MINE CLOSURE
Mine closure plan – a living, iterative effort While most businesses tend to focus on the here and now – rather than on any prospect of closing down – a mine bears the responsibility of planning its closure even before it starts. By James Lake*
T
oday’s expectation is that a mine closure plan is dynamic, requiring constant and regular improvements. This, of course, has not always been the case, and there are still plenty of examples of mine closures that have not been at all planned. South Africa’s legacy of about 6 000 abandoned mining operations is testament to that. Partly for this reason, times have changed radically, and mine closure is now a central concern of responsible mining companies and governments globally. It has been a few years since the International Council on Mining and Metals published the second edition of its Integrated Mine Closure Good Practice Guide, and this remains the standard reference point for practitioners.
With more than 23 years of experience in the environmental field, James’ focus is on geochemistry, closure planning and liability estimating
22
Dynamic process If there were a central point these guidelines drive home, it would be that mine closure is a dynamic and iterative process. This makes it vital to consider closure as an integral part of mining operations’ core business – which in turn demands a systematic and integrated approach. To achieve this integration into life-of-mine planning, mines need to develop and update a detailed knowledge base, where data can be used to inform the ongoing relevance of the plan. The mechanisms here are feedback loops, turning closure-related actions into a cyclical process where the plan is modified as more information becomes available. Perhaps the other key aspect of international good practice is that it considers not just environmental, but also social and economic, factors in the closure
