Security Intelligence

Security for the Mining and Extractive Industries | CloseProtectionHire

Q: "How does mining sector security differ from oil and gas security?"

"Mining and oil and gas share several security characteristics -- remote operations, community interface, resource nationalism, and armed group proximity -- but the mining sector has specific features that create a distinct security profile. Mine sites are typically more visible and land-intensive than wellheads or pipelines: they occupy significant surface areas, require large workforces, and produce observable environmental changes that are the most common trigger for community conflict. Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) creates a distinct dynamic not present in oil and gas: informal miners operating alongside or within the formal mine concession area are both a security risk (theft, access control breach, potential for violence) and a human rights consideration (displacement of ASM operators by formal mining companies has been associated with community conflict in multiple P1 markets). Junior mining companies typically operate with smaller security budgets than major oil and gas operators, creating a risk gap between their threat exposure (early-stage exploration in remote, often politically unstable areas) and their security investment."

Q: "What is the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and why does it matter?"

"The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs) are a multi-stakeholder initiative involving governments, companies, and NGOs that provide guidance on how extractive industry companies should maintain the safety and security of their operations while respecting human rights. They were established in 2000, co-founded by the US and UK governments. For security practitioners in the mining sector, the VPs matter for three reasons: first, they establish the standard against which the conduct of security providers (both public and private) at mining operations is assessed by NGOs, journalists, and institutional investors; second, major mining companies (Anglo American, Rio Tinto, BHP, Glencore, Freeport-McMoRan) are VPs participants and incorporate VP compliance into their contractor requirements; third, VP violations -- specifically, allegations that company-contracted security forces were involved in human rights abuses -- generate Alien Tort Statute litigation (in the US), OECD National Contact Point complaints, and reputational damage that is material to the company's social licence to operate. Security providers working with mining companies should be familiar with the VP framework and be able to demonstrate compliance."

Q: "What are the main security risks for junior mining companies in exploration phases?"

"Junior mining companies in early-stage exploration face a specific risk profile. Exploration geologists work in remote locations with minimal logistical support, often in areas where the company has not yet developed community relationships. The physical risks in these environments include: armed groups (where the concession is in or near an area with active armed conflict or organised crime), community hostility (where exploration is perceived as a precursor to dispossession of land), opportunistic crime against isolated field teams, and medical emergency response gaps (extraction from remote locations where no evacuation plan exists). The company-level risks include social licence failure at the exploration stage, regulatory risk in countries where resource nationalism is a material political force, and kidnap risk for both expatriate and local staff in high-KFR markets. The security investment required at exploration stage is disproportionately low compared to the risk -- a field team with no communications protocol, no check-in schedule, no evacuation plan, and no vetted local fixer is operating in a high-risk environment with no safety net."

Q: "How should mining companies manage the security and community interface?"

"The relationship between community relations and security functions in the mining sector is one of the defining challenges of the industry's social licence to operate. The Global Witness, BHRRC, and ICMM have documented cases where security personnel have been the point of contact for community disputes that should have been managed through the community relations team -- with outcomes ranging from physical confrontation to fatalities. The best-practice model separates the security function (access control, physical asset protection, emergency response) from the community relations function (grievance mechanism, benefit sharing, employment discussions) structurally. Security personnel should not engage in community dispute resolution. Where public security forces (police or military) are providing support to a mining operation -- common in P1 markets including the Philippines, DRC, and Peru -- the company's security management should have documented protocols governing interaction between company personnel and public security forces, consistent with the Voluntary Principles."

Q: "What happened at Marikana and why is it still relevant to mining security?"

"The Marikana massacre of 16 August 2012 at the Lonmin platinum mine in South Africa's North West Province resulted in the deaths of 34 striking miners shot by South African Police Service (SAPS) officers in circumstances that the Farlam Commission of Inquiry attributed to a failure of policing judgment and an institutional context in which the company, union dynamics (AMCU vs NUM), and state security apparatus converged in a way that produced a catastrophic outcome. The Marikana event remains relevant to mining security because: it demonstrated that the involvement of public security forces at a labour dispute does not remove company liability from the analysis; it triggered a fundamental reassessment of the VP framework as applied to public security force interactions; it established that social licence failure and labour relations failure are security incidents, not only HR or community affairs issues; and it generated ongoing litigation and reputational consequences for Lonmin (and subsequently Sirius Minerals/Anglo American Platinum) years after the event. Any security plan for a South African or comparable mining environment that does not account for the Marikana lessons is incomplete."

Security for mining companies, junior explorers, and extractive industry executives. Community conflict, protest movements, remote operations extraction, artisanal mining violence, and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.

4 May 2026

Written by James Whitfield, Senior Security Consultant

Speak to the Team

The mining and extractive industries present a security challenge that is distinct from the corporate travel environment and from oil and gas operations. Mine sites are land-intensive, visible, workforce-heavy, and community-adjacent in ways that create a complex security and human rights interface that is not well understood by security practitioners whose background is exclusively in close protection or corporate travel security.

This guide covers the specific risk categories in the mining sector, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights framework, the distinct risk profile of junior exploration companies, community conflict management, and the labour unrest lessons from Marikana.

The mining security threat landscape

The threats facing mining operations vary by commodity, geography, and operational phase. Some categories are shared with oil and gas; others are specific to mining.

Community conflict. The most common cause of operational disruption at mine sites globally is conflict with the communities adjacent to the operation. This is documented across Peru (where anti-mining protest movements have forced suspension of multiple major projects including Las Bambas), Chile (Atacama lithium operations and indigenous water rights), South Africa (platinum belt labour disputes), the Philippines (indigenous land rights and mine permit opposition), and the DRC (artisanal mining displacement). Community conflict manifests as road blockades, access restrictions, gate protests, and – in higher-intensity cases – sabotage of equipment or infrastructure.

Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) conflict. Artisanal miners operating within or adjacent to formal mine concession areas are a security consideration in multiple West African, Central African, and South American markets. The displacement of ASM operators by formal mining activity is documented as a trigger for both criminal activity (theft of ore, equipment, explosives) and community-level hostility. The human rights dimension – communities whose livelihood depends on informal mining – means this is not purely a security management question.

Armed group proximity. Several major mining-producing regions operate in or adjacent to areas with active armed groups. The DRC’s cobalt and coltan deposits are in eastern provinces where multiple armed groups have historically controlled mining revenues. Mining operations in parts of the Philippines (Mindanao), Mali, Burkina Faso, Sudan, and Zimbabwe operate in environments where armed groups, criminal networks, or state security forces with irregular conduct records are part of the security landscape.

Resource nationalism and regulatory intervention. State seizure or renegotiation of mining assets is a documented political risk in multiple P1 and P2 markets. Executives involved in active asset disputes in countries with executive-controlled judiciaries face the same legal risk categories as identified in the Kazakhstan section of the Central Asia guide.

Theft and sabotage. High-value minerals (gold, diamonds, platinum, copper cable) are targeted for theft at multiple points in the mining process – from the pit face to the processing plant to the transportation segment. Explosive materials held at mine sites are a theft target for criminal and armed groups. Sabotage of critical infrastructure (power supply, water systems, primary processing equipment) is documented as a tactic in both labour disputes and community conflict.

The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights

The Voluntary Principles (VPs) provide the framework within which security operations at extractive industry sites should be conducted. Established in 2000, they are now the de facto industry standard and are incorporated into the contractor requirements of all major mining companies.

The VP framework has three components:

Risk assessment. Identifying security risks in the operating environment, including the history of conflict, violence, or human rights abuses in the area, the nature of local security forces, and the risk that company security arrangements may contribute to conflict.

Interactions with public security. When public security forces (police, military) provide support to mining operations, the company should document the arrangements, train public security forces in VP conduct standards, and maintain records of incidents involving public security forces at the operation. The interaction protocol should specify under what circumstances public security forces are requested, what conduct standards are communicated, and how incidents are documented.

Interactions with private security. Private security providers should be selected, contracted, and supervised in a manner consistent with VP standards. This includes vetting for human rights records, contractual provisions requiring VP-consistent conduct, training in proportional use of force, and incident reporting systems.

Junior exploration risk

Junior mining companies – those in early-stage exploration without producing assets – face the most acute risk-per-security-dollar gap in the sector. Exploration geologists operate in remote locations with minimal support infrastructure. The company may have no established community relationships, no local logistics capability, and no emergency response plan.

The baseline security framework for field operations in high-risk environments includes: satellite communication device for each field team, a documented check-in schedule with consequences for missed check-ins (not a check-in schedule that no one monitors), a vetted local fixer with genuine community access, emergency extraction insurance (including MEDEVAC), and a pre-trip security assessment for each new concession area. Companies that treat security investment as a cost to minimise at the exploration stage typically encounter it as a crisis cost when something goes wrong.

Marikana and labour security

The Marikana massacre on 16 August 2012 killed 34 striking miners at the Lonmin platinum mine in South Africa’s North West Province. The Farlam Commission’s report (2015) documented a failure of policing judgment in a context where the company, competing union dynamics, and state security apparatus had failed to de-escalate a strike that had been building for weeks.

The security management lessons:

Company security presence at police-labour confrontation creates liability regardless of conduct. The perception that company security and public security forces were acting in concert – even if the company’s direct role was limited – was a reputational and legal consequence that lasted years. The protocol for labour disputes should position company security away from the confrontation zone and document the separation.

Labour relations failure is a security incident. The conditions that produced Marikana – wage dispute, competing unions (AMCU vs NUM), perception of company alignment with one union, community grievance about benefit sharing – are security-relevant conditions. A security programme that monitors physical threats but not the social licence indicators that precede physical conflict is incomplete.

Documentation during a crisis is the primary risk mitigation tool. Companies that can demonstrate what their security personnel did, did not do, and were instructed to do during an incident have a significantly different legal and reputational position than those that cannot.

For remote operations security where mine sites and extraction operations require MEDEVAC planning, satellite communications, and community conflict management, see our remote operations security guide. For the energy sector security environment that shares many characteristics with the mining sector in P1 markets, see our oil, gas, and energy sector security guide. For the specific security framework applicable to rare earth and critical minerals operations – DRC cobalt armed group proximity, OECD DDG due diligence obligations, Lithium Triangle community conflict, VPSHR framework for private security management, junior explorer security gap, satellite communications baseline for field teams, and Dodd-Frank Section 1502 and EU Battery Regulation supply chain traceability requirements – see our guide to security for rare earth and critical minerals operations.

Sources

ICMM: Mining and the Community – Safety and Security Guidance, International Council on Mining and Metals, 2024. BHRRC: Mining Sector Human Rights Tracker 2024, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. Global Witness: Defenders of the Earth – Global Killings of Land and Environmental Defenders, 2024. Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights: Initiative Plenary Report 2024. Farlam Commission of Inquiry: Report into the Marikana Incident, 2015. OSAC: South Africa Security Report 2024, Peru Security Report 2024, Philippines Security Report 2024. Control Risks: Mining Sector Risk Map 2025. PAX/Global Witness: DRC Mining and Armed Groups, 2024. TI: Corruption Perceptions Index 2024, mining sector chapter.

Summary

Key takeaways

Community conflict is the most common cause of operational disruption at mine sites globally

ICMM and BHRRC data consistently show that community conflict -- not armed group attack, not terrorism -- is the primary driver of operational disruption at mining projects globally. Road blockades, access restrictions, protests at the mine gate, and sabotage of infrastructure by community members account for more lost production days than physical security incidents at most operations. Security investment that focuses exclusively on physical asset protection without addressing the community interface is misallocated.

The Voluntary Principles establish the conduct standard for mining security providers

Major mining companies require VP compliance from their security contractors. Allegations of VP violations -- particularly human rights abuses involving company-contracted security personnel -- generate litigation, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage that is now material to the company's financing capacity and institutional investor relationships. Security providers in the extractive sector who cannot demonstrate VP familiarity and compliance are not competitive for major mining contracts.

Junior explorers carry the highest risk per security dollar invested

Junior mining companies in exploration phases operate in remote, high-risk environments with minimal security infrastructure. A field team in a concession area adjacent to armed group territory, with no communications protocol, no check-in schedule, and no MEDEVAC plan, is the highest-risk configuration in the mining sector. The cost of establishing a basic field operations security framework -- satellite communications, check-in protocol, medical evacuation insurance, vetted local fixer -- is a fraction of the cost of a crisis response when something goes wrong.

Artisanal and small-scale mining creates a human rights and security interface that must be managed

ASM operators displaced by formal mining development are a documented source of community conflict. Security responses that treat ASM operators as simply an access control problem -- rather than a stakeholder group requiring engagement through the community relations function -- typically escalate rather than resolve the situation. The human rights dimension (documented displacement, loss of livelihood) also creates legal exposure for the company in VP compliance reviews and OECD NCP processes.

Labour unrest at mine sites requires a security protocol that separates company security from public security force interaction

The Marikana event established that company security personnel present at a labour dispute, in proximity to public security forces with a mandate to restore order, can be implicated in the outcome regardless of their direct role. The best-practice protocol removes company security from the immediate vicinity of labour-police interaction, documents the company's communication with public security forces (including any request for support), and maintains a clear record of company personnel actions during the incident. This is documentation discipline, not detachment from the situation.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Mining and oil and gas share several security characteristics – remote operations, community interface, resource nationalism, and armed group proximity – but the mining sector has specific features that create a distinct security profile. Mine sites are typically more visible and land-intensive than wellheads or pipelines: they occupy significant surface areas, require large workforces, and produce observable environmental changes that are the most common trigger for community conflict. Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) creates a distinct dynamic not present in oil and gas: informal miners operating alongside or within the formal mine concession area are both a security risk (theft, access control breach, potential for violence) and a human rights consideration (displacement of ASM operators by formal mining companies has been associated with community conflict in multiple P1 markets). Junior mining companies typically operate with smaller security budgets than major oil and gas operators, creating a risk gap between their threat exposure (early-stage exploration in remote, often politically unstable areas) and their security investment.

The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs) are a multi-stakeholder initiative involving governments, companies, and NGOs that provide guidance on how extractive industry companies should maintain the safety and security of their operations while respecting human rights. They were established in 2000, co-founded by the US and UK governments. For security practitioners in the mining sector, the VPs matter for three reasons: first, they establish the standard against which the conduct of security providers (both public and private) at mining operations is assessed by NGOs, journalists, and institutional investors; second, major mining companies (Anglo American, Rio Tinto, BHP, Glencore, Freeport-McMoRan) are VPs participants and incorporate VP compliance into their contractor requirements; third, VP violations – specifically, allegations that company-contracted security forces were involved in human rights abuses – generate Alien Tort Statute litigation (in the US), OECD National Contact Point complaints, and reputational damage that is material to the company’s social licence to operate. Security providers working with mining companies should be familiar with the VP framework and be able to demonstrate compliance.

Junior mining companies in early-stage exploration face a specific risk profile. Exploration geologists work in remote locations with minimal logistical support, often in areas where the company has not yet developed community relationships. The physical risks in these environments include: armed groups (where the concession is in or near an area with active armed conflict or organised crime), community hostility (where exploration is perceived as a precursor to dispossession of land), opportunistic crime against isolated field teams, and medical emergency response gaps (extraction from remote locations where no evacuation plan exists). The company-level risks include social licence failure at the exploration stage, regulatory risk in countries where resource nationalism is a material political force, and kidnap risk for both expatriate and local staff in high-KFR markets. The security investment required at exploration stage is disproportionately low compared to the risk – a field team with no communications protocol, no check-in schedule, no evacuation plan, and no vetted local fixer is operating in a high-risk environment with no safety net.

The relationship between community relations and security functions in the mining sector is one of the defining challenges of the industry’s social licence to operate. The Global Witness, BHRRC, and ICMM have documented cases where security personnel have been the point of contact for community disputes that should have been managed through the community relations team – with outcomes ranging from physical confrontation to fatalities. The best-practice model separates the security function (access control, physical asset protection, emergency response) from the community relations function (grievance mechanism, benefit sharing, employment discussions) structurally. Security personnel should not engage in community dispute resolution. Where public security forces (police or military) are providing support to a mining operation – common in P1 markets including the Philippines, DRC, and Peru – the company’s security management should have documented protocols governing interaction between company personnel and public security forces, consistent with the Voluntary Principles.

The Marikana massacre of 16 August 2012 at the Lonmin platinum mine in South Africa’s North West Province resulted in the deaths of 34 striking miners shot by South African Police Service (SAPS) officers in circumstances that the Farlam Commission of Inquiry attributed to a failure of policing judgment and an institutional context in which the company, union dynamics (AMCU vs NUM), and state security apparatus converged in a way that produced a catastrophic outcome. The Marikana event remains relevant to mining security because: it demonstrated that the involvement of public security forces at a labour dispute does not remove company liability from the analysis; it triggered a fundamental reassessment of the VP framework as applied to public security force interactions; it established that social licence failure and labour relations failure are security incidents, not only HR or community affairs issues; and it generated ongoing litigation and reputational consequences for Lonmin (and subsequently Sirius Minerals/Anglo American Platinum) years after the event. Any security plan for a South African or comparable mining environment that does not account for the Marikana lessons is incomplete.

Get in Touch

Request a Consultation

Describe your security requirements below. All enquiries are confidential and handled by licensed consultants.