May, B & Ferguson, K 2026, 'Giving closure management plans a day job: developing effective closure management plans', in AB Fourie, G Boggs, J Heyes & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2026: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_122
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2615_122_May/)
Abstract: Building on lessons from BHP’s Legacy Assets, being a portfolio of 23 non-operating sites across North America, we present a closure planning approach that starts with the ‘end in mind’. This does not mean the ‘closure’ event in general but rather the company’s last transition point, the closure outcome: relinquishment, responsible divestment or long-term stewardship. This approach supports the development of integrated and impactful closure management plans (CMPs) that drive operational decisions, activities and investments instead of plans that simply align with regulatory requirements, industry good practice and/or internal company requirements and only collect dust on bookshelves. This paper will explore aspects including: 
Realistic and risk informed closure outcomes: these provide foundational anchors for all operational and closure planning and design activities.
Documentation of the closure planning process and the results: this provides the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what’. This combats constant reassessment of closure options and instead supports progression in closure planning and execution.
Concise targeted documentation: this is written for end users (from executives to site teams to support functions), not bookshelves, and is distilled into a standalone, ‘live’ activity plan. While the documents are comprehensive, summary information is included and clearly linked to closure implications. Decision records are included to avoid future duplication, and source data are clearly referenced for those requiring additional detail.
Mapping closure knowledge to closure execution activities (progressive and final): this includes prioritisation of knowledge gaps, the activities required to address those gaps, and how these activities link to the closure objectives and outcomes and translate into studies, projects, operating work plans, budgets, and life of asset plans. Additionally, activities are assigned a flexibility rating that allows movement in and out of annual budgets as required without losing sight of timebound requirements.
This approach results in CMPs that have been integrated into business-as-usual processes, driving a common suite of prioritised activities, studies and projects. Given the robust nature of their development and their focus on progressing implementation, these CMPs are less likely to be reworked and more likely to efficiently guide each site and the asset overall to achieve aligned closure outcomes. 

Keywords: closure, closure management plans, implementation, BHP, Legacy Assets, closure planning, knowledge base, life of asset, post-mining land use, PMLU