Life‑of‑Mine Planning (LOMP) that embeds environmental risk mitigation into the mining and processing cost structure is increasingly seen as essential for sustainable, bankable gold projects. Modern mine planning integrates environmental and closure costs per tonne to align with sustainable development goals, ESG expectations, and evolving regulations (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).

Environmentally Integrated Life‑of‑Mine Planning

A LOMP describes how an orebody will be mined, processed, and closed over its full life. An environmentally integrated LOMP:

  • Combines technical, economic, environmental and social factors in long‑term planning (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).
  • Internalizes environmental and closure costs per tonne of ore instead of treating them as end‑of‑life add‑ons (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).
  • Explicitly plans geotechnical, hydrological, hydrogeological and drainage management to reduce landslides, floods and water‑related hazards (Zeng et al., 2023; Riyadi and Cahyadi, 2025; Calderon, 2020; Bajić et al., 2024).

This shift from purely financial optimization to a more balanced approach reduces economic, environmental and reputational risks over the project life (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Demers, 2024).

Why Include Environmental Risk Mitigation Costs?

Strategic and Economic Rationale

Integrated frameworks that couple life cycle assessment (LCA) with mixed‑integer linear programming show that it is possible to reduce environmental impacts while preserving most of the NPV. For an open‑pit case, GHG emissions were reduced by about 11% while maintaining 93–94% of the baseline NPV (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).

Quantitative environmental‑cost models calculate environmental and closure costs per tonne of ore, improving feasibility accuracy and avoiding systematic underestimation of liabilities (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Sanders and Fitzpatrick, 2022; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021). Frameworks integrating carbon pricing into long‑term mine plans demonstrate that environmental costs can be minimized while retaining 96% or more of adjusted NPV (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).

Risk Reduction and Compliance

  • Geotechnical and slope stability: Hazard‑based and integrated planning approaches show that landslides and related failures can disrupt operations and generate high unplanned costs; early mitigation within LOMP reduces these risks (Zeng et al., 2023; Calderon, 2020).
  • Water and mine drainage: Integrated hydrological and hydrogeological analyses highlight the importance of planned drainage, pit dewatering and mine‑water management to maintain production and protect ecosystems (Zeng et al., 2023; Riyadi and Cahyadi, 2025; Calderon, 2020; Riyadi et al., 2025; Bajić et al., 2024).
  • Acid mine drainage (AMD) and tailings: Reviews of AMD note that treatment is complex and costly; prevention and integrated management of sulfidic tailings and waste rock through desulfurization and engineered covers can significantly reduce long‑term risks and costs (Demers, 2024; Mafra et al., 2022; Acharya and Kharel, 2020).
  • Closure and long‑term liabilities: Long‑term closure planning case studies (e.g., Newmont Boddington, Mount Rawdon) and reviews of closure costs emphasize continuous closure‑cost estimation, integration with LOM, and early design for closure to minimize future liabilities (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Strelein and Amoah, 2012; Demers, 2024; Sanders and Fitzpatrick, 2022).

Cost Structure with Embedded Environmental Mitigation

Environmental‑cost assessment frameworks recommend deriving environmental cost per tonne of ore so that it directly enters LOMP optimization and life‑of‑asset cost models (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Pasqualino et al., 2020; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021).

Example Cost Structure for an Open‑Pit Gold Mine

Cost ComponentSymbolUSD/t ore
Drilling, blasting, loading, hauling (ore + waste)MiningCost18.0
Crushing, grinding, leaching/CIL, refiningProcessingCost35.0
General and administrativeGACost3.0
Geotechnical & slope‑stability managementGeotechCost0.7
Hydrology, hydrogeology, pit drainage & dewateringHydroCost0.5
Tailings, waste, AMD control, progressive rehabilitationTailingsRehabCost1.3
Closure provision (long‑term water & land rehabilitation)ClosureCost1.0
Total operating + environmental costTotalCostPerTonne59.5

Figure 1: Example gold-mine cost structure with mitigation items.

The environmental line items (GeotechCost, HydroCost, TailingsRehabCost, ClosureCost) are built into the operating cost base, consistent with recommendations to integrate environmental and closure costs into strategic mine planning and life‑cycle accounting (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Demers, 2024; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021).

Example Revenue and Margin Impact

Assume:

  • Head grade: 1.2 g/t
  • Recovery: 90%
  • Gold price: 2,500 USD/oz

Recovered grade: 1.08 g/t ⇒ ~0.0347 oz/t.

  • Revenue per tonne: ≈ 86.8 USD/t
  • Total cost per tonne: 59.5 USD/t
  • Margin per tonne: ≈ 27.3 USD/t
  • Cost per ounce: ≈ 1,714 USD/oz
  • Margin per ounce: ≈ 786 USD/oz

Studies show that optimized economic–environmental plans can retain most of the NPV despite added environmental costs, while significantly reducing impacts and long‑term risk (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Demers, 2024; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).

NPV Pit Optimization
Whittle NPV Pit Optimization

Figure 2: Pit Optimization Integrating Environmental Risk Mitigation Costs

Mining Business Process
Mining Cycle

Figure 3: Mining Business Process.

Critical Elements of a Sustainable LOMP

Across research on environmental and closure costs, green mining, mine water management and reclamation, several common critical elements emerge (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Zeng et al., 2023; Swanepoel et al., 2023; Demers, 2024; Li et al., 2022; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021):

  1. Early quantification of environmental and closure costs using environmental management accounting, LCA and dedicated costing tools (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Pasqualino et al., 2020; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021).
  2. Integrated economic–environmental optimization (e.g., LCA‑MILP, carbon‑pricing MILP) in long‑term open‑pit planning (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).
  3. Water and drainage integration into mine planning via hydrological/hydrogeological modelling, mine water management strategies and dewatering decision protocols (Zeng et al., 2023; Riyadi and Cahyadi, 2025; Calderon, 2020; Riyadi et al., 2025; Bajić et al., 2024).
  4. Tailings and AMD control strategies, including desulfurization and integrated AMD management, evaluated within mine life‑cycle and closure planning (Demers, 2024; Mafra et al., 2022; Acharya and Kharel, 2020).
  5. Concurrent mining and reclamation where possible, to reduce land degradation and closure burden, as demonstrated in integrated mining–reclamation frameworks (Li et al., 2022).
  6. Continuous closure planning and liability tracking aligned with LOM plans, including annual closure‑liability reviews and decision‑analysis tools linked to water quality models (Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Strelein and Amoah, 2012; Demers, 2024; Sanders and Fitzpatrick, 2022).

SWOT: Including vs Not Including Environmental Mitigation Costs

With Mitigation Costs Integrated in LOMP

  • Strengths
    • More realistic economics and life‑of‑asset costing (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Sanders and Fitzpatrick, 2022; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).
    • Reduced probability of environmental failures and unplanned expenditures, particularly related to water, AMD, and tailings (Zeng et al., 2023; Riyadi and Cahyadi, 2025; Calderon, 2020; Demers, 2024; Mafra et al., 2022; Acharya and Kharel, 2020).
    • Better alignment with regulations, ESG frameworks, and community expectations, improving social license (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Strelein and Amoah, 2012; Demers, 2024; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021).
  • Weaknesses
    • Higher apparent unit costs and more complex modelling requirements (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).
  • Opportunities
    • Ability to optimize trade‑offs between NPV and environmental impacts (e.g., GHG, dust, water) (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Demers, 2024; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).
    • Access to green financing and improved resilience to future tightening of environmental and carbon policies (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021).
  • Threats
    • If mitigation is poorly targeted or not supported by sound analysis, costs can be high without proportional risk reduction (Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024).

Without (or Minimal) Environmental Mitigation Costs

  • Strengths
    • Lower apparent unit cost and simpler models in early evaluations (Mirzehi and Afrapoli, 2024; Swanepoel et al., 2023).
  • Weaknesses
    • Environmental and closure liabilities remain external or deferred, leading to under‑provisioning and elevated long‑term risk (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Forbes and Ferrier, 2023; Strelein and Amoah, 2012; Demers, 2024; Sanders and Fitzpatrick, 2022; Acharya and Kharel, 2020).
  • Threats
    • Increasing regulation, stricter discharge standards, and community expectations can expose under‑accounted environmental liabilities and significantly affect project viability (Oliveros-Sepúlveda, Bascompta-Massanés and Franco-Sepúlveda, 2025; Strelein and Amoah, 2012; Demers, 2024; Acharya and Kharel, 2020; Nyakuwanika, Van Der Poll and Van Der Poll, 2021).

Key Claims & Evidence

ClaimEvidence StrengthReasoning
Integrating environmental and closure costs into mine planning improves long‑term risk control with acceptable NPV loss.Evidence strength: Strong (8/10)Integrated economic–environmental frameworks (including LCA, carbon pricing and closure costing) show that most NPV can be retained while significantly reducing environmental impacts and liabilities.
Excluding or deferring environmental costs creates significant latent financial and operational risks.Evidence strength: Moderate (7/10)Studies on closure, AMD, water and tailings show unmanaged liabilities can escalate and threaten project viability.

Figure 4: Evidence summary for including environmental and closure costs.

Conclusion

The research consistently supports integrating environmental risk mitigation and closure costs directly into Life‑of‑Mine Plans for gold (and other) mines. Explicitly including geotechnical stability, water and mine drainage management, AMD and tailings control, progressive rehabilitation and closure provisions in unit costs and long‑term optimization:

  • Produces a more accurate picture of project economics.
  • Reduces environmental, operational and reputational risks.
  • Supports more sustainable and socially acceptable mining over the full mine life and into post‑closure.

References

Oliveros-Sepúlveda, D., Bascompta-Massanés, M., & Franco-Sepúlveda, G., 2025. Environmental and Closure Costs in Strategic Mine Planning, Models, Regulations, and Policies. Resources. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14030041

Mirzehi, M., & Afrapoli, M., 2024. Sustainable long-term production planning of open pit mines: An integrated framework for concurrent economical and environmental optimization. Resources Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105131

Zeng, Y., Meng, S., Wu, Q., Mei, A., & Bu, W., 2023. Ecological Water Security Impact of Large Coal Base Development and its Protection. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129319

Forbes, A., & Ferrier, A., 2023. Evolution Mount Rawdon—an integrated closure planning case study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mine Closure. https://doi.org/10.36487/acg_repo/2315_100

Swanepoel, J., Vosloo, J., Van Laar, J., & Pelser, W., 2023. Prioritisation of Environmental Improvement Projects in Deep-Level Mine Ventilation Systems. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 40, pp. 599-616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-023-00738-w

Riyadi, F., & Cahyadi, T., 2025. Surface Water and Mine Drainage System Management for Open Pit Gold Mine in Central Java, Indonesia.. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1486. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1486/1/012032

Pasqualino, J., Rodríguez-Dono, A., Díaz-Mendoza, C., & González-Campo, M., 2020. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment for a Large-Scale Gold Mining. Proceedings of the 18th LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and Technology: Engineering, Integration, And Alliances for A Sustainable Development” “Hemispheric Cooperation for Competitiveness and Prosperity on A Knowledge-Based Economy”. https://doi.org/10.18687/laccei2020.1.1.577

Calderon, C., 2020. BHP mine water management: an integrated approach to manage risk and optimise resource value. Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/10.36487/acg_repo/2025_0.01

Strelein, K., & Amoah, N., 2012. Long term closure planning for an evolving mine site – a case study of Newmont Boddington Gold Mine in Western Australia. **, pp. 251-264. https://doi.org/10.36487/acg_rep/1208_24_amoah

Riyadi, F., Firmansyah, I., Linggasari, S., Nugroho, N., Sufikri, A., & Miftahuljannah, M., 2025. Study on the Mine Drainage System of The Pit Nusa in Lhoknga, Aceh Besar, Aceh. RSF Conference Series: Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.31098/cset.v4i1.1053

Demers, I., 2024. Tools to improve mine closure: 10 years of research in integration of environment in the mine life cycle. Research Directions: Mine closure and transitions. https://doi.org/10.1017/mcl.2024.4

Mafra, C., Bouzahzah, H., Stamenov, L., & Gaydardzhiev, S., 2022. An integrated management strategy for acid mine drainage control of sulfidic tailings. Minerals Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2022.107709

Sanders, J., & Fitzpatrick, A., 2022. A Peruvian case study: optimising mine planning through mine closure decision assessment. Mine Closure 2022: 15th Conference on Mine Closure. https://doi.org/10.36487/acg_repo/2215_51

Li, G., Hu, Z., Li, P., Yuan, D., Feng, Z., Wang, W., & Fu, Y., 2022. Innovation for sustainable mining: Integrated planning of underground coal mining and mine reclamation. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131522

Mirzehi, M., & Afrapoli, A., 2024. A Novel Framework for Integrating Environmental Costs and Carbon Pricing in Open-Pit Mine Plans: Towards Sustainable and Green Mining. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143059

Acharya, B., & Kharel, G., 2020. Acid mine drainage from coal mining in the United States – An overview. Journal of Hydrology, 588, pp. 125061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125061

Nyakuwanika, M., Van Der Poll, H., & Van Der Poll, J., 2021. A Conceptual Framework for Greener Goldmining through Environmental Management Accounting Practices (EMAPs): The Case of Zimbabwe. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810466

Bajić, D., Bajić, S., Trivan, J., Figun, L., & Milovanović, J., 2024. A Teamwork-Based Protocol for a Holistic Approach to Selecting a Sustainable Mine Dewatering Management Plan. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310424