Authors: Allen, A; Samuels, J

Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_24

Cite As:
Allen, A & Samuels, J 2026, 'Strategic monitoring of closure objectives associated with tailings storage facilities as defined through stakeholder engagement', 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. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_24

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
Mine closure represents one of the most complex challenges posed to the mining industry. Technical, social, regulatory and financial considerations intersect at this confluence of closure. Despite increasing emphasis on sustainable land custodianship, there remains a lack of a structured, stakeholder-aligned monitoring framework aligned with the appropriate selection of monitoring technologies for facility consequence classification to demonstrate compliance to closure objectives. The closure of tailings storage facilities demands transparent, stage‑gated evidence to support regulators in granting closure certificates and the relinquishment of funds provided for closure activities. This article proposes a consequence‑based monitoring framework to link stakeholder‑defined closure objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) to proportional monitoring technologies across the closure life cycle. A mixed‑methods design was used and incorporates a structured literature survey and a multistakeholder survey informed by respondents associated with the mine closure industry. The study identifies critical closure objectives, current KPI practices and barriers to technology adoption in closure practices. Three decision tools are proposed to aid in operationalising the framework (a 2‑variable risk matrix, a technology life cycle S‑curve, and a technology balance sheet). Findings show mature, frugal methods dominate practice, while InSAR, Internet of Things and artificial intelligence analytics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to remain constrained by capex, data and skill set development. The framework calibrates monitoring intensity to consequence classification and ties evidence into life cycle stage gates to provide a defensible chain from objective to decision. This study contributes a practice-informed and adaptable framework to strengthen regulatory confidence and align closure practices with facility consequence classification, ultimately towards providing mining houses with a clearer pathway to closure certification and the relinquishment of their financial provision for closure.

Keywords: tailings storage facilities, mine closure, key performance indicators, risk management, Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, Fourth Industrial Revolution, frugal innovation, consequence-based monitoring

References:
Australian National Committee on Large Dams 2019, Guidelines on Tailings Dams: Planning, Design, Construction, Operation and Closure, Sydney, viewed 24 June 2026,
Bolton, C, Macfarlane, G & Maritz, A 2021, ‘Considering climate change in tailings dam design’, International Mining Supplement: Paste & Tailings 2021, viewed 24 June 2026,
Cacciuttolo, C, Guzmán, V, Catriñir, P & Atencio, E 2024, ‘Sensor technologies for safety monitoring in mine tailings storage facilities: Solutions in the Industry 4.0 era’, Minerals, vol. 14, no. 5, article 446,
Canadian Dam Association 2019, Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining Dams, Markham.
Hossain, M, Park, S & Shahid, S 2023, ‘Frugal innovation for sustainable rural development’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 193, article 122662,
International Council on Mining and Metals 2020a, Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, London.
International Council on Mining and Metals 2020b, Key Performance Indicators Tool for Closure, London,
International Council on Mining and Metals 2025, Integrated Mine Closure Good Practice Guide, 3rd edn, London,
International Commission on Large Dams 2013, Sustainable Design and Post-Closure Performance of Tailings Dams, Bulletin 153, Paris.
Jenkins, H & Yakovleva, N 2006, ‘Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, nos. 3–4, pp. 271–284,
Lacasse, S, Liu, ZQ & Piciullo, L 2023, ‘An integrated risk assessment and management framework for mine tailings storage facilities’, Proceedings of Next Generation Tailings – Opportunity or Risk, Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp. 211–224,
Le Borgne, V, Siamaki, A & Dulmage, A 2022, Review of Modern Recommendations for Monitoring of Tailings Storage Facilities, GKM Consultants, Sainte-Julie, viewed 24 June 2026,
eview-of-modern-recommendations-for-monitoring-of-tailings-storage-facilities-by-dr-vincent-le-borgne_01.pdf
Lumbroso, D, Davison, M, Body, R & Petkovšek, G 2021, ‘Modelling the Brumadinho tailings dam failure, the subsequent loss of life and how it could have been reduced’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 21–37,
Mining Association of Canada 2021, Developing an Operation, Maintenance, and Surveillance Manual for Tailings and Water Management Facilities, version 2.1, Ottawa, viewed 24 June 2026,
Pansera, M 2023, ‘The apolitical framing of frugal innovation in the global south: Beyond the tales of scarcity, heroic inventors and techno-fixes’, Handbook on Frugal Innovation, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 54–68,
Parshley, JV & MacCallum, CS 2016, ‘Attractive nuisances and wicked solutions’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2016: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
pp. 229–240, 
Qin, W 2024, ‘How to unleash frugal innovation through internet of things and artificial intelligence: Moderating role of entrepreneurial knowledge and future challenges’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 202, article 123286,
Robertson, PK, de Melo, L, Williams, DJ & Wilson, GW 2019, Report of the Expert Panel on the Technical Causes of the Failure of Feijão Dam I, Expert Panel Investigation,
Rogers, EM 2003, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn, Free Press, New York.
Shaw, J, Pedlar-Hobbs, R & Chubb, D 2022, ‘The role of key performance indicators throughout the mine life in achieving closure objectives’, in AB Fourie, M Tibbett & G Boggs (eds), Mine Closure 2022: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 803–812, 
Torres-Cruz, LA & O'Donovan, C 2023, ‘Public remotely sensed data raise concerns about history of failed Jagersfontein dam’, Scientific Reports, vol. 13, article 5228,
Watson, I & Olalde, M 2019, ‘The state of mine closure in South Africa – what the numbers say’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 119, no. 7, pp. 673–679,
Wiid, GJ 2006, ‘The role of closure planning in the environmental and financial reporting processes for mining operations’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2006: Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 513–524, 
Yudhistyra, WI & Srinuan, C 2024, ‘Exploring the acceptance of technological innovation among employees in the mining industry: a study on generative artificial intelligence’, IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 165797–165809,
Zabolotnii, E, Morgenstern, NR & Wilson, GW 2022, ‘Mechanism of failure of the Mount Polley tailings storage facility’, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 1503–1518,




© Copyright 2026, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
View copyright/legal information
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au