After nearly three decades advising mining companies and host communities, a recurring mistake at the exploration stage continues to cost companies far more than anticipated. A promising geological target is identified, a temporary access road is cut, and a drill rig is mobilised. The operational focus is on metres in the ground and keeping expenditure lean. Then the invisible cost arrives.
Exploration usually takes place in rural areas with high unemployment and limited opportunities. News of a project spreads quickly. Job seekers, often arriving with nothing more than a bag and a blanket, come hoping for work. Informal shelters soon appear near roads and drill sites.
Often, there is already a settled, cohesive village nearby. Overnight, the balance is disrupted. Petty crime increases, social tensions rise, and frustration grows as people live rough on the margins. From the community’s perspective, these changes happen “because of the mine". From the company’s perspective, the influx is incidental, after all, only a few holes are being drilled. This disconnect damages relationships from the outset.
The influx itself is not the problem; it is inevitable. The real issue arises when it occurs in an unmanaged and unplanned way because essential groundwork has not been completed before the first wheel track is laid. Stakeholders around the exploration area are often not properly mapped, traditional leaders and community structures are not engaged early, there is no shared understanding that an influx of job seekers is likely, and no plan exists to guide settlement, recruitment, or security management.
Many companies assume they cannot afford such engagement at the exploration stage. In practice, early social engagement is one of the lowest-cost, highest-value investments a mining company can make.
When companies meet with host communities before any physical work begins and explain both the planned activities and what typically follows, the dynamic changes. The company stops being a faceless operator and becomes a partner willing to manage impacts collaboratively.
Practical measures can be agreed upfront: designated areas for new arrivals, expectations for conduct, transparent recruitment processes, and clear escalation channels. These steps are modest in cost but prevent tensions from escalating.
Handled properly, early engagement avoids the familiar cycle of community resistance, protests, security incidents, and costly delays - outcomes that can multiply capital expenditure and erode project timelines far beyond the cost of a modest early engagement programme.
In short, a small early investment in understanding and partnering with host communities is far cheaper than treating social disruption as an unavoidable by-product of drilling. For those approving exploration budgets or leading field teams, a simple question is critical: Has a structured conversation taken place with the host community about the inevitable influx before the first access road is cut? If the answer is no, that is the real exploration risk, and it is entirely manageable.
Managing funding pressures
It is well understood that junior explorers operate under tight budgets and face pressure to direct every dollar to drilling. Yet there is a quantifiable cost to overlooking basic early engagement. Planned expenditure on access design, camp siting, local hiring, and communication can prevent years of delays, community conflict, and political interference. These issues ultimately translate into higher capex, opex, and risk premiums for investors.
For example, when a major copper discovery was announced in Lusaka with reference to “billions” flowing to investors outside Africa, social media erupted. That one careless statement created reputational and political challenges requiring significant time and effort to address. Early engagement is not charity, it is prudent risk management in shareholders’ interests.
