O'Kane, M 2025, 'A quarter century as a mine closure practitioner: landform design lessons to inform the future', in S Knutsson, AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2025: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2515_0.04
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2515_0.04_O'Kane/)
Abstract: Landform design should be recognised as an inter-disciplinary process that ideally commences prior to the onset of mining. At the project development stage – including during preliminary economic assessments – strategic planning should explicitly incorporate the design of landforms. Infrastructure such as tailings storage facilities (TSFs), mine rock stockpiles (MRSs), open pits, and heap leach facilities must be conceptualised as landforms from the outset, well before ground disturbance occurs.
This approach reflects the principle of ‘designing for closure’, introduced by John Gadsby in the 1970s and elaborated in his seminal 1990 publication. This design philosophy should extend seamlessly through construction, operation, closure, and post-closure, providing a framework for land stewardship, and a journey of continuous improvement, as the mining lease transitions between successive land uses throughout the asset’s life cycle. Despite the maturity (or at least longevity) of this concept, it remains insufficiently embedded in the operational culture of the mining industry, leading to an analogous question: is mine closure planning institutionalised in the mining industry to the same degree as safety or TSF management?
Awareness and adoption of integrated mine closure practices have advanced over the past four decades, yet a persistent disconnect remains. In most cases, integration between mine planning and closure planning occurs late in the life of mine – if not post closure – resulting in operational inefficiencies, regret costs, and underfunded closure liabilities. This occurs despite longstanding regulatory frameworks mandating closure and reclamation planning, including progressive closure and reclamation.
In this paper, key developments in landform design and mine closure are synthesised from representing nearly a quarter century of actionable, experience-based insights, to strengthen the implementation of an integrated closure design philosophy. Central to these insights is the development of a co-created (i.e. including all stakeholders and rightsholders) closure vision for each site – whether a new project, active operation, or legacy asset – which serves as a consistent strategic thread throughout the asset’s life cycle. Further, the governance structures currently applied to safety and TSFs, such as systems, processes, and lines of accountability, must be extended into the concept of ‘designing for closure’ across the landscape. This would include all domains and landforms within these domains, such that governance for mine closure replicates that which exists for safety management and ‘safe closure’ of TSFs. Both technical and non-technical considerations are addressed to support the operationalisation of this integrated closure approach.

Keywords: closure vision, design for closure, integrated mine closure, transition, landform design, stakeholder engagement, land stewardship, future land use, post-mining land use