A new mine closure planning tool helps to balance the negative impacts and risks with the positive opportunities and legacies amongst the complex range of alternative configurations available to planners.
Effective mine closure is defined as creating sustainable outcomes by minimising environmental, social and economic impacts on host communities and maximising positive legacies that contribute positively to future generations.
The method used to balance these objectives builds on the techniques of Multi-Criteria Analysis, Risk Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis into a single integrated approach to the mine closure planning processes.
The key to the process is the identification and prioritisation of decision criteria to provide a balanced scorecard of statutory requirements, corporate policies, potential risks, and desired objectives.
Each alternative configuration is assessed against these criteria using a process that is transparent and excludes bias.
Relative merit is provided mathematically in the background based on weighting, relative rank and cost.
The cost benefit analysis is the final parameter that distinguishes the best configuration option from the rest and provides the stakeholders with clear and justifiable reasoning for the mine closure plan.
In addition to traditional sustainable development criteria identified during higher level environmental, social and economic assessments, the process facilitates the development of criteria reflecting safety, technical achievability, compliance and commercial viability.
A specific advantage of the process is the ability to evaluate negative impacts and risks, as well as positive opportunities and legacies.
The readily communicated, transparent and robust decision process also assists with the engagement of stakeholders. Consideration of innovation within the selection criteria also provides opportunity for best practice concepts and cost optimisation.
Once the preferred closure configuration is identified, the tool facilitates the extension of the decision- making process to identify risk and opportunity management strategies that ensure the selected configuration reaches its full potential.
Early versions of the tool relied heavily on traditional risk assessment methodologies, however these were found cumbersome when attempting to compare alternative configurations.
To overcome these difficulties, risk professionals working within SKM in different industries were consulted to investigate alternative and lateral approaches.
In particular, projects being undertaken to analyse options for Australian Defence Force infrastructure and waste water treatment process design were found to be using methods based on the Kepner Trego Multi-Criteria Analysis.
Following a series of workshops looking at past projects, this methodology was further developed to meet the requirements of the closure planning process.
A specific difficulty experienced during development of the tool was the potential to introduce bias toward particular assessment criteria. This was particularly the case in the early stages and trials when strong influence on the development of assessment criteria by any one stakeholder ‘interest’ group was experienced. For example, an extended list of individual environmental requirements skewed the results in favour of environmental compliance to the exclusion of other criteria elements.
This led to the realisation of the need for a simple, balanced list of broader, but appropriately weighted criteria.
Recent projects utilising this evaluation tool have proven less bias, however consideration is still being given to a more robust process of assessment criteria identification and assignment.
Use of the evaluation tool has been found to facilitate the controlled engagement of both internal and external stakeholders into the closure planning process.
Stakeholders provide input into the identification of assessment criteria, development of alternative configurations, and the evaluation of configurations.
While companies may feel nervous about the involvement of stakeholders beyond general engagement and communication processes, it has been found that only with their involvement can win-win scenarios be identified and truly sustainable outcomes identified.
Generally, where closure is more than five years away, pre-feasibility level design and management plans for closure implementation are likely to be necessary.
Within five years of closure, leading company standards (e.g. BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto) are requiring feasibility level studies to be completed.
For such activities, traditional risk assessment methodologies and design management tools are more suited to achievement of the preferred outcomes.
The robustness of the tool allows for customisation of criteria weighting and incorporation of additional criteria to meet alternative closure scenarios or specific corporate and/or statutory requirements for a particular operation or company.
A specific advantage of this process is the ability to evaluate negative impacts and risks, as well as positive opportunities and legacies.
The readily communicated, transparent and robust decision process also assists with the engagement of stakeholders. Consideration of innovation within the selection criteria also provides opportunity for best practice concepts and cost optimisation.
Overall, this evaluation tool enables the balancing of a complex range of alternative configurations and techniques into a single, integrated approach which can be applied to the mine closure planning process for optimum results.
© Sinclair Knight Merz
Requests to re-publish achieve articles should be made via information@globalskm.com
For copyright and disclaimer notices, see Terms of Use.
Who does this affect?
All those involved in determining the risks and positive opportunities of various mine closure options
What do I need to do?
Be informed about the key processes involved in identifying and prioritising decision criteria to provide a balanced scorecard of statutory requirements, corporate policies, potential risks and desired objectives of mine closure.
Authors: Robert Logan, Darren Murphy & Christopher Beale
Robert Logan is SKM’s Regional Project Risk Manager, based in Perth, Australia, with specific experience in the mining, manufacturing and construction industries. With a background in construction, Bob is able to bring a hands on, practical element to the risk management process and applications.
Darren Murphy is SKM’s Manager of Environmental Mining Services, also based in Perth. Darren has over 15 years experience in environmental research and management within the mining and transport industries with particular expertise in operational management including the development of environmental management systems and programs.
Christopher Beale is SKM’s Global Manager, Project Risk, based in our Brisbane, Australia office. Christopher has particular skills in heavy industry and mining sector assessments for economic, scheduling, environmental, social, reputation and safety risk.
© Sinclair Knight Merz
Requests to re-publish achieve articles should be made here