When 20 hectares costs a million dollars: why spatial integrity matters in mine rehabilitation reporting

Authors: Cornish, L; Malone, C

Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_42

Cite As:
Cornish, L & Malone, C 2026, 'When 20 hectares costs a million dollars: why spatial integrity matters in mine rehabilitation reporting', 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. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_42

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
Mine rehabilitation reporting underpins regulatory compliance, financial provisioning and long-term closure liability management. Across many jurisdictions, rehabilitation performance and financial assurance calculations rely heavily on spatial datasets used to quantify disturbed and rehabilitated areas. However, the integrity of the spatial data supporting these calculations is not always explicitly assessed, despite its influence on reported rehabilitation progress and closure cost estimates. Small inconsistencies in spatial data management, including projection errors, topology issues, inconsistent digitising practices and misaligned datasets, can introduce discrepancies in calculated rehabilitation areas. In large mining operations, even relatively minor spatial inaccuracies may have material financial implications. This paper examines the role of spatial data integrity in mine rehabilitation reporting through a case study of an operational mine in Queensland, Australia. It illustrates how common geographic information system (GIS) data management issues can propagate through reporting workflows and influence rehabilitation area calculations and associated liability cost estimates. This paper identifies typical sources of spatial error, explores how these issues arise within standard reporting processes, and considers the potential financial and compliance implications associated with inaccurate spatial reporting. A practical framework for improving spatial integrity in rehabilitation reporting is also presented. This includes recommended GIS governance practices, quality assurance procedures and data management standards that can be implemented within existing mine reporting systems. Strengthening the spatial foundations of rehabilitation reporting has the potential to improve the reliability of closure metrics, reduce financial uncertainty and support greater confidence in regulatory reporting.

References:
Australian Accounting Standards Board 2026, AASB 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, Melbourne.
Bloemhof, R & Bothma, J 2025, ‘Navigating uncertainty: towards resilient cost estimation in mine closure;, in S Knutsson, AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2025: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, 
Commonwealth of Australia 2001, Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation 2023, Progressive Rehabilitation and Closure Plans (PRC Plans), Version 3.01, Brisbane.
Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation 2024, Estimated Rehabilitation Cost Under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, Version 6.01 , Brisbane.
Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation 2026, Spatial Information Submission Guideline, Version 6.03, Brisbane.
Fitzgerald, D 2022, ‘Ranger uranium mine rehabilitation costs could blow out to $2.2 billion, Energy Resources tells ASX’, ABC News, viewed 20 June 2026,
Hunter, GJ 2000, ‘Managing uncertainty in GIS’, in PJ Longley, MF Goodchild, DJ Maguire & DW Rhind (eds), Geographic Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 633–641.
Khatri, V & Brown, CV 2010, ‘Designing data governance’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 148–152,
Kumari, P & Cooper, M 2019, ‘Spatial data-based closure costing integrated with life-of-mine planning: a key enabler facilitating value realisation’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1593–1606,
Laurence, D 2006, ‘Optimisation of the mine closure process’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, nos. 3–4, pp. 285–298,
Li, R, Ban, H, Wechsler, S & Xu, B 2018, ‘Spatial data uncertainty’, in B Huang (ed.), Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 313–340,
Moody’s Ratings 2024, Metals & Mining – Global: Reclamation Obligations at $78 Billion and Rising, Posing Credit Risk for Miners, Sector in-Depth Report, viewed 20 June 2026,
Otto, B 2011, ‘Organizing data governance: findings from the telecommunications industry and consequences for large service providers’, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 29, article 3, pp. 45–66,
Poole, AA 2023, ‘Good GIS functionality and practices in mine closure planning’, in B Abbasi, J Parshley, A Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2023: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, 




© 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