Dr Isaac Dzakpata is the Project Leader of Foundational Project 2.2, a recently commissioned study by the Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies (CRC TiME), titled “Exploring the Issues in Mine Closure Planning”. He is also Work Area Leader at world-leading research organisation Mining3
Blog Layout
Mine Closure Planning – A Complex Landscape Worthy of Exploration
By Dr Isaac Dzakpata with editorial support from Deborah Pienaar
Pioneering research and a brand new approach to management shine light on a complex issue. Can the mining industry and its various stakeholders, by aiming for exemplary results, re-imagine and redesign Mine Closure Planning as a recognised future discipline in time for Australia’s next mining boom?
Mine planning (feasibility, production, or closure) involves effectively predicting the future (Brookwater, 2022), a challenge likened by world renowned management philosopher Peter Drucker to "driving along a country road at night with no lights while peering out the rear window." Mine closure planning (MCP) refers to the science and engineering aspects of envisioning and providing for the end state of a mining endeavour - a lifespan ranging from 5 to 70 years for new mines. Mining operators that have mismanaged closure historically have caused enormous harm and scarring to the natural environment. Australia is reported to have at least 60,000 abandoned mines (the majority of which are minor and the product of Australia's gold rush in the mid-1800s – before progressive rehabilitation became the standard).
The biggest challenge for MCP in Australia today centres on the mining operation often outliving the tenure of those who originally planned them and, in some extreme cases, the companies who owned the mines from the very beginning. The overarching concern remains “planning for closure versus closure without planning”. But why is this case, what are the issues lurking, and could these problems guide towards new opportunities? In the recently published Foundational Project 2.2, ’Exploring the Issues in Mine Closure Planning’, the fundamental challenges and issues at the heart of MCP were identified. Following a thorough literature review, supplemented by surveys and interviews with select industry stakeholders, a comprehensive real-world model of the preferred MCP approach was formulated. Principles from complex adaptive systems theory were employed to account for the highly dynamic and interconnected MCP landscape as well as the limited value of reductionism.
Three key findings are presented in the CRC TiME Report: (1) an industry operator knowledge gap was identified, largely caused by the MCP responsibility being traditionally outsourced to external consultants; (2) current MCP approaches do not consider specifics and/or variables such as expected mine lifecycle, extraction method, commodity (and potential diversification of commodities), and feasibility levels; and (3) MCP lessons learned and/or success stories across the mining industry are not being shared. A chief outcome of Project 2.2 is the development of an Integrated Mine Transition Framework (IMTF), newly created to tightly knit all aspects of strategic mine planning and mining operations carried out over the lifetime of a mine. The IMTF will form the core of an integrated knowledge-based toolkit that affords the mining operator an advanced command and control capability during a MCP effort. Report 2.2 concluded that unless mining operators start taking true ownership of their MCP interests, the traditional crude approach we have witnessed for the last two centuries will persist.
There is, however, much to be hopeful for. In recent years, for example, the balance is returning to valuing social licence both here and around the world. Mine operators are increasingly recognising that social licence is equally as important as shareholder performance for ensuring the industry continues sustainably into the future. CRC TiME Report 2.2 showed how robust record-keeping of each MCP update iteration throughout the lifecycle of the mine, as well as tracking changes in regulatory requirements, is a major albeit not insurmountable challenge. If achieved, both regulatory authorities and mine operators can prepare mine closure plans that meet the mining regulator's clearance requirements without relying heavily on external experts and consultants. The current situation, however, is that neither regulators nor mine operators have an integrated solution to manage and effectively regulate crucial input.
Much more could be done right from the start of a mine’s lifecycle to envision an economically viable solution and garner commitment from a broader spectrum of stakeholder and interest groups. Germany, widely considered a world leader in MCP, can teach Australia a thing or two – such as their lignite operations in the North Rhenish regions of the country. An outstanding example of a post-mining land use that can inspire future MCP best practice is the well-known Eden Project located in Cornwall, United Kingdom, which saw a dramatic transformation of an abandoned Cornish China Clay Pit. The £141 million project, which was completed incrementally over two decades, culminated in the delivery of a world class eco-visitor attraction and was opened to the public on 17th March 2001.
More informed dialogue is needed to shift attitudes towards improved MCP and encourage early participation and investment, particularly from those who stand to benefit from the eventual outcome. In the case of The Eden Project, this included environmentalists, botanists, and the tourism sector. Mining professionals, executives, community stakeholders and shareholders should pause for a moment and think what could be possible when a periodically updated and sufficiently rich mine closure plan is produced from the start.
Australia has an opportunity to redefine what its own MCP success means.
Industry leaders are now calling for a new shared understanding of this success, recognising that the mining industry needs to connect with the sectors now driving post-mine development such as conservation, tourism, agriculture and energy. First Nations people’s land stewardship plays a critical role in developing this shared understanding. Australia is leading the world in building a culture of collaboration amongst diverse stakeholders with the unique cross sector partnership of CRC TiME working on MCP and driving innovation for positive mine closure.
Australia and its regional neighbours have several MCP exemplars for the domestic mining industry to learn from. For instance, the sensible transition approach taken by ASX-listed metals exploration company Kingston Resources as it enters Papua New Guinea to redevelop the Misima Island gold project, which fell victim to the soft gold price era of the 1990s. Other success stories include Australian coal mining company Coal & Allied’s alluvial land rehabilitation in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales and the rehabilitation of American aluminium producer Alcoa’s mine of approximately 600 hectares each year at its Huntly and Willowdale bauxite mining operations in the Darling Range in Western Australia.
Effective mine closure entails not only visualising and planning for the end of a mine’s life but, critically, also resolving the complexities around the ownership (or mandate) of the closure or transition from the very beginning.
Operating (left) and abandoned (right) mines in Australia. (Source: Vivoda et al., 2019)
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
