Authors: Neubauer, AA

Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2215_87

Cite As:
Neubauer, AA 2022, 'Closure costing/rehabilitation liability maths: why doesn’t it add up?', in AB Fourie, M Tibbett & G Boggs (eds), Mine Closure 2022: 15th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1179-1192, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2215_87

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
Estimation of closure and rehabilitation liabilities is undertaken throughout the mining lifecycle for different purposes. However, often rehabilitation and associated liability estimation does not yet form part of what is considered core business for mining operations, so the rigour of the process and comprehension of how to approach this may be limited. Reconciling rehabilitation budgets with updated liabilities after progressive rehabilitation and associated closure studies or activities often results in queries on why the overall rehabilitation liability has not dropped by approximately the same or a similar amount to the expended rehabilitation budget. Specifically, financial assurance (rehabilitation security) estimates may be required to be lodged in part or in full and may have significant impacts on cash flow, especially for more junior operators. Without a linear relationship between rehabilitation budgeting and expenditure versus decrease in financial assurance, and with operational pressures and competing priorities, environmental professionals may have difficulty advocating for and receiving adequate rehabilitation budgets. Silos may also exist between mine planning and environment/compliance. Limited incentives for senior management and short-term and longterm mine planners specifically to drive improved closure planning/costing and progressive rehabilitation may also impact the ability to secure and implement appropriate rehabilitation budgets. This may be further compounded by perceptions of net present value for rehabilitation without appropriate context on rehabilitation risks (i.e. longer-term impacts of delaying rehabilitation often result in increased rehabilitation challenges, costs, and financial pressures). Low confidence levels in cost estimation and which aspects should be considered or included, a limited closure knowledge base, lack of alignment between closure stakeholders on closure vision/objectives/completion success criteria, and inaccuracies in closure costing assumptions may all impact financial assurance and liability estimations and consequent reconciliation of rehabilitation budgets. Without visibility on reliable rehabilitation liability estimates and impacts on finance from undertaking associated activities, rehabilitation may become mainly driven by compliance rather than considering the financial advantages that progressive rehabilitation brings. This has been a driver in recent Queensland and New South Wales rehabilitation reforms to push progressive rehabilitation. Using recent case studies, the author illustrates examples of why anticipated decreases in rehabilitation liabilities are often not realised and provides suggestions for improving the likelihood of achieving more reflective rehabilitation liability accounting. When rehabilitation liabilities are more reflective, the direct relationship between rehabilitation expenditure and reduced financial assurance can be established, which increases the likelihood of mining operations recognising associated financial benefits.

Keywords: closure costing, rehabilitation liability, financial assurance, closure cost estimates, rehabilitation expenditure

References:
AACE International 2021, Professional Guidance Document No. 01 Guide to Cost Estimate Classification Systems, rev. February 22 2021, Morgantown,
ASTM International 2019, Standard Classification for Cost Estimate Classification System (ASTM E2516-11), ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
Brock, D, Slight, M & McCombe, C 2019, ‘Financial concepts for mine closure: information document’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1587–1592, 
Commonwealth of Australia 2018, Guidance Note 3B Deterministic Contingency Estimation, version 1.0.
DES 2021, Guideline – Estimated rehabilitation cost under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, Queensland.
DP&E 2017, Rehabilitation Cost Estimation Tool Handbook, New South Wales.
Government of Northwest Territories 2017, Reclaim 7.0 User Manual Mining Version Revised November 2017.
Haymont, R 2012, Closure Cost Estimating Methodologies: A Review of Mine Closure Cost Estimating Methodologies and for Different Reporting Purpose.
Hutchison, I & Dettore, R 2011, ‘Statistical and probabilistic closure cost estimating’, Proceedings of the Tailings and Mine Waste Conference 2011, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
ICMM 2019, Integrated Mine Closure: Good Practice Guide, 2nd edn, London,
environmental-stewardship/integrated-mine-closure-2019
Land and Water Boards of the Mackenzie Valley 2022, LWB/GNWT/CIRNAC Guidelines for Closure and Reclamation Cost Estimates for Mines.
NSW Resources Regulator 2021, Guideline: Rehabilitation Cost Estimate, Maitland.
Sebastien n.d. Estimating Cost of a Project: Techniques and Examples, blog post, viewed 2 June 2022,
State of New South Wales 2017, NSW Rehabilitation Cost Estimate Tool, NSW.




© Copyright 2022, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au