Scrase, A 2026, '‘Walkaway’ mine closure is rare: acknowledging the need for ongoing stewardship', 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. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_74
(https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/2615_74_Scrase/)
Abstract: Post-licence relinquishment, in some jurisdictions (such as Victoria) referred to as ‘post-closure’ and describes to the period after a mine has been rehabilitated and the closure criteria have been achieved. This period begins once an application for relinquishment has been made by the licence holder and signed off by government. The rehabilitated mine sites are no longer regulated under operational/rehabilitating mining legislation because the land is no longer considered an active or operational mine site. Once relinquished, responsibility for the land and associated residual risks may transfer to various parties depending on the jurisdiction and land ownership. Over the long timeframes associated with post-relinquishment periods, extreme environmental events exceeding design criteria are likely to occur, including major rainfall events or earthquakes. Such events can compromise landform performance, potentially leading to elevated risks if systems are not adequately monitored or maintained. Final landform designs developed during mine closure typically involve substantial civil engineering to enable sustainable land re-use and to minimise risks to people and the environment. These engineered structures, such as covers and drainage systems, have finite design lives and generally require ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and periodic repair and replacement to continue functioning as intended. Few, if any, engineered features can be expected to perform ‘in perpetuity’ without some ongoing intervention. Evidence from Australian Standards demonstrates that even welldesigned infrastructure assumes inspection, maintenance and renewal cycles. This reality raises several key questions for government, industry, and communities. These include: how to distinguish ongoing land use management from mining-related residual risk and liability management; who should bear responsibility for such long-term risks; and how financial provisions should be calculated to reflect the level of confidence in data, design, construction quality, and regulatory oversight? The answers to some of these questions are likely to impact on a government’s willingness to accept licence relinquishment. High-quality evidence provided by mining companies may justify reduced financial remittance, but poor-quality information increases uncertainty and cost.

Keywords: post-license relinquishment, closure planning, closure policy, residual risk and liability, post-license relinquishment provisioning, sustainability, future uses, legacy management