Applying a risk management approach to mass underground mining

Authors: Stegman, C Download Paper Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2645_105

Cite As:
Stegman, C 2026, 'Applying a risk management approach to mass underground mining ', in A van As, D Cumming-Potvin & J Wesseloo (eds), Caving 2026: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Block and Sublevel Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2645_105



Abstract:
Recent incidents highlight the inherently high-risk nature of mass underground mining. The consequences of these risks include multiple loss of life, loss of production, reduced reserves and mine life, increased operating and capital costs, loss of reputation/social licence, and increased legislative and compliance requirements. The management of major hazard risks requires organisations to implement effective enterprise risk management (ERM) practices to systematically manage both the threats and opportunities. A key element of ERM is the identification of the organisation’s risk capacity and risk appetite. In simple terms, an organisation should not take on risks that it does not have the capacity to withstand nor risks that exceed its risk appetite. When a risk exceeds a company’s risk appetite, the company should consciously assess whether it can eliminate or mitigate the risk to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) and then decide if the residual risk can be accepted based on the company’s risk appetite. The underground major hazard incidents that occurred during 2025 raise the question of the adequacy of the industry’s risk management approach, both in terms of understanding the nature of the risks involved and the effectiveness of the controls applied to the risks. The incidents also raise serious questions about the risk appetite of the industry and whether that appetite is aligned to stakeholder risk tolerances. The industry must improve its ability to manage inherent risks to a level that satisfies multiple stakeholders’ expectations. The specific challenge posed to the underground mass mining industry by recent incidents is: How can (and should) it effectively manage the risk of major hazard events? Any answer to this question will likely require substantial changes to the way risks are evaluated and underground mines are designed, constructed and operated. The global response to major tailings storage facility failures, which drove the adoption of the Global Industry Standard for Tailings Management (GISTM) (Global Tailings Management Institute 2020) across the mining industry, serves as a pertinent case study for underground mining. It demonstrates how coordinated pressure from stakeholders can drive a major shift in industry risk management practices, resulting in lower risk tolerance, more stringent controls and a requirement for more transparent corporate risk governance. The ultimate question for the mining industry is: How can the industry establish, maintain and, in instances, regain the trust of the many industry stakeholder interest groups such that mass underground mining can be undertaken with acceptable levels of risk for all participants?

Keywords: risk management, risk appetite, to as low as reasonably practicable, Global Industry Standard for Tailings Management, seismicity, rockburst, pillar failure, inrush

References: