SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
RESPONSIBLE MINE CLOSURE
M. Javier, EnviroMine, Denver CO, USA
ABSTRACT
The impact of mine closure is perceived through a veil of
compliance to human laws and regulations rather than the laws and
equilibrium of nature. This perception motivates present research.
Understanding the causes and effects of mine closure defines levels of
responsibility. This understanding evolves from mine closure's legacy.
Mine closure is characterized in perpetuity by three aspects:
Future liabilities; level of technologies for extraction and, usage of
mineral resources. These aspects must be updated to a rationally
appropriate level.
This paper will address the following questions: Will the minerals
remaining in the process of mine closure ever be recovered? Will the
mine closure inhibit the availability of minerals for the next generation?
How many mines are designed to perform a successful mine closure?
Do we close the mines or do we close nature? Is it responsible to
continue mine closures as we do them today? Is mine closure a
complement of mine operations or a contradiction of mining? Do we
need to perform mine closures, yet?
This paper reviews mine closure practices and principles with the
level of responsibility to nature and for the next generation.
KEYWORDS: Waste Mine Design, Geomimic, Equilibrium of Nature
PREFACE
The planet has irreversible issues to deal with regarding the
depletion of mineral resources and contamination occurring from
human activities. The population increased exponentially to more than
seven billion, this high population with its lifestyles, demands a higher
supply of minerals. In spite of these conditions, mining is a vital
industry to keep "civilization" in society. This is evidenced by what we
see around us, in that everything "made" in society is directly or
indirectly due to mining. Hence, mining cannot be avoided or ignored.
Society misunderstands the importance of mining in relation to other
activities.
At this time, mining is fragmented and economically oriented to
supply cheap minerals to a market with peculiar characteristics
regarding products that could be designed for recycling and stimulate
nature’s equilibrium. These issues add important “variable factors” to
the equation, when they are considered as parameters for the next
generation. It also raises many questions regarding principles and
attitudes about morals and ethics exercised in all anthropogenic
activities. The industry's practices have many flourishing paradigms
which are subject to a variety of criticisms and observations. Some of
these observations will be described in this paper. It is important to
clarify in advance a "normal disclaimer" about the "apparent
contradiction" that could take place in the writer's comprehension when
we abruptly "jump to conclusions". We must remember that we are
profiling the future in an arena that demands a better understanding of
solutions to problems created by actual mining.
The effects of mining show us a wide variety of liabilities with a
variety of different and orders of intensity and frequency. Experiences
are documented in every mining country with historical records, which
accept mining as the “best practices” on this planet. In the mining
industry there exist pending issues regarding restoring the equilibrium
of nature before, during, and after mining activities. The whole mining
1 Copyright © 2015 by SME
Preprint 15-102
prescription for today is that mining cannot continue on the same path.
Here, we present a formula that would allow developing other
alternatives to pursue mining at the present time. Otherwise, we would
be pushing the same thinking and trying very hard to obtain different
results out of desperation, attempts at correction or to patch an existing
system, rather than beginning with a prevention mentality.
Experiences gave us the understanding of mine closure as a
consequence of opening a mine; this also generates a different level of
enthusiasm than when we open one. If we understand that we live on a
finite planet, then, we can establish a roadmap to what kind of mine
closure we need to perform. WHAT IS THE LEVEL of
RESPONSIBILITY given in a mine closure? And who benefits from
mine closure? Is it a dilemma or intrigue to open or close a mine? Who
are the real beneficiaries of this decision? How do we measure greed
or how to manage greed in a business of infinite profits? This paper
reviews not only the process of mine closure but its practices and
principles, trusting it as food for thought to the industry.
INTRODUCTION
It is important to define the term ‘mine closure’ which embraces a
series of diverse, processes and protocols that will give us a real
understanding of mine closure. Not long ago, mine closure took place
when mines ran out of ore, production stopped, people in the region
became unemployed and mines were simply boarded up and
abandoned without any post management of the area. That was mine
closure. Even today, this widespread practice is still followed, except
that many new regulations started to generate different outcomes.
Mine planning must foresee mine closure and the application of
Geomimic would guarantee clean mining. “Mine Closure is the
permanent cessation of operations after completion of the
decommissioning process and tenement relinquishment. A century
ago, when mines ran out of ore, production stopped and the mines
were simply boarded up and abandoned” (World Bank Group, 2002).
Mine closure means much more than simply ceasing production and
decommissioning the mine and equipment; at this time, mine closure
also requires returning the land to a useful purpose.
The impact of mine closure is perceived in terms of the effects
engendered by compromises on complying of laws and regulations,
rather than a commitment to the laws of nature. The time of duration
and perpetuity of mine closure presents a debate for upholding feasible
future liabilities that encompass technology and usage wisely over
mineral resources extraction. Simply put, we have mine closure and
nature in conflict. These are the main issues in reinterpreting the
meaning of mine closure. From this reinterpretation will evolve our
mine closure’s legacy. In the traditional of “modern” mining, we used to
abandon mines after so many years of extraction, before then we did
not have mine closure. Recently, in order to deal with many socio-
environmental impacts, society established procedures and protocols
in a regulatory frameworks in order to walk away from a mine after
production is exhausted thus, being able to achieve remediation of the
area. Otherwise, what are the “best practices” to manage our legacy?
Due to incomplete extraction of materials there now appears re-mining.
It is acceptable when it is not part of the initial mine design. However, it
now raises the following questions: Who is responsible for assessing
liabilities? Or what kind of valuation was in place? The original purpose
of mining did not consider real effects from the continuation of project.
If this the cases then why do we pretend to expect different results?
Specifically, on the subject of mine closure we have developed variety

of models for regulatory frameworks from the simplest to the strictest
ones, mainly addressing social demands (representing a diversity of
human views other than economic and financial). Many have been
purposely misinterpreted with “entrepreneurial incentives” or great
promotions, in order to mine without regulations around the world. The
industry chases business- as-usual framed in the short term’s
objectives rather than taking the long term view, which “secretly”
consents to the postponement of essential research and confronting
mining with new environmental and social values as the challenges of
the new millennium, which will ensure the future of mining.
Actually, mine closure is mainly subject to legal needs under
regulatory frameworks rather than the equilibrium of nature. This
demands to be called the “economic and legal closing of mines”. This
also poses the question, who is the true owner of liabilities? It is clear
regarding mine closure that remediation, mitigation and restoration are
not part of the initial mining protocol or that the mine area would
conserve conditions similar to pre-mining. Or, how long will mine
closure last without being a threat to nature? Can we close a mine for
only economic reasons? Does closing a mine become a difficult task
due to lack of technology for the treatment of minerals? To encourage
“thoughtful” research in mining, we must have a dedicated investment
on new integral technology of extraction in order to expect results
pleasing to nature by doing mining.
Mine closure is not subject to political suggestions or economical
suggestions or regulatory frameworks of excellence, rather it is a
simple product of a changed mentality in mine design. It is clear, that
many mining corporations wish not having social and environmental
liabilities but the message is narrow or selective and slow to evolve in
transforming the industry. Mine closure is a purely technological issue
confronting the laws of nature and equilibrium. Therefore mine closure
with pending liabilities demonstrates the level of incompetence of the
application of extraction technology in the actual mine operation. The
provision of mine closure is in the long term stabilization of the
conditions of the materials removed or ongoing environmental
degradation in order to protect nature. Mineral resources cannot be
exposed to degradation or misuse of any kind because the next
generation will also need to keep society civilized. The fundamental
expectations of mine closure will be to transform end results in mining
areas. At the bottom line, those fundamental conditions are non-
negotiable; the idea of business leaving the mining area after
production is unacceptable because of all the pending “surprises” to
nature. This statement clarifies the myth that mining corporations
typically serve their shareholder by developing mines, finding the
highest financial return, unlimited profits and leave the mine when
production is finished. The interests and objectives of mining
corporations must be dedicated to nature.
Environmental protection cannot be submitted to regulatory
frameworks, disturbances of the equilibrium in nature can be restored
by appropriate design. Society must understand that without mining,
human civilization will not be possible. Mining industry only needs to
understand that for it to exist in the future, it must commit to serious
research to restore physical, chemical, and biological equilibrium in
every stage of mining. Otherwise, the mining legacy will be enormous
and enough objections will be raised to reject mining operations
around the world. Given that the minerals are finite, unsustainable,
exhaustible, non-renewable, paying once and recycling eternally, why
do we still perform mine closure? In spite of knowing that this practice
inhibits the availability of mineral resources to the next generation?
Why is this process allowed to continue? How many mines are
designed to perform a successful mine closure? Now, that the planet
reveals the limited nature of its minerals it makes performing mine
closure, debatable. Mine closure compromises nature and unborn
generations.
This paper discusses challenges that mining is confronted with in
this new millennium as regards to mine closure; second, we establish
the rationale for mine closure in spite of having materials recoverable
resources. Or how much of the minerals is left in the ground per mine
project or can we not allow mine closure? So, what are we really
attempting to accomplish, knowing that cheap minerals are non-
existent contrary to what the market would have us believe. In the end,
2 Copyright © 2015 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
we need to reflect on what we are really doing to advance mine closure
and how this will affect mining’s legacy as well as the effects on nature
and future generations. It opens a serious discussion about mine
closure, suggesting that we are confronting socio-environmental
liabilities from the past, and that we need to have “solutions by design”
with better results in the present and the future. Also, it is critical that
mining engineering curriculum be overhauled to properly represent
mining in 2015- mining without liabilities by design. The relevance of
this matter is overwhelming and needs to be addressed for the future
of mining.
This paper reviews not only the process of mine closure but its
practice and what it will mean for future generations of miners. This
paper hopes to answer the question of why we still do mine closure in
compliance to laws of industry rather than laws of nature. And lastly
how will complying with the laws of nature affect the future of mine
closure. This paper presents the framework for new thinking in mining
principles and maintaining equilibrium in nature thus delineating the
next step forward in mining without socio-environmental liabilities.
BACKGROUND
Minerals are converted by extraction into complex waste materials
called dilution. In spite of being minerals they are now waste product.
Those “new” materials end in piles of rock waste, tailing impoundment,
for its dimension is a huge inventory of material useless to the interest
of mining companies. Those materials only represent a real monument
of imperfection that we do not have any “idea” how to fix. When we
evaluate dump, tailings, and other materials resulting from mining
extraction, we find that we have learned to “hide” or cover waste in
what we call encapsulation, hence those materials are now not
detectible. This is claimed as “new best practices” of remediation. Can
we design better mine projects? What is the level of incompetence
regarding methods of extraction of resources? Who is responsible for
the incompetence of these mining methods? When alternative
methods are rejected our justification is that benefits are not
economical. With this “wrong thinking” it is that nature is managed by
economy.
Mining companies make money with mining rather than mining
generating economical results (profit) as consequences of doing the
right thing; otherwise, profit is a result and not a simple objective in the
core of the business. In spite of this, any CEO would tell you: “we are
in business to make money”. This statement is far removed from the
idea of making new mining. It is a call to mine engineers to present a
new mining paradigm for the future of this planet. Mining corporations
“normally” want to develop mines, achieving a good return for their
shareholders, then leave when production is finished and continuing
someplace else under the same doctrine. This doctrine ONLY
maintains the “creation” of wealth by highest return, except that the
resources are finite, exhaustible, nonrenewable, unsustainable,
eternally recyclable, paying only once to CREATE wealth on a finite
planet. The characteristic of nature are different from business and are
contradictory. Nature presents orebodies in a micro dimension and
business interprets this in a macro dimension.
The dispute is with society and how to assign financial coverage
for remediation of liabilities, which normally exceed the company’s
tangible book values. The “economic uncertainty” – what is precise and
accurate model of the economical ratios calculation? The economical
apparatus has converted itself into uneconomical results by the
accumulation of liabilities. This could lead to the externalization of their
costs, which is a “surprise” to society. Many strategies are created for
bonding the system to compensate for extra costs of mine closure.
These include bonding, corporate surety and guarantees, letter of
credit, deposits of cash, gold insurance, etc. All of these strategies
attempt to insure having enough available cash flow to perform
adequate mine closure. Again, we try to deal “economically” with
nature, when that cannot be done. With all of those economic
instruments, we are trying to force fund responsibility from the
beginning of designing ethical entrepreneurships for nature.
Economics, and engineering in nature are almost unrelated to
each other. For example, there are many good engineering practices

that are not necessarily economically suitable to mineral processes.
The “idea” that technology and engineering serve economic interest is
disconnected. To illustrate this case I would cite asphalting the main
route of extraction in open pits (direct equivalent distance) and other
ideas that for economical “reasoning” make no sense in the field.
Research is a field of opportunities for exploring new methods of
engineering. The term “research” in mining is intended to capture
general attention regarding the future in present operations. The
understanding of acidic drainage by the Incas was expressed under
the Chacana law (equilibrium in nature). Before beginning a mining
operation, they constructed an inclined adit to first determine the level
of water which indicates the upper limit for mining and of the phreatic
level below which mining could not be possible. The Incas’ mining
accounted for uncertainties and they had the faith in the fate and
transportation of pollutants into the “other world” as they referred to it.
The Incas understood the protection of the watershed and earth
equilibrium (Pachamama or mother earth). Amazingly, the life of
mines is determined by economic ratios.
For how many years will a mine closure will last in an effective
way? It is fascinating how the value of money in time (NPV) is held
above the value of resource in time. An example of this “MONEY MAP”
would be where a mining business invested about $100 million to
obtain $300 million then in the operation, they made $500 million,
except, to perform the mine closure the amount expended was $600
million, then, the justification of this mine project needs to be
scrutinized from a technical and economical stand point in order to
avoid repetition of this same pattern. Also, the question needs to be
asked: what is the significance of economics in mining’s legacy?
Currently, we are still trying to find those who are responsible for
the liabilities, the industry or the regulators. In this new proposal issues
between the industry and regulators regarding responsibility are
practically gone because equilibrium in nature is the subject. The real
need for responsibility in all of these matters comes from education.
We enter a new millennium with new challenges. Those challenges are
to engineering to develop CLEAN MINING, which obviously demand a
new foundation of engineering based on the equilibrium of nature. It is
irrational to accept mining having with the same monument of
imperfections as those from the past millennia (e.g. waste dumps,
tailing ponds, materials without destined uses, etc.). Those concerns of
the industry need to be addressed today in order to avoid repetition.
How many technologies reached their level of incompetence in
mining? Is the function of engineering to determine obsolescence in
the industry or in the economy or both? What type of mentality is still
present in the enterprise? The market still accepts minerals produced
by socio and environmental violations. What is the level of
responsibility in the market? There are no cheap minerals, the line of
supply and demand is a fallacy and to sell an illusion is insanity. The
market cannot continue unlimited extractivism on a limited planet. Raw
materials’ values are as different as the manufacturers. Hence, we
must share new ideas to keep mining up to date. What does nature
require to keep working without alteration? In mining, nature provides
orebodies in micro content of metals. Nature only needs equilibrium.
How to address the realities of mining? We have in use an “incomplete
process” form of mining; it is a totally fragmented process to obtain
metals, which before refining are distributed all over the world to be
turned into manufactured goods. By doing so, we make
inconsequential the origin of this unique raw material for modern
industrial use. Inefficiencies are part of this process. The energy
balance shows that the minerals use a high percentage of BTU or a
high consumption of energy by duplicating the use of raw materials to
be transformed.
Mine closure also means LACK OF JOBS or the ending of a
lifestyle “imposed” on people employed by mining at the outset. It is a
well-documented fact that mine closure caused more break ups of
marriages, nervous breakdowns, suicides, and general abject misery,
such that historically, entire communities have been destroyed.
Because of the dependency on mining for a living in a given region,
there is the making of ghost towns from communities that were
dissociated and now no longer exist. Many social experts see the mine
closure as social crimes. Asking the miners if they are happy to
3 Copyright © 2015 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
perform the mine closure, they will of course unanimously tell you NO.
It becomes the end of jobs, where in the beginning they worked so
hard to now have no work.
Making up the story that with “good science and engineering the
closed mine will look as it did before and even better” denies facts from
the past. It becomes an illusion in many “statements of policies” of
mining companies. In order to design mining’s future, this is the time
for changing the engineering of mining for the integrated extraction of
metals. Sometimes we propose to close a mine because some of the
negative effects of the “mine technology updates” of the sixties are
only just starting to show up. In mining corrective measures rather than
preventive ones is practically the norm. It is ironic, when anybody visits
any existing mine that we should not find pending reclamation work,
when in fact, those areas are full of accumulated liabilities proving that
we performed incomplete mining or we operated with an incomplete
initial design of the mines. The social question to answer in mine
closure is always in place, regardless of the benefits of mining. The
social and environmental impacts of the extractive industries or the
operations of mine closure must be non-existent, because we
considered those aspects of design from beginning. At this point, the
foundation of the engineering itself appears to be an issue because it
is orientated toward activities at issue that impact the planet. In the
“unequal exchange” from mining, the market receives the metal at the
lowest price feasible and the mining site is getting chronic and acute
pollution, with dust, vapors, solid emission, smelter emissions, mass
earth movement, liquid toxins of suspended solid and as dissolved
materials, and other “surprise” products of disequilibrium occurring
over time since the start of mining in an area. Is the “trade” acceptable
at this time? Environmental crimes are registered under the legacy of
mining.
There still is no efficient extraction of resources (extract feasible
all metals of the table of elements) to maximize the value of mining.
This proves that mining still has a lot of room for efficiency,
effectiveness and efficacy. The ideas in the mining mindset are
fragmented which has many socio-environmental consequences, some
being irreversible. Waste design is still in the process of being
accepted in a holistic engineering view. The final message has nothing
to do with stakeholders; in the bottom line is the satisfaction of nature’s
standard that controls mining operation, and as such water is the
indicator of operation performance. Mining engineering converted into
water engineering. The actors in mining are nature and humans.
Considering “economic justifications”, it is necessary to approach mine
closure with some questions such as: What is cost effective mine
closure? Mine closure must be under an economic regimen? What
principles and elements should govern any mine closure? Knowing
that actual mining is a fragmented process will we be able rehabilitate
the land in equal proportion to the extraction of minerals at the lowest
cost? How can we control mining’s legacy? Where are those
professionals with an interest in having equilibrium in nature? Are the
universities prepared to deliver those professionals? Is risk
amendment or mine remediation still in the process of development?
Every mine project must respond to the question of how much risk they
will present to nature. Is it necessary to value the effects of not mining
in a mineralized area? Although, we still cannot control dilution. How
do we allow for mine closure? Where do the ethics in extraction of
metals enter?
Why do we need to do a mine closure? This question is the crux
of the argument, why do we perform a mine closure when the area still
has many other resources? When, nature gave us an orebody in a
micro dimension of metal content, we still persist in extracting them in
macro dimensions, ignoring the effects on nature. How many mines
are designed to perform a successful mine closure? What parameter
will give the performance index to classify a mine closure as
successful? Does mine closure go on forever? Do we close the mines
or nature? Is mine closure the final determination for a mine? What
level of responsibility and by whom is displayed at any mine closure?
What ethics are in place at any mine closure? Is it really responsible to
do mine closures as we perform them today? What is the level of
mining technology in recovering minerals to declare mine closure as a
successful practice? Is mine closure a complement of mine operations

or a contradiction to mining? Is mine closure an example of today's
best thinking? There are some of these questions that will be
addressed during this research paper.
MINING PRACTICES
In today’s industry with the best applied technology, we achieved
the following situation, in the social matter a massive employment in
the beginning of mining, then after we operate with fewer people and
big equipment that shorten the life of the mine, too. In nature, mining
establishes disequilibrium that in mine closure is a big issue to stabilize
it. Mine Closure plans must be CONSTANTLY reviewed; Mine
planning is tied to mine closure planning. How do we measure mine
closure success? In the actual process “successful closure” is
measured by burial of the mining area or the cosmetic restoration of
nature by performing encapsulation. Its reliability is subjected to a long
term process of monitoring without any specified time limits.
Neutralizing wastes before reintroducing them back to nature will
demand less monitoring service, because the mining waste presents
no harm to nature. The stability of the waste is a key element to be
controlled and monitored over time. In the traditionally accepted
method of mine closure, encapsulation of wastes is an observable
technique because of its lasting performance and its consequences. It
is subject to a breaking point with all the potential pollutants that will be
ready to contaminate nature, again. This creates a lot of uncertainties,
which are unnecessary to any mine closure, particularly those factors
related to such matters as erosion, seismic, upheaval and other
circumstances of natural unrest to recover the initial potential pollutant.
In contrast, measuring the success of mine closure should be about
physical, chemical, and biological stability. To restore equilibrium in
nature we need to specify how often this addressed following
Geomimic model would make returning the landscape to its pre-mining
condition feasible.
Mine Closure did not appear as an “error” of an incomplete
engineering or mining project, but as social issues caused by the
accumulation of pollutants. Those accumulations of pollutants were
converted into liabilities that interfere with “normal” life in mining areas.
To calm the social discomfort, unrest, and other social issues
generated by mining technologies in mining countries, we are
responding with many motivational strategies to accept the same
consequence in the technologies that were implemented more than
200 years ago. This “social technique” of disarming “social conflicts
against mining” is getting to the point of no return, a boomerang of
business, due to a lack of engineering, creativity and innovation by
mining research. Research in mining will present different technologies
that would satisfy nature rather than human interests, and in this
manner, we would achieve the restoration of physical, chemical, and
biological equilibrium that nature demands. The product of research
would be oriented to having a mining technology with no social and
environmental liabilities. This would be the new statement of mining
business in order to profile a different future for nature and the industry
itself.
Mine closure commonly was not included in the budget of mine
operation. Recently, however it is an obligation of the legal structure
that enforces a “new” protocol for mining companies. This protocol
provides a damper for society’s claims about liabilities produced by
mining. Also, these practices improved a mining company’s reputation.
Practically, society shapes the industry. The actual rationality for mine
closure has only one way to achieve the financial security which would
take care of any disturbance in nature, and the approval of
communities involved to allow a “walk away” from the mine area.
Except that mine closure has no relevance in the economic field or the
democracy of communities. Mining must interrelate with nature. Nature
is nature. Although, in order to reach the level of nature’s values,
mining must have new thinking to confront issues of availability of
mineral reserves and appropriate usages of them for the next
generation. Mine closure leaves many other metals in the ground
which produce other compounds, physically, chemically, and
biologically causing impairment of life in the area. The effects of mine
closure raise issues about permitting mining and social licenses. How
much ore reserve is to be allowed to remain in the ground? Who is
able to determine those maximum permissible limits? Who is
4 Copyright © 2015 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
responsible to nature and the next generation? How much imperfection
in mining is allowable for the future?
The mining industry still does not restore the equilibrium of nature,
even if mine closure is a legal requirement. The industry only tries to
be complacent to human’s laws instead of nature’s laws. From this
imbalance will evolve the mine closure legacy for the next generation
of miners. How many mines are designed for closure? Mine
completion ultimately determines what is left behind as a benefit or
legacy for future generations. There is no incentive for the mine
production team to meet and implement closure objectives throughout
the mine’s operation. Hence, few take responsibility for closure
throughout the life of the mine and mine managers have no incentive
to do so, yet. Monitoring is a hard task with no time limit defined. Any
uncertainty associated with projecting the effectiveness of mitigation
should be reduced by replacing assumptions with actual measurement.
Monitoring and review program have been done to calibrate the
models of prediction.
Engineering of Mine Closure
Criteria of mine closure: design of encapsulation, stability over
time, neutralization of the generation of pollutants, waste
administration, land uses, recovery of minerals, levels of impacts,
compliance to regulations, distribution of responsibility. In summary the
technical expertise to make provable claims about the “life” of
alternative methods does not yet exist. At all times in the context of
mine closure these questions loom large, who is responsible for
restoration of the mine area? What criteria of nature were used to
restore it? How long will the disturbance of mining last? How many
years will the mine closure last? What kind of legacy are we leaving to
the next generation? What kind of administration took over the mine
waste? Why is mining still incomplete in its recovery of minerals from
the orebody? How long is the mine company responsible of liabilities?
What is perpetuity in present mine closure? Time frames were
established to consider periods over which climatological and
geomorphic processes could reasonably be predicted, given current
knowledge of earth science and engineering. The contradiction that
profit and supply are in the short-term and the liabilities are in the long
term is a clear disagreement of objectives because of the mismatching
timeframe. Who finances the long term? What is really included in
permitting mining for land usage? Are we closing nature or the
company’s economics? Mining is not a temporal scar on nature, only
the company’s business economic cycle is temporal. We must look at
this from a different point of view, what happens when the last miner
leaves town? As a rule, he who breaks it pays. Any legal loopholes are
superseded by the laws of nature.
What do we set up in mining closure design? The advantage is
done when closing a mine that is subjected to maintaining, monitoring
and controlling versus a Geomimic of nature. Then, why we do not
focus on investment of research in mining? The actual engineering of
mining closure is dedicated mostly to the cosmetics of nature rather
than its equilibrium (Geomimic). We stated that the mine engineer is a
manager of nature; therefore, it is his responsibility to act as one.
Research on mine closure has been very lax due to a contradiction of
goals of making the MONEY MAP. Engineering must be focused on
avoiding the deterioration of resources in order for mineral resources
not to be subject to physical, chemical, and biologic deterioration, the
avoidance of which typifies a success at any mining project. Mine
closure engineering itself needs to be up to date taking into account
the laws of nature. The mining Industry has at hand a minimum
amount of research concerning this important matter for the future.
LEVEL OF RESPONSOBILITY IN MINING CLOSURE
The main objective of mining is to answer to nature and to the
communities affected by questioning at every moment: “what kind of
future will they have after their treasures have been extracted?” Who
really is benefiting from mining? Are shareholders or communities?
What type of legacy is given to the next generation? Is it permissible to
enjoy present resources in abundance at the expense of future
generations? Is this ethical?

The level of responsibility of closing a mine is very well distributed
over the miners and society. The consumerism and the “policy of
wealth creation” inhibit the true goals of mining. As a result, liabilities
are generated without mitigation or restoration plans for mining areas.
This only means that the language of the business is money. If by
“mine closure” we accept that we are destroying nature it becomes
obvious that our responsibility is to nature. This study would
ambitiously answer mine closure’s meaning based on the binomial
understanding, cause and effect as the key of responsibilities
assigned.
Criteria of Closure
Water is the indicator of the performance of mining. Quality of
water reveals the effects of a mine’s design. So, if mine closure is a
“last” step of the activity, then, it demands our assurance that a mine
closure is attended by the criteria of addressing environmental, social,
and economic issues. In the actual process of mine closure this
includes closing the mine design and mine facilities including
infrastructures, open pits, underground mines, tailing facilities, waste
rock dumps, heap leach pads, and other waste disposal facilities.
Looking at the stability of or the capacity for pollution of all those
materials and securing for the long term, post closure monitoring and
maintenance of the disturbance in the area previously subjected to
extraction of minerals.
Communities in which mines are closed are confronting an array
of problems new to them. The “dying town or ghost town” is generated
when mines close. After closing, these areas show a significant
downsizing in the economy of the region. At least we could show
responsibility to future generations. Lately, after many conflicts
between mining companies and communities, mining corporations
have established stronger social relationships with communities
affected by the activity. This type of engagement with communities is
almost trivial because nothing is done about sustainability [2]. The
industry is still utilizing the same traditional mentality of mining. We
cannot repeat the same processes over and over again hoping for
different results or hoping no one will notice. To change negative
impacts or conversion of liabilities into assets, mining must change its
mentality regarding the extraction of mineral resources. We cannot
request higher production and lower cost and infinite profit on a finite
planet. This mentality must be eradicated. If we want to have no
negative impacts, let us restore equilibrium in mining areas. The
relationship with the community could be rendered moot in sustainable
development, if we achieve or restore equilibrium in nature after
mining. We need to be clear that we are not mining for tourism’s
objective; we must mine to satisfy the needs of society. We should not
say that mine closure is transforming wastes into resources for re-
value mining liabilities in a changing world. Remining should not be
considered as a remedy when the mine design is integral.
The ethos of “Mining for Closure” in the proposed means to
achieve restoration of equilibrium of nature. Here, mine exploitation
represents the extraction in seizing the Periodic Table of Elements and
releases to deliver an inert material to nature. This technique is
attained under an integral plan in the project life cycle and designed to
ensure equilibrium in nature. This process would establish that mineral
resources are not subject to physical, chemical, and biological
deterioration. Then, after the use of the land, it is restored to its
capability as provider and to be sustainable in the long term. Under
those precepts, we would exercise an engineering based on
knowledge, skill, and imagination. Knowledge of nature is ethical
engineering in action.
Components of Closure
The component of mine closure is nature. Thus, the objective of
mine closure is not to make a “Disney amusement park” because it
meets a social concept about mining. It sounds like the Eden Project in
Cornwall, England and the associated Rio Tinto Inc., placed in
Cornwall, which has seen mining intervention for the past century. A
better question is: Why we do not build many Eden Projects in actual
mining countries in order to improve the interpretation of the activity?
What opportunities are given by mine closure? It is a fact that the
mining legacy is very well established with a lot of social and
environmental liabilities. If any opportunities exist, then they should be
5 Copyright © 2015 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
directed to the mine areas after performing the mine closure. How do
we control depletion?
Responsibility cannot be solely subject to legal claims but rather
must be answerable to professional ethics in the performance of
mining. We need to separate the idea of mining responsibly from
complacent regulations or the laws of man. The vulnerability of the
area either socially or environmentally is exposed by mining. If a
community would know the reality of the usage of their mineral
resources, then an opposition to the extraction would be almost
guaranteed due to mineral resources being wasted by a fragmented
industrialization. Retaining the value of the investment from mining is
lost when not restoring nature and communities. The first being more
important than the second for the obvious reason that nature is the
provider of life. Mine closure must be part of an operation strategy from
nature’s perspective.
Indicator of Closure
Water is the main indicator of performance of mining. Water
engineering is requested by mining. Any good monitoring program of
the post closure mine depends directly on appropriate indicators.
Develop indicators regarding every item in the closing components of
the mine. Mine closure includes closing the mine design and mine
facilities including infrastructures, open pits, underground mines, tailing
facilities, waste rock dumps, heap leach pads, and other waste
disposal facilities, by looking for the stability of possible pollutants and
remaining materials as well as long term monitoring and maintenance,
post closure, of the disturbance in the area previously subjected to
extraction of minerals.
We are presenting and developing alternatives to the industry in
order to have a continuation of mining. It is necessary to deal seriously
with the wide-ranging recovery of metals and the design of mine
wastes. We candidly propose and formulate many answers to perform
mining with a different perspective for the future. Nature must be
satisfied with any mining operation and the new thinking in mining
engineering will prevail over those challenges. Finding ways to restore
equilibrium in nature will provide a guarantee for mining in the future.
We must study the feasibility of mine closure or give it new
definitions in order for it to have a future in spite of the actual
observation of ore reserves, dilution, ore recovery, etc. from the
extractive industry. The by-products, twice byproducts, and triple
byproducts could be feasible with zero mining cost based on the
confiscation of the Table of Mendeleev to benefit integrally from the
extraction. The only “impediment” is the scale of production, which
contradicts the volume of unlimited profitability in the short term. The
recovery of metals as an integral process of extraction at any orebody.
It is a mimic of the orebody that is polymetallic by metalogenesis. How
much waste is piled at the mine area? What threat to nature after mine
closes? How to determine the level of responsibility to nature when we
are performing mine closure?
Levels of responsibility in mining must be measured in restoring
the equilibrium of nature by mine design. Legislation is subject to
corruption and the “business as usual”. Mine closure cannot depend on
legislation; this is an abnormal way to see liabilities from a mining
legacy viewpoint. Leaving a positive legacy in mining must be inherent
in a “HOW CAN WE ENSURE RESPONSIBILITY IN MINING” and
what kind of code of ethics should be mandatory? In our mining
practices, we have a lot of economic obsolescence. How much natural
service is reinstated after mining? After mining the economic “appetite”
for future investments is gone, since the benefits created by the activity
cease. How do we invite investment in mining areas without minerals
after closing? What happens with the mine after it is closed? Who is
really responsible? Once nature’s equilibrium is broken there will
always be disequilibrium. How much of the environment’s
disequilibrium can be restored? The main subject in mining is to keep
nature’s balance. The actual mine closure always represents the
human view of the activity. The reasoning is such that the mine is
exhausted or the operation is no longer profitable and it is preferable to
shut down the mine operation on a permanent or temporary basis over
decommissioning, reclamation, remediation, and monitoring.

RESULTS OF RESPONSIBLE MINE CLOSURE
Mine closure is the result of mining and distributed
responsibilities. We are arriving at a point of having to deal with many
issues regarding socio-environmental liabilities that are a product of
mining practices from past generations. Still, we do not have macro or
mega remediation in the way that we have mega mining. This is
another contradiction dimensionally in the industry. From this, how can
we determine responsibility? The responsibilities are distributed in
different forms and models, except that all is subjected to research. To
develop mine engineering in accordance with nature’s parameters, in
order to face the future is the task of mine engineer.
Responsible Mine Closure
The purpose of responsible mining is to define new policies from
research and to reorient the path of actual mining into remediation of
the disturbance of nature. Even though mining is not characterized by
excellent planning of operational and post operational practices and
has been plagued by inadequate regulatory frameworks, the industry
should be focused at its core on the extraction of minerals and the
impact of same. It is common practice in the business that the level of
responsibility is determined by regulation, which controls and
determines a broad range of vulnerability assessments and monitoring
insuring, the security over time of the containment of mine wastes and
then water engineering cycle. Also, society forces the mining industry
to have enough cash flow to perform mine closure keeping those costs
from being externalized. The expansion of mining into Megamining
without mega remediation develops a future gap to be covered by
different engineering. In using this system we only address the issues
with “patches” rather than performing reengineering. It is necessary to
address the size of the mining operation because if we do not have a
mega remediation in place then it is not acceptable to have a mega
mining operation, as is the trend of the industry today. The dimension
of this “new fashion” in mining causes higher emission of pollutants
such as dust, smelter emissions, gases, vapors, mine wastes, and
tailings that by design contains heavy metals and toxic derivative
compounds, fated to be transported to unlimited areas via waterways.
The lack of engineering in this parameter serves as an igniter of
conflicts in social as well as environmental concerns. Even though, in
mining the level of responsibilities should be measured by nature’s
standards, at this time, there is an absence of criteria for engineering.
This however also opens alternatives for improvement in mining.
It is important to be clear about our legacy that still has thousands
of non-operational, abandoned, and orphaned mine sites worldwide,
with many unstable materials, which are poorly stored and which
compromise the life of all beings. Those liabilities are still waiting to be
addressed by a new form of mine engineering. The alternative of
remining is offered to solve our legacy of liabilities to some extent.
Normally, remining does not belong to the initial project, otherwise how
can we promote the enlargement of mining performance? A culture of
prevention built into a mine closure plan is a key to preventing liabilities
in the long term. As an analogy, mining mentality requires a new
canvas for a new painter. Therefore, the mitigation, remediation,
rehabilitation, and restoration can be designed into a mine project’s
initial inception and could be considered as a maximization of benefits
of mine projects [3]. If not, how can we maximize the socio-
environmental benefits from mining? What is the limitation of mining
with regard to environmental issues? How many negative impacts is
the planet able to put up with? Or can we proceed as usual without
polluting the future? The type of mining with actual “effects” was
created by our and previous generations. Consequently, we need to
utilize solutions with a new thinking in mining.
If we prioritize the three sources of Sustainability Development,
we will find that we allow closing of mines in sound economic and
social ways but not environmentally.
Meaning of Mine Closure
The true meaning of mine closure is to eradicate uncertainties of
the post mining operations by good engineering principles, guidelines
for mining policies, and the security of not having socio-environmental
liabilities. Thinking in terms of REVERSE ENGINEERING reveals the
performance of mine operation as it causes any disturbance of nature.
6 Copyright © 2015 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
Mining must be understood backwards in order to define
responsibilities and in order to sustain it forward. The ABILITY to
UNDO at any disruption of nature must be part of mine construction
from the beginning. Therefore having a better design of a mine initially
we would know how to rehabilitate the land and have more responsible
mining. An indication of not having REMINING means that the original
mine design took care of recovery of metals during the initial mining
operation by finding other uses or economic value from sites and
minerals. On the contrary, we are reinforcing substandard mining
operations as regards social and environmental matters. The real
meaning of closure does not mean the act of ceasing operations
because closure of a mine is undetermined. Mine closure cannot be
interpreted as an act of culmination or the end of rehabilitation. Mine
closure means that nature and resources are not subjected to
disequilibrium or to physical, chemical, and biological deterioration with
mining activities. Then, how do we achieve closure in the mines? We
are closing nature.
Under the criteria of the time involved in closing a mine, appear a
variety of answers to “how long any closing should last” to minimize or
impede contamination of areas affected by mining. In the USA, laws
allow relinquishing Title II uranium mill tailings piles in order to allow
them to pass into the custodial care of the Department of Energy
(along with the Title I site) is when the mine receives a license from the
Nuclear Regulatory Agency. Thereby showing they have been closed
in accordance with accepted standards. The standards include stability
for 1,000 years. In uranium mines the remediation of mine wastes will
assure that length of time. In the program of closing mines, companies
use encapsulation to accomplish the containment of pollutants. This
cover system may last 200 years or less, and It will be difficult to
assure a longer time. The structure of mine waste must be stable, and
what is the definition of limit of stability?
While the discrepancy in actual mining is in the compliance to a
legal framework rather than a commitment to nature, leaving the sole
responsibility to the owner of the mine, exclusively liable for the
execution and completion of the mine operation. The remediation of
any mine closure is controlled by a checklist of regulations that only
cover with limitations, some restoration of nature, bearing in mind that
the legal objectives of mine closure are practically an inconclusive
responsibility.
Who benefits from the actual mining? Who benefits from the
actual mine closure? Science, No, Technology, NO, Entrepreneurship,
NO, Society, NO, Nature, NO, Then WHO? Now WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR MINE CLOSURE? The responsibility is
measured by who evaluates and who is monitoring and who has the
capability to know how the mine closure was performed? In order to
establish a judgment about mine closure, the factor of ethics appears
as an issue in mining activity.
Future of Mining
The future of mining is referred to environment, resources, and
technology. Our resources’ only destiny is depletion, because
resources are finite, unsustainable, and nonrenewable while the
population is increasing exponentially, which translates into higher
consumption of minerals. To extract minerals and assume there will be
no side effects is incompatible, as the scale of production is significant
and the environment will not support that favorably unless we have the
technology for the restoration of nature. Thus the environment will not
be good. And technology that generates liabilities is in game over at
present time.
Resources and environment, both suffering from the disturbance
of mining will not be a scenario easy for the next generation, unless we
begin with the vision of a restoration to satisfy nature, which means
while mining we simultaneously restore the equilibrium of nature
(Geomimic). Mine closure objectives and impacts must be considered
from the projects inception. The mine closure plan must define a vision
of the end results to be achieved and actions to do so, in such a
manner that the rhetoric in the public domain which is promoted by the
present industry “with mining the future public health and safety are not
compromised” becomes fact. Also in the market it is erroneously well-
publicized that the “The natural capital will be ensured after the mine

closes” when we still do not deal seriously with different technologies
which would produce different results. It is the same paradigms known
by many generations of engineers. So, HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE NOT
WASTING of NATURE? We are glad that the law of nature is not at the
mercy of corruption.
Mine closure demands imagination, with a focus on the future. Of
course, “imagination” of mining in the future depends on engineering’s
“imagination” which involves creativity and innovation in holistic
methods of extraction. This proposal of a “new” way of thinking also
directly influences the new foundation of mining engineering with new
values to nature. Who is responsible for redeeming those conditions
for the industry? Finally, minerals are finite, unsustainable, and non-
renewable on a finite planet. In this task, the vision of mine closure is
the restoration of the equilibrium of nature after mining (Geomimic),
which translates to the prevention of pollution, developing a culture of
prevention rather than a culture of reaction and correction. Knowing
that prevention cannot be legislated, it becomes absurd to wait for new
regulations, when the professional’s ideology is still different. That is
the proposal of a mining solution which involves the complete recovery
of metal in such manner that we generate an inert material to be
returned to nature as a nutrient (Mine Waste Design)[1] . No to do
remining because remining is part of incomplete extraction is an issue
to be addressed in the initial design.
The use of resources must be extraction by synergistic processes
integrally because the planet cannot put up with many trial and error
situations or rehearsals or the illusion of infinite profits. This condition
is a case for initial good design instead of looking for re-mining as a
remediation of an incomplete mining design. The waste must find a
place in a line of a new valorization to be an alternative resource of a
product of the mine’s design. It is important to repeat that mineral
resources are not infinite, inexhaustible, sustainable, or renewable.
The conditions of a successful mine closure are simple because the
thinking must be simple with many options to rehabilitate the negative
impact of mining’s legacy. At this time, pollution and loss of nature,
provider of “life”, are the true consequences of ongoing process at any
mining activity. If we design a mine closure with the result of a lasting
positive legacy in mind it will require a new way of thinking and a new
approach to restoration of the equilibrium of nature. Mining has nothing
to do with strict legal regulatory frameworks and empowerment of
government. Society must systematically sacrifice present gratification
from mining in pursuit of future attainment of sustainability. Society
must understand the non-existence of cheap minerals. At this point,
traditional mining thinking violates a core tenet of contemporary
thinking as we present it here.
Education in Mine Closure
In looking for a transformation we claim education is a pillar of this
task. It is important to educate regarding maintaining the equilibrium of
nature by having an integral mine design. In spite of the
“disagreement” between the planners and operators, we should mark
the relevance of nature. Our footprint is the harvest of mine closure.
Mine closure is to think about “WHAT NOT TO DO in mining”. In
reality, it is to measure our engineering resourcefulness and potential
and to validate our environmental standards in practice. It is always
important to distribute responsibilities when mine designers do not
supervise mine operation. From experience, when we perform a mine
closure we find what type of design and management were performed
at the mine. In mine closure we detect the performance of a mine
during its life, which gives an overview of mining in the area. We also
find out how depletion was developed in a given mine. Depletion of ore
must be viewed integrally on the road map of metals. Only education
will be able to conserve in the mind the long term effects of mining on
nature. So, education is part of our responsibilities along with the
resource itself and the next generation. In order to classify a mine
closure as successful we must ask how much of the disequilibrium in
nature was restored? In the transformation of nature into human capital
mine closure appears as an index of performance of the equilibrium
during the mining activity. Back to the beginning, nature is nature and
in any social order we conclude that nature is always a provider of life
to humanity.
7 Copyright © 2015 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO
DISCUSSION
We need to discuss all effects in order to fix them by designing
mines that will avoid the pitfalls to begin with. Mining license and a
walk away of mines cannot be issued by “favorable opinion” from
stakeholders because the obvious disadvantages of knowledge and
experiences to “validate” a real mine closure or claim that successful
mine closure was implemented or a proof of ‘good” social relationships
under the term of peace among them or to present “the best” cosmetic
with fronds vegetation, which in many cases is unsustainable acts or
ways to discharge license conditions or bonds. Here, it is displayed
mode of driver’s mentality from the past. Knowing the effects from past
experiences society has only one choice available to any orebody;
whether to mine or not. Mine closure is an item of nature because if we
touch nature then we must restore its equilibrium. This also begs the
question; what is the contradiction between the interests of the
communities and the interest of nature? How is mining dealing with
prevention? What is the rationale for mining in the future? When we
discuss mine closure it is also important to see how easy the process
of obtaining mining permits is. In many cases, we could say that the
process of obtaining mine permit is so simple and easy to do because
it is based on the checklist created to acquire the permit.
The concept of “clean” is a relative one. On our unique planet it is
not practical to hide “the dirty stuff” in a place that will not be visible to
this generation. To keep our planet “clean” it is not for us to simply hide
the “dirt” in an undetectable place but only necessary to restore an
areas equilibrium which will return to it, its physical, chemical, and
biological stability. In mining we cannot store materials willy-nilly and
therein is the ignition of conflict. It is also well expressed that in mining
the task of engineering is “make the visible, the invisible”. The only way
that this can happen is to manage technical audits. These will review
all plans, comparing them to the mining activities at every period and to
surrender this information in a report as a declaration of the activity.
Dirt in one place is dirt in any place, we are talking about cleanness in
this sole planet that we live on.
The first phase of mining is remediation. The closure should be
completed not requiring ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the
mined area, when the design is state-of-the-art and the risk of pollution
is practically zero. With many years in mine design we achieved
“glorious” recovery of metals when we were supposed to have a mine
design in the best interests of nature. When did we stop thinking in
terms of good design? What kinds of values are set in the criteria of
design? As such countries with intensive mining activities almost
always become a producer or receiver of chronic and acute pollution.
Waste inappropriately disposed of around mine areas worldwide is a
mining legacy which in today’s scenario mandates restoration by
design. The description of those pollutants include waste with the
potential of polluting, tailings with high transport of airborne dust,
gases, smelter emissions, all material deposited in the area with a high
content of heavy metals and undefined compounds or derivative of
compounds and dissolved materials. What else are we doing with “the
state of the art” design?
If mining is considered a tool of development then mining must be
defined by the community. The community must define their future and
mining will be only their companion. Exist non-economic vision for the
area for major investments, and future economic disability caused by
ore depletion, in areas no longer valuable for mining. Mining still is
under economics submission. It still accomplishes its goals for the
owner of the enterprise, the only language that they know being
money. Who developed different mining? How can we develop mining
differently from current methods? The purpose of mining is initially an
economic activity; it is hard to conceive that commonly, mining closure
also generates profit, although it is a kind of earning with future
liabilities. Typically in today’s mining, mine closure is required at a time
when the operation is no longer economically viable or when the cash
flow is restricted or negative. Again, the interest in the economics of
mining has subverted the objective and goals of mine closure. The real
concept of “creation of wealth” is the product of academic thinking in
business. In mining, we still wrongly think that profit can be unlimited
with finite resources on a limited planet. This is pathetic teaching and
promoted in the present system of competition. How to compensate for
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 15 - 18, 2015, Denver, CO

the accrual of environmental and social externalities of long term

effects created in order to accomplish entrepreneurship’s design, to
provide short-term profit on a limited planet? This “optimal” approach is
controversial and far from being accepted by current reasoning. The
actual mining makes the long term full of uncertainties regarding nature
when we do not design for it. Mining closure is seen as an unwritten
social contract with nature, provider of life.
Will mine closure satisfy the interests of the shareholders? Is
mine closure dictated by the extraction from the mine or the tailings? It
is important to say that mining industry’s purpose is monometallic
extraction, in spite of the orebody being polymetallic (given by nature
with a micro presentation in dimension). Also in this process, the
mining industry does not include re-mining projects of their mine
wastes or tailings in order to recover valuable minerals that remain in
those piles. The technologies with a less “macro” approach exist but
are not utilized, in spite of the zero mining cost of those materials. The
system makes them unprofitable and gives fewer opportunities to
those technologies which would make for “good design” from the
inception of any mining project.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we cannot rapidly change our behavior towards
nature, but must in fact, evolve. Obsolescence of the system
continues, as the establishment only promotes patches to a system
that in fact demands a long overdue reengineering. As mining
engineers, we need to start being much better stewards of the land we
mine.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Javier, 2011, Mine Waste Design, Society of Mining
Engineering, SME 2011.
[2] M. Javier, N. Chang, 2013, Nature Friendly Sustainability, Society
of Mining Engineering, SME 2013.
[3] M. Javier, 2013 Mine Project 101: Challenges of Today, Society
of Mining Engineering, SME 2013.

8 Copyright © 2015 by SME