From Prospect to Postclosure: Essential Tailings Management Knowledge for Exploration Geologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mine tailings, the residual materials from mineral extraction, present one of the mining industry’s most complex environmental and engineering challenges. Comprising finely ground rock and residual chemicals, tailings require meticulous management to prevent ecological harm and ensure public safety. For exploration geologists, understanding this is not a downstream consideration but a fundamental responsibility that begins at discovery. The consequences of mismanagement are stark; since 2010, major tailings dam failures have caused numerous fatalities, contaminated thousands of kilometers of waterways, and triggered billions of dollars in remediation costs. These disasters underscore the critical need for specific planning and risk mitigation starting with the exploration phase to prevent similar outcomes. This paper provides exploration geologists with a comprehensive overview of the tailings management life cycle, covering material characterization, surface and underground disposal methods, risk mitigation strategies, best practices in monitoring and closure, and opportunities with tailings reprocessing. It demonstrates that integrating tailings considerations into the earliest phases of exploration—by informing site selection, characterizing geologic materials, and identifying geohazards—offers the most effective and economical path to minimizing long-term liabilities. By embracing their roles as the first stewards of a project, geologists can lay the foundation for safer, more sustainable mining outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".