Faster mine approvals start with better project planning, BBA says 

Mining companies seeking faster approvals need to address a source of delays that can emerge long before regulators receive an application: unresolved decisions about how a mine will be built, operated and closed, according to Canadian engineering consultancy BBA. 

At the national level, the federal government and ministers have parallel initiatives—such as the Building Canada Strong Act framework—aimed at achieving “one project, one review” to eliminate duplication between federal impact assessments and provincial/territorial regulatory reviews, but each province still has its own framework.  

Each Canadian province and territory, however, maintains its own distinct legal and regulatory framework for permitting mining and major resource projects. 

Environmental studies, waste characterization and stakeholder engagement can arrive too late to shape project design, forcing developers to revisit engineering as they enter permitting, BBA’s vice-president, mining and metals market Isabelle Leblanc told MINING.COM in an interview. 

“Permitting matters, but permitting can’t fix an immature project,” said Leblanc, whose work includes projects advancing through Quebec’s approval process. 

The warning places some responsibility for development timelines within mining companies themselves. While unpredictable regulatory processes remain a challenge, Leblanc argues that companies can improve their prospects by resolving critical questions earlier and bringing technical, environmental and social teams together. 

“We lose a lot of time because key decisions are not sufficiently mature before we enter permitting stage,” she said. 

BBA supports mining projects from early development through engineering, commissioning and operations. That work gives the consultancy a view of how decisions made during technical studies can affect subsequent approvals and execution. 

Environmental inputs arrive late 

A recurring problem, Leblanc said, is the emphasis placed on elements that determine project economics, while other details are deferred. 

That approach can leave developers with a feasibility study that supports a business case but does not adequately resolve questions central to environmental review. Closing those gaps can take additional months or require changes while permitting is already underway. 

Leblanc pointed to waste-material geochemistry as an example. Testing that arrives late can reveal characteristics different from those assumed in the mine design, requiring changes to containment systems and other infrastructure. 

“We go back to square one and then we need to change,” she said. 

Water management presents a similar challenge. Treatment was historically approached as something to address after the broader project had been defined, Leblanc said, adding that it increasingly needs to inform the design from the outset. 

Closure planning can also influence development decisions. Considering rehabilitation early may reveal opportunities to configure a site differently, reducing complications later. 

The broader problem is that environmental and social work can become an exercise in responding to an established engineering plan. 

“They inherit the project outcome while they should inform the project outcome,” Leblanc said. 

Engineering at the right time 

Accelerating development does not necessarily mean completing every engineering detail sooner. 

Instead, companies need to identify which inputs are required to make sound decisions at the scoping, prefeasibility and feasibility stages, Leblanc said. 

“You need to do the right engineering at the right time.” 

Some studies may have little immediate effect on project economics but still determine decisions about the mine footprint or environmental requirements. Those inputs can warrant earlier attention even when a study does not require greater precision in the overall cost estimate. 

Deferring them creates the risk that subsequent findings will force changes to a design already being assessed by regulators. 

“It’s not to finish every detail early. It’s really to make sure we actually make the right decision at the right time,” she said. 

Better preparation also helps companies anticipate questions during review and develop answers before those questions become obstacles. 

A financial test for juniors 

Project preparation cannot remove all uncertainty from permitting. 

Policies can change during a review, regulatory personnel can turn over, and approval timelines can remain difficult to forecast even for specialists with experience working inside government, Leblanc said. 

Those uncertainties are particularly consequential for junior developers, which may have limited resources and no producing operation to fund an extended development period. 

A company that hires staff and plans financing around a two-year permitting window can face financial pressure if approval takes longer. 

“I always ask, do you have a plan B?” Leblanc said of discussions with junior mining executives. 

The question extends beyond the construction schedule to whether a developer can retain its team and sustain the project through a longer period without production revenue. 

Leblanc said greater clarity and predictability in regulatory processes are needed, alongside stronger preparation by companies entering those processes. 

Breaking down project silos 

Internal communication is another area where developers can act early. 

Engineering, environmental and social specialists need to exchange information as the project takes shape. Stakeholders also need to be involved early enough for their input to influence decisions, Leblanc said. 

“You want to make sure everyone talks to each other.” 

Project leadership sets that approach. Attempts to tightly control communication between consultants and disciplines can leave teams working separately when their decisions are closely connected. 

Establishing clear communication and encouraging collaboration can help identify problems while design options remain open. 

For developers, the practical lesson is to treat environmental requirements, social considerations and closure as inputs to project definition from the beginning. That gives permitting a more mature project to assess and reduces the risk of having to revisit fundamental decisions during review.