This is a pretty well written article. There are some bits I don’t agree with, and the tone itself is a ‘ha, gotem’ style of writing. While I won’t say what I do for work, I will say that I’m very qualified to talk about this subject, and there’s a few things I’d like to point out.

1. All mines have to have a reclamation and closure plan (RCP). In BC, this plan is renewed every 5 years to include changes in the mine’s plan, the mine’s future plans, expected waste generated, etc. it also includes updates to future designs of the mine. For instance, suppose they are planning building an new waste rock dump, in the first 5-year closure plan, they’d have something more conceptual, but as they get closer to building the thing, the level of detail increases and gets rolled into the closure plan. The same goes with their reclamation trials that they have to do as part of their permit to operate. Things like volume of soil stored in stockpile, predicted water quality at end of mine life, geotechincal stability of their tailings storage facilitites (TSFs) and waste rock dumps (WRDs), geochemical predictions etc. are all discussed, included, and plans crafted to mitigate their environmental impacts following closure (called post-closure).

2. On top of this, they’re required to report annually their reclamation progress in annual reclamation reports (ARRs).

3. As they point out in the article, Care and Maintenance (C&M) is generally entered into if something breaks (e.g., the mill is fucked), or commodity prices drop to the point it’s no longer profitable. While they can be in C&M for a while, operators do come out of this status. A good example of this is Cameco. They shut down right after Fukashima, and they came back online last year. Mount Polley is also in the same boat. Their TSF breached, they cleaned it up, (thankfully their tailings are relatively inert). They fixed the TSF, and then were up and running within a year. So while C&M can be used to weasel out of things, it definitely serves a purpose.

despite the fact that nearly all of them go through a period of care and maintenance at some point, very few regulators require mines to explicitly lay out a temporary closure plan, nor do they have clear guidelines regarding what’s required of companies during temporary closures.

This line isn’t entirely accurate, at least in BC. They are required to have a temporary closure plan. Usually though, this is just a commitment that the RCP will be activated once they decide they aren’t going to re-open. They also have a requirement in BC in which they have X days to notify the regulator. Suppose you had a metal mine. You have a TSF, an open pit, underground workings, and a few WRDS. Shit hits the fan, fukashima style, and your prices drop and never recover. What do? well, you refer to you RCP, and start there. Since you weren’t planning for this, though, it’s going to take a while to advance your conceptual designs to something that you can implement. Thankfully the RCPs are updated every 5 years, and act as the guidance document on where to start. Ok, you’ve done a lot of studies on how to close your TSF. Fantastic, you can start there. The WRDs aren’t stable and you’ll need to recontour them substantially? shelve that one for a bit until you can figure out what’s needed.

All that said, some companies do walk away. It’s completely shitty. Look at Faro. Look at Giant. Billions of dollars in clean up for those two mines alone. Minto did it just this year.

Reclamation bonding is vital to stop this from happening. All mines have rec bonds, but it’s usually not nearly enough.

Edit:

Abandonment also happens in oil and gas

One company folded, leaving behind thousands of wells and 154 mill in liability in the hands of the regulator

There’s literally no such thing as a loophole. What there is are clauses that companies arrange to be put into laws and regulations that sound innocuous, but that the companies fully intend to exploit under the right conditions. It’s never a loophole, it’s an undisclosed feature.