From exploration through development and mine operation, a mine project disturbs land, and activity results in air and water emissions, among other. Concern for a mining project’s ultimate footprint has at times led to opposition by affected stakeholders. It has certainly led to a great deal of regulation and this will continue with the heightened concern for climate change-related impacts and environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors.
It is now well understood by investors, regulators and affected communities that mining companies must ensure their footprint is not only well managed but also provided for. Investment firms look at potential risks associated with a company’s longer-term obligations and the risk of stranded assets. Regulators worry about exposure to site clean-up costs. Similarly, affected communities are concerned about a potential legacy of material environmental degradation, loss of usable land or water quality, and perhaps will have to bear the reclamation costs.
Increased concern for climate change impacts and the management of ESG, along with economic stress brought on by a global pandemic will see greater regulatory oversight and greater attention to the risk of unfunded liabilities. A shift towards tangible financial assurance is likely across most jurisdictions. With liquidity strains at a time when financiers are more selective, traditional mechanisms of financial assurance may no longer be adequate or available. Mercer and Marsh will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of common financial assurance mechanisms and present an alternative solution designed with long-term company resilience in mind. Attendees will also have the opportunity to ask questions during this presentation.
Please note, this webcast is in English only.