Mine closure has evolved from a linear, end-of-life engineering task into a dynamic, multi-disciplinary process integrated across the mining lifecycle. As regulatory shifts, climate pressures, and evolving stakeholder expectations challenge traditional cost models, WSP experts call for a resilient, adaptive approach to closure costing. By embracing uncertainty and integrating risk-informed, lifecycle-aligned methodologies, mining companies can unlock long-term value, enhance transparency, and support regenerative, community-aligned outcomes.
A local perspective
There are approximately 230 mines operating in South Africa across a diverse range of 26 metals. Of these, 48 face closure in the next decade, according to a research paper published by the University of Cape Town.
Johan Bothma, Director: Mine Closure, WSP in Africa, says, “Mining and mineral beneficiation activities generate significant waste, which can pose long-term environmental and social impact liabilities. These liabilities remain even after mining operations cease, so that abandoned, or ineffectively closed mines continue to pose risks to the environment and surrounding communities.”
As the mining industry grapples with a rapidly changing industry landscape, planning for sustainable mine closure is increasingly complex. Driven by regulatory changes, socio-economic volatility, stakeholder expectations, and climate change, this complexity has rendered traditional cost estimation models inadequate.
“To help our clients navigate these challenges and plan for mine closure more effectively, WSP advocates for a resilient, adaptive approach to mine closure costing. We view mine closure not as a compliance exercise, but as a strategic function capable of managing uncertainty and unlocking long-term value,” says Bothma.
Rochelle Bloemhof, Principal Associate: Mine Closure, WSP in Africa, explains: “Plans for mine closure should form part of the operator’s planning and strategy as early as possible, ideally from the prospecting and licencing application phases to avoid the historic trend of simply abandoning mines when they become depleted or lose their economic viability. If the final placement of mine residue facilities and rehabilitation designs are not developed to accommodate the intended post-mining land use, it becomes extremely difficult and costly to retrofit these areas later to support sustainable land use activities”
Pioneering a circular approach to mine closure
WSP’s proposed shift from deterministic, engineering-centric cost estimation methods to adaptive, lifecycle-aligned models supports much more resilient cost estimation and more sustainable communities surrounding the mine.
“Planning for closure is not just good practice, it’s good business,” says Bloemhof. “Integrating sustainable solutions during operations reduces end-of-life costs and protects long-term value. While a range of factors influence closure cost forecasting, financial volatility remains one of the most immediate and disruptive. Sudden shifts in unit rates, inflation, contractor pricing, or labour costs can erode even the most carefully constructed financial assumptions. The challenge is compounded when technical parameters such as rehabilitation volumes, material balances, and water management requirements evolve over time, amplifying both cost and schedule uncertainty. This underscores the importance of adaptive, data-driven closure models that can integrate real-time operational data and scenario testing to maintain financial resilience throughout the mine lifecycle.
By integrating probabilistic techniques, scenario planning, and stakeholder engagement, mining companies can reduce cost uncertainty and improve transparency to support more informed decision-making. WSP emphasises the use of risk-informed methodologies, the mainstreaming of progressive closure, and the integration of social transition and land use considerations into cost estimates.
“No matter how big or small the mining operation is, effective and sustainable mine closure transitioning is a critical conversation for South Africa, especially given the scale of socioeconomic challenges we face,” says Bloemhof. “Examining the impact of more sustainable practices during operations and using risk-informed methodologies to estimate closure costs helps our clients to meet changing regulatory requirements.”
Bloemhof explains that closure must be seen as part of a continuum of stewardship and regeneration, where financial models not only provision for liabilities but actively support adaptive, resilient outcomes. “Importantly, closure models should be structured and positioned as a business case to secure buy-in from management for progressive rehabilitation during operations, by clearly demonstrating the real value drivers and opportunities that closure planning presents. In this way, the closure fund becomes a living tool, not a static reserve, a strategic business case that enables continuous improvement, risk reduction, and the unlocking of environmental and socioeconomic opportunities, while enhancing long-term value for communities and ecosystems.”
“We encourage and support our clients in embracing uncertainty in cost estimation, as it not only achieves compliance but fosters regenerative and community-aligned closure strategies, positioning transitioning as an opportunity for building resilience and legacy. Ultimately, an adaptive approach to transitioning and its implementation at the end of a mine’s life can ensure remediation and repurposing that is safe for the environment and the communities living in the area without incurring unforeseen and unnecessary costs,” concludes Bothma.
