Anderson, SH & Maybee, B 2026, 'The challenges of identifying, quantifying and managing transferable residual risks', 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. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_137
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2615_137_Anderson/)
Abstract: Residual risks are the ongoing risks that remain after closure and relinquishment of the mining licence, particularly those risks related to the continuing achievement of closure objectives, which can arise due to a variety of factors (e.g. environmental, social, cultural, safety, etc.). Residual risks often exist even when preventative and mitigative measures have been implemented and are performing effectively. The term ‘residual risk’ itself can also be interpreted and applied differently by people from different disciplines and backgrounds, resulting in confusion and misalignment between stakeholder groups. As a result, managing these risks, in perpetuity, continues to be a significant challenge impeding title transfer to alternative postmining land uses. Furthermore, under current mining practices in Australia, legislative and regulatory pathways to achieving asset relinquishment remain unclear, resulting in significant delays and adding to the uncertainty faced by those wishing to transition to subsequent uses. This paper outlines the findings of a Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies (CRC TiME) -sponsored desktop review of global best practices in identifying, quantifying and managing post-relinquishment residual risks. Theresearch project included a workshop seeking insights from experienced practitioners across Australia and North America. The project identified misaligned nomenclature and expectations, and capability gaps, amongst stakeholders to be significant challenges to effectively managing residual risks. The economic assumption of perfect information underpins the static approach to dealing with risks and uncertainties that may not be well defined. When dealing with residual risk, unclear and complex jurisdictional overlays, unrealistic or ill-defined closure criteria, and legislative rigidity restrict dynamic responses to changing socioenviro-cultural-economic considerations. Effective management of residual risks, on the other hand, has been demonstrated in cases where the post-mining land use was well defined with a clear business case, the scope of the land disturbance was small or had limited complexity, or the pathway to asset relinquishment was clearly developed and strong stakeholder relationships with impacted communities existed.