Sustainable growth
According to Kendall, the long-term benefits of comparing TSF alternatives can far outweigh the extra cost and risk, particularly when there are unique project drivers or TSF constraints.
“Examining alternative TSF technologies will help mining companies to implement the optimal result on mine-waste design, now and in the future,” he said.
“Fundamentally, it’s about being future-focused and open-minded about TSF technologies.
Documenting and disclosing the process used to consider TSF alternatives has other benefits, Kendall said, including project transparency and stakeholder collaboration. Similarly, adopting this approach helps to demonstrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles in TSF and cultivate a more holistic view of tailings management going forward.”
Arguably, the main benefit of this approach is the potential to “future-proof” TSF design.
“Given life of mine is often 10-plus years, it is well worth exploring options that have the potential to improve the risk profile of the operation and licence to operate into the future,” Kendall said.
“Business-as-usual-type facilities might not be able to maintain acceptability, as ongoing public disclosure requirements set a high bar for the mining industry in general.”
Kendall acknowledges, however, that this approach adds extra cost and risk for smaller mining companies. Assessing more TSF alternatives requires greater internal resources or use of industry consultants. Documenting the process to select a TSF technology and strategy, and having it independently reviewed, adds other costs.
The main risk for smaller miners when selecting alternative tailings management approaches, such as large-scale filtration (reducing the amount of water transported from a processing plant to a TSF) or co-disposal (combining tailings and waste rock), is reliability and the potential for operational delays.
“These are important considerations that can be addressed with time,” Kendall said.
“Mining companies that don’t adhere to GISTM requirements around TSFs will find it increasingly hard to attract capital from investors or will have to pay a higher cost for that capital.”
Stakeholders have demanded more rigorous and stringent TSF processes after the catastrophic tailings dam collapse at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão mine in Brumadinho, Brazil, in January 2019.
“Investors are scrutinising TSFs in more detail than ever,” Kendall said. “They recognise the immense reputational risk that can arise from a tailings failure, and the potential destruction of mine value.”
Kendall believes it is a good sign that mining companies are starting to adopt GISTM principles for tailing facilities.
“Like many things in mining, change usually starts at the top and works its way down,” he said. “There’s no one-size-fits-all approach.”
The key is a different mindset.
“It’s easy to view a TSF as only a cost and focus mostly on its impact on project economics. It’s harder to identify and value the long-term, less tangible benefits of a successful TSF strategy and the damage caused if something goes wrong,” Kendall said.
“The GISTM provides an opportunity for mining companies to show stakeholders the process they went through to choose their TSF. That’s good for the company, communities, investors, and the environment.”
