BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors, Re [2007] QLC 101

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QLC 101 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 70369 by BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors FILE NO/S: AML191/07 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 2 November 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge JR ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the application be granted. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 245, 269(4), 270(1), 650(1) APPEARANCES: Not Applicable – Heard on the Papers [1] WINDRIDGE JR: This is an application lodged by BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Others under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over 119.96ha of land all of which is surface area. The application area is as described in detail in the application and is located about 3.25 kilometres east of Dysart in Central Queensland. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Emerald. No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 8 October 2007. Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270 [2] I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). For reasons that follow at paragraph [4], I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the act have been complied with in respect of the application. There were no objections to this application. The material supplied by the applicant and the Mining Registrar addresses each of the criteria that I must consider in making my recommendation on this application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to -- 1 of 4 -- 2 properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this application be dispensed with. Section 269(4) criteria [3] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn on behalf of the applicant on 10 October 2007. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicant with the Department of Mines and Energy and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. Section 269(4) (a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [4] A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 13 August 2007 which can only be done if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the application under Part 7 of the act. Section 269(4) (b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] The application seeks the grant of a mining lease for purposes associated with the mining of coal. The applicant has investigated the area under the authority of EPM 1034. The area is generally known for the production of coal. Section 269(4(c) – If the land applied for is mineralised, will there be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for? [6] The lease is to be used for purposes associated with the mining of coal. I am satisfied that the purposes stated in the application reflect an acceptable level of development. Section 269(4) (d) – Is the land and the surface area of that land in respect of which the mining lease is sought of an appropriate size and shape? [7] The boundaries of the lease have been determined by the area that is required for the project to be undertaken on this proposed lease. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4) (e) Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The applicant seeks a term of about 4.5 years, such term to expire with M L 1782. The term is required to support the mining operations conducted by the applicants in the area. -- 2 of 4 -- 3 Section 269(4) (f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [9] The applicant company has sufficient assets through company sources to undertake the proposed operation. I am satisfied the applicant company has or has access to the necessary financial and technical resources. Section 269(4) (g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [10] There is no evidence to suggest that the past performance of the applicant company has not been satisfactory. The applicant states there has been no show cause or conviction imposed in respect of mining operations. Section 269(4) (h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing Applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [11] The applicant held a current EPM at the time of marking out. I am satisfied that no other person is disadvantaged. Section 269(4) (i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [12] The current land use is cattle grazing under favourable conditions. Section 269(4) (j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof? [13] The draft environmental authority was issued on 22 August 2007 and takes effect from the date of grant. The draft authority was publicly advertised and no objections were lodged in relation to it. Section 269(4) (k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] There was no evidence before me that indicated public right and interest would be prejudiced. I take into account that there was no objection to this application on public interest grounds. Section 269(4) (l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease? [15] There was no evidence before me that indicated any grounds which would justify a refusal of the application. Section 269(4) (m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [16] On the basis of the evidence considered in relation to criteria (i), (j), (k) and (l), I consider the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 Recommendation [17] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the mining lease be granted to over the whole of the application area for the purposes and term sought. FW WINDRIDGE JUDICIAL REGISTRAR -- 4 of 4 --