades 

due to the increased number of reported Co grades. 

Relations among variables are important for simulations of resources, for their 

effect on our understanding of how deposits form, and for their effect on our assumptions 

about resource availability. Deposit grades are not significantly correlated with tonnages 

or with each other. 

If there were no differences in grades or tonnages among deposit types, we could 

use one tonnage-grade model for all types. For this reason, it is desirable to perform some 

tests to determine if the types are significantly different with respect to grade or tonnages. 

Analysis of variance tests of differences in mean (in logarithms) tonnage and nickel and 

cobalt grades showed no significant differences for the subtypes or the types in the type 

index of Ni laterite deposits. However, the same tests performed on the lateritic Ni 

deposits by age groups showed that tonnages were significantly different at the 4-percent 

level, nickel grades were significantly different at the 1-percent level, and cobalt grades 

were significantly different at the 1-percent level (figs. 8, 9, and 10). The tonnages are 

progressively lower, and the nickel and cobalt grades are lower as the ages of the deposits 

become older. The age effect is largely displayed in the oldest, Mesozoic group, which 

mostly is located in two regions, so in most cases, no age adjustment seems justified for 

assessments outside of these regions. In most cases, it is recommended that the general 

grade and tonnage model (table 10) be used. 

Table 10. Grade and tonnage models of laterite nickel deposits. [Tonnage is reported in millions of 

metric tons. Nickel and cobalt are reported in percent.] 

Number 

ofdeposits

10th 

percentileof 

deposits

50th

percentileof 

deposits

90th 

percentileof 

deposits

General Ni-Co 

laterite Tonnes 117 290 56 9.0

Ni grade, % 117 1.8 1.3 0.83

Co grade, % 117 0.11 0.04 0.00

Acknowledgments 

We are thankful to Dan Mosier and Ted Theodore for the comprehensive reviews 

and important comments and corrections. We are grateful for the text edits by Jim 

Hendley. 
17

Figure 1. World map of explored Ni-Co laterite deposits of different age groups included in the 

database and grade and tonnage model. 

Figure 2. Box plot of deposit tonnages by nickel-cobalt laterite mineralogical subtype: I, clay 

silicate; II, Mg hydrous silicate; III, Fe oxide. Dots are individual deposit tonnages, median value 

is the centerline of box, 25th and 75th quartiles are top and bottom of box, and the line across 

the plot is the grand mean. 
18

Figure 3. Box plot of average nickel grades of deposits by mineralogical subtype: I, clay silicate; II, 

Mg hydrous silicate; III, Fe oxide. Dots are individual deposit average nickel grades, median 

value is the centerline of box, 25th and 75th quartiles are top and bottom of box, and the line 

across the plot is the grand mean 

Figure 4. Box plot of average cobalt grades of deposits by mineralogical subtype: I, clay silicate; II, 

Mg hydrous silicate; III, Fe oxide. Dots are individual deposit average cobalt grades, median 

value is the centerline of box, 25th and 75th quartiles are top and bottom of box, and the line 

across the plot is the grand mean. 
19

Figure 5. Bivariate plot of deposit tonnages (Mt) by area (km2) of Ni-Co laterite deposits. Dots are 

individual deposit tonnage and areas. The line is the linear fit matching the equation: y 

=1.29+0.50x, where x is the area in log base 10 km2 and y is the deposit size in log base 10 

deposit size in million tonnes. Correlation between deposit area and tonnage is positive, the 

correlation coefficient r=0.56 is significant at the one percent level. 

Figure 6. Bivariate plot of log deposit thickness by log laterite thickness (m). Dots are individual 

deposit thicknesses, the line is the linear fit matching the equation y=0.075+0.81x. The 

correlation between log10 laterite thickness and deposit thickness is positive, the correlation 

coefficient r=0.77 is significant at the one percent level. 
20

Figure 7. Box plot of deposit tonnages by shape groups of plateau and hill. Dots are individual 

deposit ore tonnes, median value is the centerline of box, 25th and 75th quartiles are the top 

and bottom of the box, and the line across the plot is the grand mean. 

Figure 8. Box plot of deposit tonnages by age group. a, Miocene to present; b, Cretaceous to 

Early-Mid Tertiary; c, Mesozoic. Dots are individual deposit tonnages; median value is the 

centerline of the box; 25th and 75th quartiles are the top and bottom of the box; the line across 

the plot is the grand mean. 
21

Figure 9. Cumulative frequency of ore tonnages by age group. Each circle represents an individual 

deposit. Intercepts for the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentiles of the observed distribution are 

provided. 

Figure 10. Box plot of average nickel grades by age group. a, Miocene to present; b, Cretaceous to 

Early-Mid Tertiary; c, Mesozoic. Dots are individual deposit average nickel grades; median value 

is the centerline of the box; 25th and 75th quartiles are the top and bottom of the box; the line 

across the plot is the grand mean. 
22

Figure 11. Cumulative frequency of ore tonnages of Ni-Co laterite deposits. Each circle 

represents an individual deposit. Intercepts for the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentiles of the 

observed distribution are provided. 
23

Figure 12. Cumulative frequency of nickel grades of Ni-Co laterite deposits. Each circle represents 

an individual deposit. Intercepts for the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentiles of the observed 

distribution are provided. 
24

Figure 13. Cumulative frequency of cobalt grades of Ni-Co laterite deposits. Each circle represents 

an individual deposit. Intercepts for the 50th and 10th percentiles of the observed distribution are 

provided. 
25

References Cited 

Bliss, J.D., ed., 1992, Developments in deposit modeling: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 

2004, 168 p. 

Brand, N.W., Butt, C.R.M., and Elias, M., 1998, Nickel laterites—Classification and 

features: AGSO Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, v. 17, no. 4, 

p. 81–88. 

Cox, D.P., Barton, P.B., and Singer, D.A., 1986, Introduction, in Cox, D.P., and Singer, 

D.A., eds., Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, p. 1–10. 

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., eds., 1986, Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1693, 379 p. 

Dalvi, A.D., Bacon, W.G., and Osborn, R.C., 2004, The past and the future of nickel 

laterites: PDAC 2004 International Convention, Prospectors and Developers 

Association of Canada, 27 p., accessed April 1, 2010 at 

http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/publications/papers/2004/techprgm-dalvi-bacon.pdf.

Elias, M., 2002, Nickel laterite deposits—Geological overview, resources and exploration, 

in Cooke, D., and Pongratz, J., eds., Giant ore deposits—Characteristics, genesis, 

and exploration: Hobart, University of Tasmania, CODES Special Publication, p. 

205–220. 

Freyssinet, P., Butt, C.R.M., Morris, R.C., and Piantone, P., 2005, Ore-forming processes 

related to lateritic weathering: Economic Geology 100th Anniversary Volume, p. 

681–722, appendix (CD) 7 p. 

Gleeson, S.A., 2005, Nickel laterites through geological time: Geological Society of 

America Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, v. 37, no. 7, p. 240. 

Gleeson, S.A., Butt, C.R.M., and Elias, M., 2003, Nickel laterites—A review: SEG 

Newsletter, no. 54, p. 1, 12–18. 

Golightly, J.P., 1979, Nickeliferous laterites: A general description, in Evans, D.J.I., 

Shoemaker, R.S., and Veltman, H., eds., International laterite symposium: New 

York, Society of Mining Engineers, p. 3–22. 

Golightly, J.P., 1981, Nickeliferous laterite deposits: Economic Geology, 75th 

Anniversary Volume, p. 710–735. 

Golightly, J.P., 2010, Progress in understanding the evolution of nickel laterites: Economic 

Geology Special Publication 15, p. 451-485. 

Mikhailov, B.M., 2004, Hypergene metallogeny of the Urals: Lithology and Mineral 

Resources, v. 39, no. 2, p. 114–134. 

Mudd, G.M., 2010, Global trends and environmental issues in nickel mining—Sulfides 

versus laterites: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 38, p. 9–26. 

Singer, D.A., 1986a, Descriptive model of laterite Ni, in Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., eds., 

Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, p. 252. 

Singer, D.A., 1986b, Grade and tonnage model of laterite Ni deposits, in Cox, D.P., and 

Singer, D.A., eds., Mineral deposit models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 

p. 252–254. 

Singer, D.A., and Menzie, W.D., 2010, Quantitative mineral resource assessment: New 

York, Oxford University Press, 219 p. 
26

Speriadi, A., 2005, Processing technology versus nickel laterite ore characteristic: Eramet, 

PT Inco. Tbk, 26 p., accessed September 7, 2010 at 

http://www.tekmira.esdm.go.id/.../ProcessTech%20

vs%20Ore%20Character_AgusSuperiadi_PT%20Inco.ppt. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, Mineral commodity summaries 2010: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Nickel, p. 108–109. 

Wedderburn, B., 2009, Nickel laterite processing—A shift toward heap leaching: 

Malachite Process Consulting Presentation, 68 p., accessed January 26, 2010 at 

http://www.malachiteconsulting.com/documents/ALTAConference-LateriteProcessing 

Presentation-May09-Rev2.pdf. 

Weddeburn, B., 2010, Nickel heap-leaching study: Malachite Process Consulting, INSG, 

April 27, 2010 presentation 48 p., last accessed August 8, 2010 at 

http://www.insg.org/presents/Mr_Wedderburn_Apr10.pdf. 

Wells, M.A., 2003, Murrin Murrin nickel laterite deposit, WA: CRC LEME, 3 p., accessed 

April 21, 2010 at http://crcleme.org.au/RegExpOre/MurrinMurrin.pdf. 

Appendix A

Database files included in Appendix A of this publication consist of: 

• FileMaker 7 of2011-1058_data.fp7

• Excel of2011-1058_data.xls 

• Tab-delineated text of2011-1058_data.txt 

Map files also included in this publication consist of: 

• Google Earth files of2011-1058.kmz 

• Shapefiles of2011-1058_shapefile.zip 

• Metadata of2011-1058_metadata.txt