Lourel, I, Todd, DJ & Liu, AY 2022, 'A step-by-step guide for evaluating the preferred closure scenarios using a hybrid options assessment model', in AB Fourie, M Tibbett & G Boggs (eds), Mine Closure 2022: 15th International Conference on Mine Closure
, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 503-512, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2215_35
The achievement of optimal closure outcomes hinges on a robust planning and execution process. Closure planning should be an integral part of an asset’s lifecycle, with a formal, detailed planning process being initiated towards the end of operational cessation. Useful guidelines, case studies, and project delivery models exist to assist the closure planning process. While these provide a structured framework for addressing key elements of closure, they do not transcribe all circumstances, complexities, and decisions faced by an asset owner and impacted parties.
The ability to optimise closure execution diminishes once the preferred closure scenario is committed to by the appropriate decision-makers, with a subsequent escalation of change implementation cost over time. From a myriad of interdependent and sometimes conflicting requirements, variables and uncertainties, an asset owner must find a way to achieve a balanced scorecard while meeting its obligations and stakeholder expectations. To this aim, this paper presents a potential process map for determining the preferred closure scenarios, including instructional steps, a hybrid options assessment model, and examples for each component.
Prior assumptions should be verified through data gathering to fill knowledge gaps, establish context and baseline knowledge, and define the relevant closure domains and work elements. With the necessary input of subject matter experts, technical practitioners and project stakeholders, a set of integrated trade-off studies can be carried out using multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to assess the merit and impact of key decisions under each closure scenario. Compatible options between trade-off studies can be linked up to form branches of a decision tree for each closure scenario, where preferences on possible decisions are revealed by the quantitative MCA scoring as well as qualitative ranking of the trade-off studies. Given the subjective nature of these assessments, different perspectives should be adequately considered/challenged, and the results tested through sensitivity analysis. The options selection process should be transparent, rigorous, defensible and well documented to form a robust basis for decisions that will have an enduring legacy.
Keywords: closure study methodology, closure scenarios, closure options, trade-off study, options assessment
Department for Communities and Local Government 2009, Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual, London, viewed 1 Jun 2022,
Department of Mines and Petroleum & Environmental Protection Authority 2015, Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans, Perth.
Grant, CD & Botha, PR 2019, Mine Closure Toolbox Version 3, Anglo American plc, London.
Heyes, J & Cooper, T 2019, ‘Strengthening BHP’s closure framework: a strategy to realise enduring value’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1005-1012,
Infrastructure Australia 2021, Guide to Multi-Criteria Analysis - Technical Guide of the Assessment Framework, viewed 1 June 2022,
International Council on Mining and Metals 2019, Integrated Mine Closure: Good Practice Guide, 2nd edn, International Council on Mining and Metals, London,
International Organization for Standardization 2021a, Mine Closure and Reclamation Planning - Part 1: Requirements (ISO 21795-1), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization 2021b, Mine Closure and Reclamation Planning - Part 2: Guidance (ISO 21795-2), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Knott, P 2018, Closure Study Definition Guidance Note, RTPR-PMT-GND-0015, revision 0, Rio Tinto Group, London.
Magee, JF 1964, Decision Trees for Decision Making, Harvard Business Review, viewed 1 Jun 2022,