Feasibility Study Cost Breakdown for Mining Projects

Understanding the full cost structure of a mining feasibility study is essential for effective planning, stakeholder confidence, and financial sustainability. Whether you're conducting a Scoping Study, Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), or Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS), each stage carries unique budget considerations and risk profiles. In this article, we break down the key cost components across technical, environmental, and financial domains—empowering project managers, engineers, and investors to allocate resources wisely and align budgets with development goals.

Explore our guide to mining feasibility study cost breakdown.

Why feasibility study costs matter in mining development

Feasibility studies serve as the financial and technical cornerstone of any mining project, but for budget planners and project managers, one of the most critical aspects is understanding the cost breakdown of these studies. From initial scoping to bankable feasibility, costs can escalate quickly, often influenced by project scale, location, commodity type, and the level of engineering detail required. As global demand for critical minerals increases, mining companies—especially juniors and mid-tier developers—must strategically allocate study budgets to avoid delays and overspending. Learn more about each stage in our Essential Guide to Conducting a Successful Feasibility Study.

A typical mining feasibility study includes multiple phases—Scoping Study, Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS), Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS), and Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS)—each with its own cost profile. For example, a scoping study may cost USD 100,000 to 300,000, while a full DFS for a complex open-pit gold mine could reach several million dollars. These costs cover geological modelling, mine design, metallurgical testing, permitting studies, infrastructure planning, and economic analysis. Understanding where money goes—and where it can be optimized—is vital for aligning internal expectations and securing investor confidence.

One of the most important distinctions in feasibility budgeting is between direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include engineering consultants, metallurgical labs, and site assessments. Pre-feasibility (PFS) studies generally deliver cost estimates within ±20–30%, while full feasibility (DFS) refines this to ±10–15%^[1]. Indirect costs cover administrative coordination, stakeholder engagement, ESG compliance, and third-party reviews. In recent years, ESG reporting, permitting complexity, and emerging technologies like AI-driven modeling tools have added both opportunities and challenges to cost planning. Budget planners must anticipate these evolving elements to build robust, defensible study budgets that align with both investor expectations and regulatory frameworks.

Cost components from scoping to bankable study

Each stage of the feasibility process involves increasing levels of detail and, consequently, rising costs. A Scoping Study focuses on order-of-magnitude estimates based on limited data, while a PFS incorporates detailed resource modeling, trade-off studies, and capital/operating cost estimates with greater accuracy (±25–30%). A DFS or BFS includes fully engineered designs, schedules, and financial models with estimated accuracy of ±10–15%. These industry-standard accuracy bands—Scoping ±40–50%, PFS ±20–30%, DFS/BFS ±10–15%—are widely recognized benchmarks^[2].

Breakdown by category may include:

Geological studies and drilling: 15–30% of total cost
Mining method and design studies: 10–20%
Processing and metallurgical testwork: 15–25%
Infrastructure and utilities: 10–15%
Environmental, permitting, and ESG: 10–20%
Financial and risk modelling: 5–10%
Contingency (recommended): 10–15%

These proportions vary depending on commodity type, jurisdiction, and whether the project is open-pit or underground. Understanding how costs scale with each study level is crucial. Explore the differences between Scoping vs. Bankable Feasibility Studies to better plan your feasibility timeline and resourcing.

Open-pit vs. underground study cost differences

Feasibility studies for underground mines typically require more extensive geotechnical investigations, ground control modeling, and ventilation planning—all of which increase costs relative to open-pit projects. On the other hand, open-pit studies often involve greater infrastructure demands and haulage optimization analysis. Budget planners should anticipate these technical differences early and allocate funds accordingly.

Emerging technologies that impact feasibility budgets

Mining 4.0 technologies—such as AI-powered resource modeling, autonomous equipment simulation, and drone-based survey mapping—can reduce long-term costs but may increase initial feasibility budgets. These tools enhance decision quality but require skilled consultants and data processing capacity. Integrating these tools into early feasibility stages can build stakeholder confidence but must be budgeted realistically.

How sustainability and ESG requirements add cost

Feasibility studies increasingly require baseline environmental monitoring, water quality sampling, stakeholder mapping, and alignment with frameworks such as the IFC Performance Standards or IRMA. These ESG-related efforts enhance project credibility and social license to operate but add complexity and cost. However, they are also essential for securing project finance, especially from development banks and ESG-conscious investors.

Best practices for budget planning in mining feasibility studies

Start with a modular budget aligned to each study phase
Use historical benchmarks from similar jurisdictions and project types
Include contingencies and stress test the budget against potential delays
Engage a multidisciplinary consulting team to avoid scope creep
Prioritize stakeholder communication about cost drivers and trade-offs

Industry standards suggest Scoping CAPEX accuracy ±25–30%, PFS ±20–25%, and DFS ±10–15%, with recommended contingency buffers of 15–25% at each stage^[3].