Regulatory constraints, reluctance to share data, and a lack of incentives constrain innovation say industry practitioners 

At a roundtable hosted at the Water in Mining Global Summit, mining companies spoke candidly about the persistent barriers to innovation adoption they face.  

During the session, which was delivered in association with Minetek, the participants highlighted that, while there is clearly an ambition to do better, several structural factors are putting the brakes on efforts to introduce new solutions that go beyond active water treatment. 

Competing priorities 

Frustration with regulatory approaches and the competing priorities they impose was evident throughout the session – and this manifested in several ways.  

First, it was highlighted that highly prescribed permit requirements can actively disincentivise innovation. “We were told we cannot look at two very optimistic potential technologies on site,” one participant explained. 

More specifically, a lack of scientific expertise within regulatory bodies was identified as a tension. In particular, it was noted that there is a mismatch between scientific approaches based on probabilities and scenarios, and the desire among regulators for definitive answers.  “A good scientist knows that you should lay out the uncertainties,” one participant explained. “I find that a regulator is less comfortable with uncertainties and quantifying what we don't know and what we would like to learn.” Another participant added that the regulators “want to know yes or no – and you really don't know.” 

Another issue raised was the amount of duplication within overlapping regulatory regimes. “It's a little bit crazy, in my opinion, that there's so little consistency from the regulatory bodies, regardless of where, or at what level,” one participant argued. Another explained that: “We have two different water management plans, because different regulators don't want to accept what the other regulator wants, even though it's largely duplication.”  

The extra work this duplication generates, it was argued, reduces the available bandwidth for sites and their consultants to work on solutions that might progress ESG priorities.  

Data operates in trust 

Although shortcomings on the regulator’s side were highlighted, it was also acknowledged that mining companies need to be more forthcoming when sharing their data. Regulators need to trust the data they’re being given, and the discussion highlighted that there is a tendency among mining companies to be guarded when sharing information and to delay in the hope that the regulator moves on.   

However, it was acknowledged that this is not the best way forward, with one participant arguing that progress will come from “being humble enough to share information and understanding that it's a shared risk and responsibility for everybody.” 

The issue of information sharing raised a broader point about trust and relationship building between companies and regulators. “Data operates in trust, and if you don't have trust, the data doesn't mean anything,” one participant explained. 

Trust as a theme was continually referred to across all three days of the Global Summit and participants in this discussion agreed it must be earned and continually reinforced.   

Missing incentives 

The lack of incentive for companies to explore and invest in novel solutions was identified as another obstacle – especially given that regulators are understandably reluctant to sign off on approaches that fall outside established norms. 

More specifically, the fact that licence requirements bond mines to active treatment was identified as having a dampening effect on research into other approaches. “There are so many opportunities for specific technologies that cost a lot less in capex, or are a lot less impactful, or need a whole lot less energy or long-term care,” one participant noted. However, they added that “there isn't much incentive to go and do research and development for those particular technologies and continue to advance them because the focus is on active water treatment.” 

Another participant agreed, arguing that: “One of the challenges that we're facing is that there are a lot of opportunities that we can't put money into.” 

Moving forward through collaboration 

Despite the challenges identified, there was a strong feeling during the discussion that positive examples do exist and that change is possible.  

One key driver that was discussed was the growing influence of First Nations and Indigenous communities, who are increasingly clear in their opposition to active water treatment in perpetuity. Instead, there is strong preference for source control and long‑term, passive solutions – an expectation that is pushing new technologies higher up corporate priority lists and reshaping closure conversations.  

More generally, there was a strong call for a more cooperative model that involves regulators, operators, and consultants from the start. “We should bring all these stakeholders to the table and be aligned on the scope,” one participant explained. “Don't try to provide an answer even before the question is properly asked.”