Publication Name

MINING FOR CLOSURE

Thus, while the costs of environmental manage-

ment are generally lower when measures are in-

corporated at the planning stage instead of retrofit-

ting and redesigning systems later in the life of the

mine, and whilst it is not easy to quantify the costs

of best environmental practice, such costs appear

reasonable. For miners, there are clear indications

that the up-front costs of incorporating best envi-

ronmental practice into a mining operation provide

long term gains for projects in terms of regulatory

performance and lower potential liabilities (Envi-

ronment Australia, 2002b).

Further, widespread adoption of best practice envi-

ronmental management techniques will translate

into long term gains for the industry through great-

er certainty for access to land and project approvals,

improved relationships with regulatory authorities,

acceptance by the community, and lower levels of

risk to the environment.

2.2.1

the business case

Until recent decades organisations involved in

mining were generally

not

interested in assuming

responsibility for the rehabilitation of lands affect-

ed by mining activities. Rehabilitation of mine sites

imposes costs upon the extractive industries that

in the past have generally not been internalised.

However, trends towards high (and higher) expec-

tations for environmental protection, reduced risk

to human health, and for inclusions of community

related considerations, have combined with com-

peting land use demands, increasing value of the

natural environment as recreational space, and in-

creased appreciation of functioning ecosystems as

the repository of valuable biological assets, provid-

ers of natural environmental services and for their

aesthetic appeal (Environment Australia, 2002b).

These trends have greatly changed the business

case for

best environmental practice in mining

and

Mining for Closure

practices as described in this

document. The activities embodied in

best environ-

mental practice mining

and

Mining for Closure

for

which the business case is outlined here, are also

discussed in more detail in later sections.

In this setting – that of increasing requirements

(or absolute requirements) for mine closure – a

range of business related benefits of effective mine

closure are described (Allen, Maurer, & Fainstein,

2001; ANZMEC MCA, 2000; Environment Aus-

tralia, 2002a; Robertson & Shaw, 1998; UNEP

WHO, 1998; van Zyl

et al

., 2002a; Van Zyl, 2000;

Warhurst & Noronha, 1999; WOM Geological As-

sociates, 2000). Importantly for mining organiza-

tions, these benefits evidence themselves both dur-

ing mining operations and at the end of mine life

and as such, they constitute far more than just cost

savings that can be achieved during the execution

of a task forced upon them.

Benefits (principally after Environment Australia,

2002a) include

inter alia

continual reduction of liabilities via optimiza-

tion of rehabilitation works undertaken dur-

ing the productive phase of mining operations

rather than deferral of costs to the end of the

project;

provision of a basis for estimating rehabilita-

tion costs prior to final closure so that suffi-

cient financial and material resources can be

set aside;

ongoing testing, assessment and feedback re-

garding the effectiveness of rehabilitation de-

signs and/or processes in a site specific fash-

ion during the active mine life;

increased efficiency in execution of work (e.g.

in reduction of double-handling for waste ma-

terials and topsoil);

possibilities to optimise mine planning for ef-

ficient resource extraction

and

return of eco-

system to a functional form;

reduced areas of land disturbance through use of

smaller waste landforms and mining paths, and

in some circumstances progressive backfilling;

identification of areas of high risk as priorities

for ongoing research and/or remediation;

the direct involvement of operations personnel

in achieving mine rehabilitation outcomes;

the involvement of key stakeholders (especial-

ly local communities) in setting priorities for

mine rehabilitation;

reduction of ongoing responsibilities for the

site and facilitation of timely relinquishment

of tenements and bond recovery;

reductions in impacts on local communities in

terms of environmental, social and economic

impacts of mine operations;

reduction of exposure to contingent liabilities

related to public safety and environmental

hazards and risks;

lower risk of regulatory non-compliances;

greater acceptance/less resistance from key

stakeholders (in particular local communities

and land owners),

•