Cluff Resources Pacific NL, Re [2007] QLRT 26

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Cluff Resources Pacific NL [2007] QLRT 26 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 70358 Cluff Resources Pacific NL FILE NO/S: AML159/06 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 24 January 2007 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge MR ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that the Mining Lease be granted to the applicant for the term and purposes sought. . (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 269(4), 270(1) COUNSEL: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an application by Cluff Resources Pacific NL under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over 1.438ha of land in the Scrub Lead Designated fossicking land near Emerald for the purpose of mining sapphire, zircon, gold and diamond. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Emerald on 19 April 2006. The land applied for is for mining and access as described in the Mining Lease Report and the application. 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). The applicant has requested the matter be dealt with on the papers by a single member. The area is within RA1 which permits the development of gem mining on leases not exceeding 20 hectares. An objection duly lodged has since been withdrawn. I therefore dispense with the hearing. -- 1 of 3 -- 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 by the applicant on 18 August 2006. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicant with the Mining Registrar and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal, and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this application. 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 Mining Registrar on 8 May 2006 which he can only do if satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the statutory requirements of 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 the purpose of mining sapphire, zircon, gold and diamond. There are other leases in the area. The area is generally known for the production of sapphire and zircon, and I am satisfied that the area is generally mineralised. 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 applicant proposes to mine the area using conventional open cut and alluvial methods. The applicant has the necessary infrastructure and equipment to complete this operation. There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. 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 of potential mineralisation. The applicant has sought a mining lease over the whole of the surface area. 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 five years. There is no evidence to suggest that a five year term is inappropriate. 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 has sufficient assets, including the mining equipment required and cash reserves to undertake the proposed operation. I am satisfied the applicant has or has access to the necessary financial and technical resources. -- 2 of 3 -- 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 has not been satisfactory. The applicant has been involved in the industry for a number of years. 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] There are no other holders or applicants for exploration tenures who would be affected by the grant. 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 designated fossicking land. Extraction of the resource is an appropriate land use. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof? [13] The draft environmental authority was issued and is effective from date of grant of the tenure. It requires the applicant to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not be adequately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the Code. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] There is no public infrastructure on the area applied for. 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 good reason why this application should be refused. 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. 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 over the whole of the application area for the purposes and term sought by the applicant. -- 3 of 3 --