Kakula Mine Crisis: Pillar Failures Halt Copper Production in 2025

What Happened at the Kakula Mine?

In May 2025, the Kakula copper mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo experienced a significant geotechnical event that halted operations and sent shockwaves through the mining industry. The incident involved multiple pillar failures within the underground workings, causing widespread ground instability and forcing the complete evacuation of all personnel from the mine.

The failure mechanism was particularly concerning—rock pillars left to support the mine's roof (known as the "hanging wall" in mining terminology) began to fail under pressure. This resulted in what engineers call "pillar bursting," where the rock support structures crack and material "spoils" or flakes off the sides, compromising the entire support system.

Critical infrastructure suffered extensive damage, particularly the mine's essential pumping system located in the main access declines. Without functioning pumps, the mine faces the additional risk of flooding, further complicating recovery efforts.

The Geotechnical Event Overview

The Kakula incident represents a classic case of pillar failure in a shallow mining environment. Operating at less than 500 meters deep, the mine's support pillars primarily deal with "dead weight" from the rock above rather than the elastic rock behavior seen in deeper mines.

According to mining engineer Neil Ringdal: "When pillars burst, you get spoiling… These failures suggest systemic design or operational issues. In shallow mines like Kakula, pillars fail plastically or burst under vertical stress, creating a fundamentally different challenge than deep mining operations."

The nature of the flat, tabular orebody at Kakula requires a board-and-pillar mining approach similar to coal mining methods. However, when pillars begin to fail in such an environment, the consequences can quickly cascade throughout the mining area.

Conflicting Initial Reports

When news of the Ivanhoe and Kakula mining crisis first broke, the two joint venture partners appeared to describe the situation using different terminology, creating some confusion about the actual events underground.

Zijin Mining's initial press release mentioned "spoiling and falls of hanging wall," while Ivanhoe Mines' statement referenced "seismicity and pillar bursts." Though using different technical language, both companies were describing the same fundamental problem: the structural integrity of the mine's support system had been compromised.

This communication disconnect highlighted the challenges of crisis management in joint ventures, especially when partners operate across different languages and technical traditions. The market responded with heightened uncertainty, contributing to Ivanhoe's approximately 20% share price drop following the announcement.

Why Is This Crisis Technically Significant?

The Kakula incident is not merely another operational disruption but represents a technically significant event that challenges fundamental assumptions about mining methods in this geological setting. The technical aspects of this crisis deserve particular attention as they provide crucial insights into both the causes and potential remediation strategies.

Understanding Pillar Bursting in Mining

Pillar bursting occurs when rock pillars left to support a mine's roof fail under excessive pressure. Unlike gradual deterioration, these failures happen suddenly and can be violent—releasing stored energy and creating localized seismic events.

In Kakula's case, the pillars exhibited classic signs of brittle failure, suggesting they were underdesigned for the actual stress conditions present. When rock pillars fail at shallow depths, they typically crush under vertical pressure rather than experiencing the sidewall spalling common in deeper mines.

The technical significance lies in how these failures manifested in a relatively shallow mining environment. Most catastrophic pillar failures documented in technical literature occur in deep mines (>1,000m), making Kakula's experience particularly noteworthy for mining engineers and geotechnical specialists.

Shallow vs. Deep Mining Challenges

The geotechnical behavior of Kakula's pillars highlights important distinctions between shallow and deep mining environments:

• Stress regime: Shallow mines (<500m) primarily deal with vertical stress from the "dead weight" of overlying rock
• Failure mechanisms: Rock pillars in shallow mines typically fail through crushing rather than elastic deformation
• Support requirements: Shallow mines often rely heavily on the inherent strength of pillars rather than additional support systems
• Monitoring challenges: Early warning signs of failure can be less obvious in shallow mines

As Neil Ringdal explained: "Shallow mining deals with dead weight, not elastic rock behavior like deep mines. This fundamentally changes how we approach support design and stability monitoring."

The flat, tabular nature of the Kakula orebody requires a board-and-pillar mining approach similar to coal mining, but with the additional challenge of operating in harder rock with different failure characteristics. This combination of factors creates unique technical challenges that may have been underestimated in the original modern mine planning.

The Cascading Failure Mechanism

Perhaps the most technically significant aspect of the Kakula incident is the cascading nature of the failures. When pillars begin to fail, they create a domino effect that can rapidly spread through a mining area:

1. Initial pillar failure occurs, often at a geological weakness or area of higher stress
2. Load redistributes to neighboring pillars, immediately increasing stress on these structures
3. Additional pillars fail under increased stress, creating an expanding zone of instability
4. Hanging wall (roof) movement increases, potentially damaging infrastructure
5. The failure zone expands, potentially affecting main access areas and critical infrastructure

This cascade effect explains why the damage at Kakula was so extensive and why recovery will be particularly challenging. Once the cascade begins, it becomes extremely difficult to arrest the progression of failures without completely withdrawing from the affected areas.

The pumping system damage reported by the company provides evidence of how the failures spread beyond the immediate production areas to affect critical infrastructure. When support pillars fail near main access routes, the consequences can jeopardize the entire mining operation.

What Are the Potential Causes of the Crisis?

Understanding the root causes of the Kakula mine crisis requires examining both technical design factors and operational decisions that may have contributed to the pillar failures. Several potential causes emerge from the available information and expert analysis.

Possible Design and Operational Factors

Mining engineers familiar with similar operations suggest several possible contributing factors:

• Undersized pillars: Support pillars may have been designed too small relative to the actual rock mass characteristics and stress conditions present at Kakula. Even small miscalculations in pillar strength can lead to catastrophic failures when multiplied across an entire mining area.

• Mining sequencing issues: The order and timing of extraction significantly impacts stress distribution in underground mines. If the extraction sequence created unfavorable stress concentrations, this could have triggered the initial failures that cascaded through the system.

• Delayed backfilling: Kakula utilizes a drift-and-fill mining method that requires systematic backfilling of mined-out areas. If operational pressures led to delays in the backfilling schedule, this could have left larger unsupported spans than the design intended.

• Geological factors: The presence of unidentified fault structures, water-bearing features, or variations in rock strength could have created weak points that initiated the pillar failures. Even sophisticated geological models can miss critical features that affect ground stability.

• Span width concerns: If the distances between support pillars (the "spans") were too wide for the actual rock conditions, this would place excessive stress on each pillar and increase the likelihood of failure.

Mining engineer Neil Ringdal notes that a combination of factors typically contributes to such events: "In my experience, these failures rarely have a single cause. It's usually a combination of design assumptions not matching reality, operational decisions that deviate from the plan, and geological surprises that weren't fully accounted for."

Technical Risk Factors Identified in Previous Reports

Interestingly, the potential for pillar bursting was acknowledged in previous technical documentation for the Kakula mine. The 2023 technical report specifically mentioned:

"The possibility of induced localized seismic response associated with strain bursting and/or pillar bursting."

The report also emphasized:

"The importance of tight filling and correct sequencing during cut mining operations to contain seismicity."

Additionally, it recommended:

"The need for bracket pillars along large fault structures to assist in containing seismic activity."

These acknowledgments suggest that the risk of pillar bursting was known but may have been underestimated in practice. The mention of "tight filling" (backfilling) and "correct sequencing" is particularly notable given that delayed backfilling is one potential contributing factor to the failures.

This highlights an important aspect of mining risk management—the gap between identified risks in technical documentation and the operational implementation of mitigation measures. Even when risks are properly identified, operational pressures can sometimes lead to compromises in how these risks are managed in practice.

How Severe Is the Impact on Operations?

The operational impact of the Kakula crisis extends far beyond the immediate disruption, affecting production capabilities, recovery timelines, and long-term mine planning. Understanding the severity requires assessing both the current status and the potential paths to recovery.

Current Operational Status

The Kakula mine has been fully evacuated, with all underground operations suspended indefinitely. This complete halt to production represents a significant disruption to what was previously one of Africa's most productive copper operations.

Critical infrastructure has suffered substantial damage, with the pumping system being particularly affected. Without functioning pumps, groundwater will naturally begin to fill the lower portions of the mine, potentially causing additional damage and complicating recovery efforts.

The company is currently implementing emergency measures to prevent flooding while technical teams assess the full extent of the damage. Alternative pumping solutions are being explored, including the installation of temporary pumping capacity through boreholes from the surface.

Access to large portions of the underground workings remains impossible due to safety concerns, making comprehensive damage assessment challenging. Remote monitoring systems, where still operational, provide limited data on ground movement and water levels.

Potential Recovery Timeframes

Based on expert analysis and historical precedents from similar incidents, recovery could require anywhere from 6 to 18 months, depending on the severity of the damage and the selected remediation approach.

Mining engineer Neil Ringdal estimates: "Redevelopment could require 1,000m of new tunnels… Bypassing collapsed zones is time-intensive and could take a year or more to complete."

The recovery timeline will be influenced by several key factors:

• Extent of damaged areas: If the failure zone is limited to specific production areas, recovery may be faster than if main access routes are compromised
• Water management capabilities: Establishing adequate pumping capacity is a prerequisite for any underground recovery work
• Alternative access development: If new decline or shaft access is required, this could add significant time to the recovery schedule
• Regulatory approvals: Any major modifications to the mining method will require regulatory review and approval

Most mining experts consider a phased recovery approach most likely, with initial efforts focused on stabilizing the mine, followed by redevelopment of access routes, and finally a gradual resumption of production with modified mining methods.

Production Implications

The crisis will have both immediate and long-term implications for Kakula's production profile:

1. Near-term production loss: The complete cessation of production from Kakula represents a significant impact on the joint venture's copper output and revenue stream.

2. Rescheduled development priorities: Resources may be shifted to accelerate development at other deposits within the broader Kamoa-Kakula complex, such as Kamoa North and Kakula West, to partially offset the production losses.

3. Revised expansion timeline: The previously announced Phase 4 expansion will likely face delays as technical resources focus on recovery efforts rather than growth projects.

4. Modified production ramp-up: Even after recovery, the production ramp-up will likely follow a more conservative trajectory as new mining methods are implemented and verified.

The production implications extend beyond the immediate joint venture to the broader copper market, where Kakula had been positioned as a significant source of new supply in the coming years. This disruption could contribute to tighter copper market conditions, particularly if the recovery extends toward the longer end of estimated timeframes.

What Are the Financial and Market Implications?

The financial consequences of the Kakula crisis extend far beyond the immediate operational disruption, affecting investor confidence, resource valuations, and long-term project economics. Understanding these implications requires examining both market reactions and fundamental value impacts.

Market Reaction and Share Price Impact

Ivanhoe Mines' share price dropped approximately 20% following the announcement of the incident, representing billions in market capitalization lost within days. This sharp decline reflects the market's immediate concern about both near-term production losses and potential long-term implications for the mining method and recovery rates.

The market reaction demonstrates a classic pattern of uncertainty pricing, where investors respond to incomplete information by assuming worst-case scenarios. As market analyst Koala noted: "Markets hate uncertainty… Long-term value remains in Kamoa-Kakula's 40-year resource, but investors need clarity on recovery plans before they'll return."

Interestingly, this pattern has historical precedents in mining. Market analyst Mark Turner coined the term "Turner's Law of Mining Press Releases," suggesting that when mining companies release bad news, the reality is often worse than initially portrayed. This skepticism contributes to the market's tendency to react strongly to negative announcements.

A comparison with other mining disruptions suggests the market reaction may be somewhat disproportionate. For example, Glencore's 2018 DOJ probe triggered a $56 billion selloff, yet ultimately settled for less than $2 billion—illustrating how markets often overreact to uncertainty.

Reserve and Resource Implications

The crisis could result in a meaningful reduction in mineable reserves due to several technical factors:

1. Increased pillar sizes: If larger pillars are required for stability in the revised mining method, recovery rates could decline significantly. Each percentage increase in pillar dimension has a geometric impact on recoverable ore.

2. Sterilized areas: Portions of the orebody may become inaccessible or too dangerous to mine, effectively removing them from the reserve base.

3. Modified mining methods: Changes to extraction approaches could reduce recovery rates across the operation. For instance, shifting from open stoping to cut-and-fill mining typically reduces recovery while increasing costs.

Mining engineers estimate up to a 30% reduction in reserves could occur if pillar sizes need to be significantly increased to ensure stability. This percentage aligns with Neil Ringdal's assessment that: "Conservative redesign could reduce recovery rates by a quarter to a third compared to the original plan."

However, it's important to note that even with reduced recovery rates, the Kamoa-Kakula complex remains one of the world's largest and highest-grade undeveloped copper resources. The fundamental value proposition—exceptional grades in a massive resource—remains intact despite the operational challenges.

Cost Implications

The financial impact extends well beyond lost production and includes significant additional costs:

1. Redevelopment expenses: Creating new access routes around collapsed areas could cost tens of millions of dollars, with each meter of development representing thousands in direct costs.

2. Equipment replacement: Damaged machinery, ventilation systems, and pumping infrastructure will require substantial capital to replace.

3. Mining method modifications: More conservative mining approaches typically come with higher operating costs per tonne extracted.

4. Water management: Enhanced pumping capacity and water management systems represent both capital and operating cost increases.

5. Engineering and consulting costs: External experts will likely be required to design and validate new mining approaches.

The combined impact on project economics will be substantial, potentially reducing the net present value of the operation by hundreds of millions of dollars. However, given the exceptional grades at Kakula (averaging over 5% copper), the project likely remains economically viable even with higher costs and lower recovery rates.

How Does This Compare to Other Mining Disruptions?

The Kakula incident exists within a broader context of mining disruptions, particularly in challenging jurisdictions. Comparing this event to other recent disruptions provides valuable perspective on both the severity and potential recovery patterns.

Recent African Mining Disruptions

The Ivanhoe and Kakula mining crisis is part of a concerning pattern of unexpected disruptions affecting mining operations across Africa in recent months:

• Alphamin's Bisie Tin Mine (DRC): Operations were suspended in March 2025 due to rebel activity in the vicinity. The mine, which produces approximately 4% of global tin supply, faces security challenges common to remote operations in the eastern DRC.

• Syrah's Balama Graphite Mine (Mozambique): Production was halted in April 2025 due to farmer protests blocking access routes. This social license disruption highlights the importance of community relations in maintaining operational continuity.

• Sabina's Goose Gold Mine (Canada): While not in Africa, this operation experienced a significant hoist failure in February 2025 that suspended production for several months. The technical nature of this failure provides an interesting comparison to Kakula's geotechnical issues.

These examples illustrate the diverse range of risks facing mining operations—from security and social challenges to technical failures—and the importance of robust risk management and contingency planning across all aspects of mining.

What distinguishes Kakula from these other disruptions is the fundamental technical nature of the failure, which potentially requires a complete rethinking of the mining method rather than simply resolving an external disruption or replacing damaged equipment.

Industry Context: The "Turner's Law" Perspective

The situation exemplifies what industry observer Mark Turner has termed "Turner's Law of Mining Press Releases," which suggests that when mining companies release bad news, the reality is often worse than initially portrayed.

This concept, while somewhat cynical, reflects the mining industry's historical tendency to present negative developments in the most favorable light possible while still meeting disclosure requirements. Companies naturally attempt to maintain investor confidence while addressing operational challenges.

The pattern of incremental disclosure often seen in mining crises stems from the genuine difficulty in quickly assessing underground situations, combined with the corporate imperative to maintain market confidence. Initial assessments tend to be optimistic, with the full scope of challenges only becoming

Want to Capitalise on Major Mining Discoveries?

Don't miss the next significant ASX mineral discovery that could transform your portfolio. Discovery Alert's proprietary Discovery IQ model provides real-time alerts on major discoveries across more than 30 commodities, giving you the actionable insights needed to stay ahead of the market. Visit our discoveries page to see how historic discoveries have generated substantial returns.