Calcifer Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd, Re [2006] QLRT 29

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Calcifer Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd [2006] QLRT 29 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 30209 by Calcifer Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd FILE NO/S: AML40/06 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 3 April 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the Papers MEMBER/S: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water that Mining Lease No. 30209 be granted over the entire application area, for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. (at [19]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – NATIVE TITLE – NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252, 269, 270, 276 Sinclair v. Mining Warden at Maryborough and Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473, applied Beattie v. McGrady (Unreported) Supreme Court of Queensland, Cullinane J., 20 July 1993, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A [1] SMITH DP: On 22 July 2002 Calcifer Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (hereafter referred to as “the Applicant”) lodged Mining Lease Application No 30209 with the Mining Registrar, Georgetown District. The Application was lodged pursuant to s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) for the purpose of mining for quartz, quartzite, silica, silicon rock crystal, -- 1 of 4 -- tantalum, niobium and feldspar. No objections were duly lodged to the Mining Lease Application. Request to dispense with a hearing – Section 270 [2] The Applicant has requested that the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and has provided the information required by Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. The Mining Registrar has also provided the Tribunal with a report to which are attached relevant documents. For reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the Act have been complied with in respect of the 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 enable me to properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this Application be dispensed with. Native Title Considerations [3] The Application is over non-exclusive land. However, the material reveals that a negotiated agreement has been entered into by the Applicant and the Ewamian People.1 Accordingly, Native Title considerations are no longer relevant to this application. Section 269(4) criteria [4] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act, I have relied on the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of Christopher Morton Sennitt on behalf of the Applicant dated 16 March 2006. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the Applicant with the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water 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 all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. [5] In considering this matter, I have also applied, where relevant Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough and Anor (1975) 132 CLR 473 and Beattie v McGrady (Unreported) Supreme Court of Queensland, Cullinane J., 20 July 1993. I have also considered the provisions of the Act, in particular ss 252, 269 and 276. I now turn to each aspect of s. 269(4). Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [6] On 2 February 2004, the Mining Registrar, Georgetown District, issued a Certificate of Application which was accepted by the Applicant. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only issue a Certificate of Application if 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. In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect to this Application. 1 I have sighted a confidential copy of the Negotiated Agreement. -- 2 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [7] The Applicant’s evidence is that the land applied for is mineralised. There is evidence of a successful, detailed exploration program. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the land applied for is 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? [8] The material before me reveals the Applicant’s proposed mining operations and program, and shows appropriate development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. 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? [9] The material before me appears to indicate a mining lease application of an appropriate size and shape in light of the Plan of Operations. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [10] The term sought for this mining lease is 30 years. In my view a term of 30 years is appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [11] Material provided to the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has the financial capabilities to carry on the mining operations. Although the Applicant has no prior mining experience, the material reveals that the Applicant is relying on experienced contractors to undertake the operations. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion are met. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [12] With respect to this criterion, I also rely on the evidence relating to s. 269(4)(f) above. The Applicant’s evidence is that no enforcement action has been taken against it. The Mining Registrar’s Report is consistent with what the Applicant says. I note that the Applicant has no prior mining experience. 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? [13] The Applicant held PP 31290 and PP 31291, and holds EPM 13602. There is nothing in the material to indicate any disadvantage to any other person. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [14] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed operations do not conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [15] A draft environmental authority was issued on 31 July 2004, which requires the Applicant to carry out activities in accordance with the Standard Environmental Conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. I note that there was no objection to the terms of the draft environmental authority. 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? [16] The material before me indicates that there are no public utilities on the application area. There appears to be no endangered flora or fauna within the application area. The material presented before me also shows that there are no identified sites of historical interest or Aboriginal significance within the application area. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the public right and interest will not be prejudiced should this mining lease be granted. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [17] 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? [18] The materials show that the project is for the extraction of a potentially valuable resource in accordance with the environmental processes. The Application is without objection. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [19] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water that Mining Lease No. 30209 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. -- 4 of 4 --