Mine Design and Environmental Assessment

Introduction
During the development phase of a mining project simultaneous engineering
and environmental studies are conducted. One of the main challenges that
the engineering and environmental teams phase is to agree on the level of
project description information that is required to proceed with the
environmental assessment. On the one hand, the engineering team is driven
by economic reasons to produce a more accurate cost estimation for capital
and operational expenditures, but on the other hand the environmental team
seeks to be as accurate as possible with the assessment of the magnitude,
geographic extent and duration of the environmental impacts. This paper
discusses this challenge and presents recommendations to focus on the key
components of a mining project, which are the ones linked to the most
important environmental impacts.

Background
The mine life cycle involves several stages, starting with initial exploration
and finalizing with post-closure. Figure 1 presents the different tasks
conducted for mine design and environmental assessment throughout the
different phases of the mine life cycle.

MineLife
Cycle

Initial
Exploration

Advanced
Exploration

Development

Construction

Operation

Closure

Post-Closure

ExpansionorMaterial Change
Resource
Evaluation

MineDesign

Scoping

Pre-Feasibility
&Feasibilty

Detailed
Engineering
stakeholder engagement required fromini al explora on un l post-closure

Environmental
Assessment

StudyArea
Definition &
Baseline Start-Up

Baseline and
Issue Scoping

Impact
Assessment

Environmental Management and

Progressive Closure

Final Closure

Post-Closure Care and

Maintenance

Figure 1 Mine Design and Environmental Assessment in the Context of the

Mine Life Cycle
Only a very small fraction of mining projects will mature to reach the
operation phase. Despite this fact, mine exploration constitutes an important
global economic activity accounting for approximately US$8.4 billion in 2009 1
(MEG, 2010). Mining projects that reach advance exploration and report
positive results from scoping level assessments, will normally move towards
the development of preliminary feasibility and feasibility studies, to support
1

US$ 8.4 billion account for non-ferrous mining exploration budgets considering
1,998 companies worldwide.

March 25, 2011

investment and other decisions. In parallel, environmental impact

assessments are conducted to determine the significance of the impacts of
the project and support permitting decision. These studies are conducted
during the development phase of the project and decisions made at this
stage will determine how the construction, operation, closure and postclosure phases of the mine will be executed.
In certain jurisdictions, engineering studies have to adhere to specific
guidelines and definitions to disclose the results of exploration activities that
serve as the basis for mine design (CIM, 2005; CSA, 2005 and SME, 2007).
However, existing guidelines or regulations do not apply to all components of
engineering studies and different engineering teams apply their own
standards while preparing engineering studies, which represent
inconsistencies for both international financial institutions and government
agencies (Johnson and McCarthy, 2001). As a rule of thumb, industry accepts
that pre-feasibility studies present cost estimation within +/- 25% accuracy
and feasibility studies narrow it down to +/- 15%. Existing guidelines are
aimed mainly to protect investors but consider environmental issues because
of their potential impact on the cost or economic viability of the project.
Different guidelines have been developed since mining activities started.
Lets note that the first guideline to protect mining investors was published in
the XVI century, which advises investors against the work of alchemists,
whose writings are obscure and not based on evidence (Agricola, 1556).
Most jurisdictions and international best practice have determined that most
mining projects require comprehensive environmental impact assessments
(IFC, 2006, CEAA 2010 and MEM 2003), but there are different requirements
and interpretations regarding the level of detail that the project description
has to disclose in the environmental impact assessment. As a general
guideline, the project description has to present sufficient information to
allow the identification and subsequent assessment of the potential impacts,
but the focus has to be put on the project components with the greater
potential to generate impacts of higher magnitude, longer duration or greater
geographic extent.

Simultaneous and Iterative Processes

Engineering design and environmental assessment constitute simultaneous
and iterative processes that mutually benefit each other if conducted in way
that allows for communication and feedback from engineering and
environmental teams. Figure 2 describes the main interactions and common
uncertainties that accompany these processes. This diagram shows how
project design information is used to assess impacts. Potential impacts are
turned into residual impacts through, management, mitigation or
compensation measures, which are also integrated into the economic model
for the project. Both processes share common inputs and uncertainties. A
risk assessment conducted on a mining project cost estimates indicates that
uncertainties on engineering factors (as opposed to environmental) are the
ones that generate the higher variances in the cost estimation (Evans, 2007).

March 25, 2011

Footprint, Emissions, Effluents

Employment, BusinessOpportunities
Inputs:
- geology
- commodityprices
- cost of supplies
- regulatory
framework

Uncertain es:
- ore reserves
- metallurgical
recovery
- market flucta ons
- poli cal stability

Inputs:
- geochemistry
- climate and
hydrology
- social and cultural
- biodiversity

Potential Impacts
Potential Benefits
ProjectDescription

Pre-Feasibility&
FeasibilityStudies

Environmental and
Social Impact
Assessment

EconomicModels
(+/- 25to+/- 15%)

Significanceof Impacts
Acceptableof not

Enhaced Benefits
Residual Impacts

Uncertain es:
- longtermtrends
- climate change
- induced impacts
- cumula ve impacts

Mitigation or Compensation
Development Inititatives

Figure 2 Interaction between Engineering and Impact Assessment Processes

Project Description
Although technological development has allowed for development of larger
scale mines2 and the mechanization of mining operations, the basics
components of a mine remain the same. Mining is basically the extraction of
an economically valuable material from an ore body. It involves underground
or surficial excavations, a mill to process the ore, and facilities to store mine
waste and manage water. Ancillary facilities to support mining activities such
as accommodation camps, access and transportation roads, power
generation and distribution plants, maintenance workshops and warehouses
are also required.
The key components of a mining project description vis--vis their potential to
generate environmental impacts include the following:
-

Project Footprint, defined by the land that will be occupied by project

facilities or areas directly affected where current land use would no
longer be feasible.
Ore and Mine Waste Management, considering the facilities where ore
will be processed and waste rock and tailings will be deposited. The
way ore and mine waste will be managed is normally presented in the
mine plan. The mine plan should also include main operational
parameters such as production rates and design criteria for ore and
mine waste storage facilities.
Water Management, considering fresh water supply and process water
storage facilities. Flow chart and quantities of water are normally
presented in a site wide water management plan for the project.

Nowadays, large scale open pit operations haulage and transport in the order of
hundreds of thousands of tons of ore and waste rock on a daily basis.

March 25, 2011

Because of the pressures that both engineering and environmental teams

face to complete their work and produce their reports, a balance should be
found between project description information requirements and the need to
incorporate results of the impact assessment to optimize project design.

Impact Assessment
This section describes how the key aspects of the project description listed
above apply to the assessment of impacts for selected environmental
components.
-

Soil and Land Use: The direct impact on soil removal will be a function
of the project footprint. Overlaying the soil map generated during
baseline characterization with the project footprint will be the basis for
measuring impacts on different soil units and also to prepare a soil
balance for reclamation purposes. The project footprint should be
available at a pre-feasibility level, following assessment of alternatives
and decision regarding site selection for main facilities. The footprint at
a feasibility level will be more accurate but not significantly different. If
uncertainty exists regarding location or surface extent of facilities,
conservative assumptions can be made as a precautionary measure to
avoid underestimating the magnitude of the impacts.

Air Quality: Air quality impacts as a consequence of mining activities

occurs in the form of combustion gases emissions or particulate matter
generation. The main activities generating atmospheric emissions are
the loading, haulage and dumping of large amounts of material along
non-paved roads. Production rates and haulage distances define the
mine fleet and fuel requirements, which are the important inputs for air
quality dispersion models. This information should be available at both
pre-feasibility and feasibility levels, because they constitute key
components of the economic model for the project. Peak annual and
daily conditions should be identified in the mine plan to assess worse
case scenarios. Screening, refined or advance modeling are available
with respectively higher degrees of accuracy. Professional judgment is
required to select the most appropriate model for the project scenario
being assessed (AENV, 2003).

Water Quality: The potential for water quality impacts is directly related
to the geochemical behaviour of ore, waste rock and overburden
materials, therefore geochemical characterization is crucially important
for the environmental assessment of mining projects. Water quality
impacts can occur during any of the different phases of the project but,
post-closure conditions should receive particular attention as
geochemical mechanisms that generate acidity or leach metals can
remain active during the long term. Also, post-closure conditions carry
the highest degree of uncertainty. Main inputs to the water quality
models include tonnages of ore and mine waste (from the mine plan),
metal and acidity loads to be released by the different materials (from
the geochemical characterization), volumes of fresh and process water,

March 25, 2011

water losses by evaporation and seepage and mine effluents (from the
site-wide water management plan). Geochemical characterization
carries a degree of uncertainly as it is not possible to replicate in the
laboratory all the mechanisms that occur in a real mine operation.
Conservative assumptions can be applied to avoid underestimating
potential impacts. Water quality models cant be calibrated during the
development phase of the project, so they should be considered as a
starting point to assess environmental impacts. The project knowledge
base is improved throughout the mine life cycle. Lessons learned from
pilot tests, large-scale implementation, and monitoring are used to
improve performance of a mine operation (INAP, 2005).
-

Biodiversity: If important residual impacts to biodiversity are

unavoidable, the project should consider biodiversity offsets as a mean
to compensate for these impacts. The main driver for these impacts is
project footprint, therefore biodiversity considerations have to play a
role in the location and design of facilities to minimize potential for
impacts. Costing of biodiversity offsets has to be considered and
safety factors (>2) used as criteria for biodiversity offsets planning.
Because biodiversity offsets are located outside the project footprint,
its implementation requires agreements with other parties. ESIA should
demonstrate that biodiversity offsets are feasible.

Resettlement: One of the most important potential impacts of mining is

resettlement. The drivers for resettlement are land requirements
(project footprint) and impacts on other livelihood resources (economic
displacement). During the preparation of the environmental impact
assessment report the resettlement planning process is probably not
completed, but it should reach a stage that demonstrates that
resettlement is a viable option. This normally involves written
agreements with affected communities. The cost of resettlement is
included as part of project costs but the implementation of the
resettlement carries risks that could affect both costs and schedule. A
balance should be found between avoiding resettlement as much a
possible and initiating a resettlement process (when resettlement is
unavoidable) in a timely manner to minimize impacts to schedule.

Local Employment: Employment figures are included in both prefeasibility and feasibility level studies. At a local level, local
employment and local business opportunities are the ones with greater
potential for positive impacts for communities in the area of influence
of the project. The main constraints for maximizing positive impact are
limited number of jobs that mining projects normally generate and
available local skills. Maximization of positive impacts depends on
training. Longer duration projects have greater potential to create
positive impacts.

Conclusions

March 25, 2011

During the development phase of a mining project, engineering and

environmental studies are conducted simultaneously. Both processes
should interact and benefit each other, but for this to happen open
communication and feedback is required between engineering and
environmental teams.
Key components of the project description that drive the impact
assessment include the footprint, the mine plan and the water
management plan.
More accurate cost estimations produced by engineering studies dont
directly relate to more accurate environmental impact predictions,
because the main factors affecting costs estimation are not necessarily
linked to potential environmental impacts.
Risk factors that affect project cost accuracy are mainly related to
engineering uncertainties. Although, it is recognized that
environmental mitigation and compensation should be incorporated in
the projects economic model, these components have a greater
potential to affect the project execution schedule and impacts on
budget would be a result of potential project delays.
The environmental impact assessment represents only a best estimate
of the impacts that will occur due to the project. The knowledge
acquired during the construction and operation phases of the project
should be used to improve the environmental performance of the mine
and make necessary adjustments to environmental management,
closure and post-closure plans.

References
1. Metals Economic Group (MEG), World Exploration Trends, 2010
2. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), CIM
Definition Standards, 2005
3. Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), National Instrument 43-101
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, 2005
4. Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), The SME Guide
for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves, 2007
5. Craig Johnson and Michael McCarthy, Essential Elements and Risks in
Bankable Feasibility Studies for Mining Transactions, 2001
6. Georgius Agricola, De Re Metallica, 1556
7. D.S. Evans, Bankable Feasibility Studies for Mining Project (Draft), 2007
8. International Finance Corporation (IFC), Performance Standards on
Social and Environmental Sustainability, 2006
9. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), Comprehensive
Study Process Guide, 2010
10.Ministry of Energy and Mines of Peru (MEMP), Guideline to Prepare
Environmental Impact Assessments, 1993
11.Alberta Environment (AENV), Air Quality Model Guideline, 2003
12.International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP), Global Acid Rock
Drainage Guide, 2009

March 25, 2011