June 17, 2025
I’ve been having a lot of conversations about mine closure lately – with people working in closure, in the mining industry but not working in closure, and working outside the mining industry. Inevitably, the idea of knowing where you’re going is identified as foundational. A project needs to have a plan for what the mining-impacted lands will be used for after the end of operations or it can’t really plan, design, or operate for closure. I’ll call that plan a post-mining land use (PMLU) description.
People working in closure will often add qualifiers to a post-mining land use description. I’m partial to ‘well-defined’ and ‘realistic’ and I often hear ‘co-created with communities’, among others. There’s a sense that the PMLU description needs certain attributes to be useful for closure planning and execution. But maybe we don’t yet have multi-faceted and widely agreed on criteria for what makes for a ‘good’ description of a post-mining land use.
Being able to demonstrate to communities, Indigenous Peoples, regulators, and internal stakeholders within mining companies that a project has a sufficiently defined PMLU will increase confidence in the closure planning and execution process. The more concrete the goal is, the more people will be able to and want to support it. A PMLU description that reflects the full range of constraints on a project facilitates the multi-disciplinary work that’s needed for effective mine closure.
Here’s my initial thoughts on what makes a sufficiently defined PMLU.
- It’s supported by stakeholders. At a minimum, they were involved in its selection and at best, it was co-created with them.
- It has an identified next steward of the land who is willing to take responsibility. In many cases this will be a level of government, but it might also be a public institution or a private business. The land needs to have a utility that the steward wants and risks they can manage. The steward also needs to be equipped to take on the responsibility. That capacity doesn’t need to exist now; it can be developed through operations and closure stages.
- It’s physically possible. It obeys the laws of physics and is not reliant on technology not yet invented. It will result in a physically and chemically stable environment, or, depending on the land use, one that behaves similarly to the surrounding environment.
- It meets regulatory requirements. Projects that may be limited to certain land uses by regulation could consider pushing for regulatory change to allow a land use that stakeholders want.
- It’s reflective of the surrounding environment and ecology. Closure doesn’t need to mean going back to the way it was, but the land use needs to suit the climate. Grain farming in the arctic isn’t doable.
- It’s reflective of socio-economic conditions. Mine closure can make way for more industrial development or other economic activity if that’s wanted. Capacity building for the community to engage with the next land use can be part of operational activities.
- It’s affordable*. The project is still financially viable when closure costs are accounted for. Ideally, closure is fully funded from operational revenues of the site, not reliant on funding from a company’s other projects. Depending on the land use, the next steward could provide some financing for closure activities.
- It’s sufficiently detailed to be a basis for planning, engineering, and operational activities. The level of detail should increase as the project advances and it should match the design stage of the project (i.e., if the project has a feasibility study, the closure design should also be at a feasibility level). As an example, ‘forest’ may not be sufficiently detailed, but specifying the type of forest (temperate rain forest) and intended use (wildlife habitat or mountain bike park) adds enough detail.
- It can have options, but they can’t be wildly contradictory. Especially at earlier stages of a project, it makes sense to carry a few options since conditions and priorities change. It’s likely okay to plan for a range of light industrial uses (solar farm or a cement plant) but it’s probably not realistic to plan for a botanical garden and a cement plant.
These criteria are a partially formed idea and also come from my perspective as a geotechnical engineer. What other criteria are needed to define an adequate post-mining land use? How would you modify the criteria above?
*This is an element where I have limited understanding. Using net present value (NPV) can make closure and in-perpetuity water treatment cost apparently nothing on a thirty- or forty-year mine life. How can we demonstrate that financially this is a bad idea? Perhaps people with financial expertise can help refine this criterion?