* This interview was originally published by Environment Analyst and is republished here with permission.

Kim Ferguson, global director mine closure at WSP, spoke to Environment Analyst about the challenges of managing mine closure effectively.

Environment Analyst (EA): What mine closure, decommissioning and remediation risks do organisations most often underestimate, and what are the consequences of addressing them too late?

Kim: From a cost and schedule perspective, they frequently underestimate the indirect activities required to enable closure, as distinct from the physical closure works.

At the front end, the costs and time required for studies, options assessment and engineering are often greater than anticipated. These activities are closely interconnected with regulatory processes and engagement with communities, stakeholders and rights holders.

Options may need to be reconsidered as expectations, technical information and the preferred post-closure outcome become clearer.

During active closure, organisations can underestimate the logistical requirements associated with temporary power and water, site offices, accommodation, mobilisation and demobilisation, road maintenance and seasonal work restrictions.

Time may also be required for closure domains, such as tailings facilities, to consolidate sufficiently to support equipment and traffic. Individually, these requirements may appear minor. But collectively they can materially affect the closure schedule and cost.

Following active closure, organisations may also underestimate how long post-closure monitoring and maintenance will be required, as well as the logistics needed to support those activities. Many sites are not relinquished and instead remain under long-term corporate stewardship. Where residual hazards remain, ongoing obligations may include land management, access control, monitoring, maintenance and associated governance and administrative costs.

Organisations may also overlook the importance of defining the intended end state, rather than treating closure solely as an engineering or remediation exercise. Relinquishment, long-term management, repurposing or responsible divestment may each require a different reclamation basis and design approach.

They can also create additional risk by relying on untested assumptions or failing to understand the interests, expectations and influence of affected parties.

Addressing these matters too late can stall closure execution and extend post-closure monitoring and maintenance. Additional time may be needed to rebuild relationships, test reclamation methods, revise closure concepts or better understand logistical requirements.

In some cases, reclamation may be completed but not accepted by regulators, communities or rights holders. This can lead to rework or leave the site under corporate management for decades.

EA: How can early, integrated planning help organisations manage environmental liabilities, control costs and reduce long-term uncertainty?

Kim: Early planning, on its own, does not necessarily create significant value. Early, integrated planning does.

When closure considerations are integrated into project design, operations and business planning, closure stops being treated as a separate activity at the end of an asset’s life. Instead, the long-term implications of operational decisions are considered as they are made.

This can change how facilities are designed, where materials are placed, how water is managed and how operational impacts are controlled. It creates opportunities to avoid impacts from the outset, rather than having to manage or mitigate them during closure. In many cases, the design and operational phases provide the best opportunity to avoid material environmental impacts and the associated liabilities. They also allow closure assumptions and methods to be progressively tested, improving confidence in future costs, schedules and outcomes.

The objective is not simply to prepare a closure plan early. It is to embed closure thinking into every decision that can create, increase or reduce liability throughout the asset lifecycle.

EA: How can organisations make remediation decisions when contamination, future land use and regulatory requirements are still evolving?

Kim: Uncertainty is not a reason to delay all action. It is a reason to make decisions in a structured and adaptable way.

The preferred approach is to avoid creating impacts that will require remediation in the first place. Establishing long-term environmental closure considerations early and incorporating them into project design and operations creates opportunities to potentially avoid unmitigable impact, test closure methods, demonstrate performance and generate evidence for the final closure design.

Where impacts already exist, proportionate reclamation during operations can still provide value, even when final closure or clean-up criteria are evolving. The work is typically less costly and logistically easier to undertake while a site is operating.

Organisations should also seek opportunities to progressively agree with regulators on completion criteria and document the acceptance of work successfully carried out. While the risk of future regulatory change can never be eliminated entirely, progressive agreement can provide greater confidence that completed work will continue to be recognised.

Remediation decisions should be supported by a business case, but that case needs to consider more than simply meeting current regulatory standards or cost. It should account for closure risk, long-term liability and environmental outcomes, reputation, stakeholder confidence and the potential consequences of delaying action.

The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty, but to reduce it progressively while maintaining the flexibility to adapt.

EA: Beyond regulatory compliance, what financial, social and ecological outcomes should organisations use to measure success?

Kim: In my experience, there is no single definition of successful closure. The appropriate outcomes will depend on the environmental setting, community and rights holder expectations, the intended future land use, the organisation’s objectives and the agreed long-term management model.

Because every site is different, the starting point should be a clearly defined closure outcome, supported by measurable completion criteria. Successful closure cannot be measured by the completion of construction or reclamation work alone.

Financially, success may mean greater confidence in closure costs and schedules, reduced residual liability, fewer unplanned care and maintenance costs, and viable opportunities for repurposing, reprocessing or transfer.

Socially, it may involve protecting long-term public health and safety, meaningfully involving communities and rights holders and honouring commitments, aligning future land uses with regional priorities and establishing accepted arrangements for long-term ownership and stewardship.

Ecologically, it may mean achieving physical and chemical stability, establishing ecological functions and a reduced need for ongoing water treatment or intervention. These outcomes should also consider the broader landscape and watershed, rather than the site within the boundary alone.

Ultimately, successful closure means leaving a site that is safe, stable, accepted and capable of supporting its agreed future use without creating an unreasonable burden for future generations.

EA: What strategies can help transform legacy, abandoned or contaminated sites from environmental liabilities into assets that support future development and community value?

Kim: Revegetation is often treated as the default outcome for disturbed land. But it should not be assumed to be the only beneficial post-closure use. Establishing ecosystems and environmental value may be appropriate, but other opportunities should also be considered.

Reprocessing and repurposing are two strategies currently receiving considerable attention, although not every site is suitable for either. Their potential to support community value and future development depends on the regional context, including community priorities, market demand, infrastructure, supply chains and workforce availability.

Opportunities are also sometimes assessed on an all-or-nothing basis. Reprocessing, for example, does not necessarily need to involve all available material. Processing enough to reduce risk, improve long-term stability, offset closure costs or enable alternative land uses may be more realistic.

The same principle applies to repurposing. Some areas may support new uses, while others may require reclamation or long-term management. Organisations can approach the site more like land-use planners, dividing it into areas based on their characteristics, constraints and potential future uses.

Ultimately, the goal is to find a realistic combination of reclamation, risk reduction, ecological improvement and future land uses that reflects both the site context and the needs of the surrounding region at the time of closure, developed and executed in collaboration with communities, Indigenous rights holders, regulators and post-closure land stewards.

Kim will join WSP colleagues André-Martin Bouchard, Global Director, Earth & Environment and Executive Sponsor Sustainability, and Sierra Harmening, Vice President, Owner’s Environmental Project Manager, on Day 1 of the Environment & Resilience Summit North America on 3 November 2026. André-Martin will open the summit with a keynote on The Next Era of Environmental Leadership, while Sierra and Kim will join panels on streamlining infrastructure permitting and consenting, and holistic approaches to remediation and site clean-up, respectively.