The concept of “closure readiness” is often referred to in today’s mine closure planning conversations, but there can be some confusion and ambiguity regarding the phase or aspect of closure that the user is trying to describe.
Whilst the concept has been defined by some mining companies, it is not readily defined in industry guidance or within ISO/DIS 20305:2020(en) Mine Closure and Reclamation — Terminology. Generally, closure readiness can be considered as “being prepared for the cessation of mining activities and potential transition to another use.” For an operational perspective it can also be considered as the opposite of operational readiness, i.e., when moving from construction/commissioning and handing over to operations.
In this article, the aim is not to define the concept of closure readiness but present how and when the concept and practice is being used from an industry perspective. Examples of closure readiness, from a government and social perspective, are provided by:
- Stevens, R. (2021). Current Status of Mine Closure Readiness: Are Governments Prepared?
- Worden, S., Mackenzie, S., & Bourke, P. (2022). Understanding Local Readiness for Closure – Initiating a Multi-Stakeholder Participatory Approach.
Idealistically, ‘closure readiness’ involves integrating closure into all stages of a mine’s life cycle, from planning and development to operation and eventual closure, and beyond within and external to the business.
Irrespective of the life-of-asset phase, in a broad sense the components of closure readiness can be summarised as follows:
- Closure vision and post-mining land use (PMLU) planning
- Regulatory and obligations alignment
- Financial planning
- Stakeholder engagement
- Environmental management
- Workforce and resourcing transition
- Fleet, plant and equipment management transition
- Opportunity realisation and application
- Monitoring and evaluation
Closure Studies Preamble
It is now the common approach (particularly for high-cost closures) to migrate a closure project through a series of gated studies (e.g. OoM, PFS, FS etc) prior to the cessation of operations in a similar sense to progressing a capital works study[1] process when opening or expanding a mine. Using a gated process in mine closure planning studies provides a structured, methodical approach that should enhance decision-making, risk management, stakeholder engagement, regulatory compliance, financial control, and overall project quality. Several of the approaches discussed below are directly linked to the gated process.
[1] Note a separate article on mine closure studies vs. capital works studies is currently in draft for release in a following period.
Closure Readiness Approaches
The various approaches to undertake and achieve ‘closure readiness’ may include a single or series of milestone processes, each tailored to meet specific needs and contexts. Each company’s approach to ‘closure readiness’ reflects its unique requirements within the ongoing continuum of mine closure preparedness, as presented in the following examples.
Integrated Closure Management “Closure Readiness”
This approach seeks to embed closure considerations into all stages of a mine’s lifecycle, from initial planning to post-closure monitoring. This approach can be by way of various toolboxes etc developed internally (e.g. Anglo American, 2019) or aligning to or reviewing against external frameworks e.g. ICMM Closure Maturity Framework (ICMM, 2022). The various frameworks available may or may not be aligned to gated processes. While existing frameworks provide a solid foundation, it is important to ensure they are tailored to be site-specific to ensure the achievement of comprehensive and effective closure readiness outcomes.
Pre-Study Knowledge Maturation “Closure Readiness”
Some companies have noted that even prior to entering the initial steps of the study process e.g. Order of Magnitude (OoM), Conceptual, Initiation, Identification etc, there is often a lack of applicable closure related information to effectively commence the process. As such their ‘closure readiness’ approach is focused on establishing a solid basis of information prior to entering the gateway process, but also ensuring key ongoing information can be readily progressed through what can often be quite time limited subsequent phases. This approach helps to build confidence in the outcomes of planning, ensuring that decisions that will need to be made in the gated process are based on robust and well-documented data.
Closure Study Maturation “Closure Readiness”
Some companies refer to ‘closure readiness’ as being the period directly linked to the gated study process. Which as indicated provides a structured, methodical approach to decision making in consideration of each of the closure readiness components presented in the first section.
Whilst some companies are utilising capital works procedures or going through the process of morphing these towards closure specific procedures other companies have developed their own closure specific processes including the development of closure study definition guidance to inform what should normally be considered at each study stage from a closure perspective.
Operational Transition “Closure Readiness”
Moving closer to the cessation of operations and probably the most visible phase (irrespective of the closure study phase) are the immediate years prior to the cessation of operations.
Depending on the execution model proposed (e.g. owner managed, third party etc) this approach considers the following aspects which, in many instances are actioned well prior to cessation of operations:
- Determination of execution model (e.g., owner managed, third party, etc.) and the flow on considerations e.g. owners team build up etc
- Robust conversations with operational teams around fleet, plant and equipment availability and ongoing management/maintenance regimes
- Initiating or revisiting supplier and contractor agreements
- Preliminary workforce transition
- Defining or refining operational/ closure KPI’
- Preliminary decommissioning activities for redundant assets
Closure Execution and Completion “Post Closure Readiness”
Whilst many approaches of closure readiness focus on the cessation of operations there is another approach that focuses on the post execution phase (monitoring and maintenance) and potentially at relinquishment etc (if considered to be the end point). Like the operational transition approach, this approach requires the following aspects to be considered:
- Further workforce transition
- Further Fleet, Plant and equipment downsizing and potential disposal
- Monitoring and maintenance methodology trialling and execution
- Owners team presence and ongoing management approach
- Exit strategy
Post Relinquishment “Post Closure Readiness”
At relinquishment and/or potential transition to the agreed post closure land use, there is a general expectation that the company’s presence has now largely gone, and additionally future property owner(s) and communities’ self-reliance has increased. This approach focuses on residual considerations that may still be required (depending on the owner/contractor model of the previous stage) including:
- Monitoring and maintenance methodology where long-term or in-perpetuity expectations/ requirements occur
- Company presence/ connection
Risk Based
An effective closure readiness approach should be risk-based, ensuring that key inherent closure risks are identified and managed at appropriate stages of the mine’s lifecycle. This means that the timing of addressing specific risks may vary for each project, based on its unique characteristics and context. By focusing on relevant information and maturing it through the closure process, companies can avoid unnecessary costs and remain focused on the risks that truly matter.
Closure Readiness: Planned vs Unplanned Closure
While much of the discussion around closure readiness focuses on planned closures, it is equally important to consider and prepare for unplanned closures. By incorporating unplanned closure scenarios into their closure readiness approach, companies can mitigate potential negative impacts, ensure regulatory compliance, and maintain community trust and support, even in challenging times.
Closure Ready
So, if we consider “closure readiness” as a process, being “closure ready” should be an idealistic endpoint by having all necessary information, resources, and plans in place to make informed, no-regrets decisions at any and every stage of the closure process.
Conclusion
In summary, mine closure readiness is an essential process that promotes a smooth and sustainable transition from active mining operations to post-closure land use(s). While the concept may not be uniformly defined across the industry, its importance is undeniable. The closure readiness process involves comprehensive planning, risk management, and stakeholder engagement at every stage of a mine’s lifecycle. By integrating closure considerations early on and continuously updating plans to address site-specific conditions and unforeseen events, mining companies can avoid unnecessary costs and focus on the most critical risks and opportunities.
Whether using internal frameworks or aligning with external standards like the ICMM Closure Maturity Framework, the goal remains the same: to have all necessary information, resources, and plans in place to make informed, no-regrets decisions to achieve a state of being “closure ready”. This not only aligns to regulatory compliance and improving financial control but also builds community trust and support, contributing to the long-term success and sustainability of the mining industry.
References
Anglo American. (2019). Mine Closure Toolbox (Version 3). Anglo American plc.
ICMM. (2022). Closure Maturity Framework: Tool for Closure User Guide. International Council on Mining and Metals. https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/environmental-stewardship/2020/guidance_closure-maturity-framework_update.pdf
ISO/DIS 20305(en) Mine Closure and Reclamation — Terminology
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:20305:dis:ed-1:v1:en:sec:3.3
Stevens, R. (2021). Current Status of Mine Closure Readiness: Are Governments Prepared? Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development
https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-08/status-mine-closure-readiness-en.pdf
Worden, S., Mackenzie, S., & Bourke, P. (2022). Understanding Local Readiness for Closure – Initiating a Multi-Stakeholder Participatory Approach. CRC TiME Limited., Brisbane, Australia.
https://crctime.com.au/macwp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Project-1.4_Final-Report.pdf