BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors, Re [2005] QLRT 80

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [2005] QLRT 80 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Additional Surface Area for Mining Lease 1760 by BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors FILE NO/S: AML80/05 PROCEEDING: Application for additional surface area DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers MEMBER: Windridge MR ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that the additional surface area of 69.50 hectares be included in Mining Lease No. 1760 (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 269(4), 270(1), 275 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an application lodged by BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors under s. 275 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for additional surface area for Mining Lease 1760. The application area is located on Lot 52 on HT329 on SL 37/40090 (as described in the application form), in the Parish of Blackwater, County of Humboldt, south of Blackwater. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Rockhampton on 13 January 2005. 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 -- 1 of 4 -- Act have been complied with in respect of the application. There were no objections to this application. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my discretion to dispense with the hearing have been fulfilled. 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 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 7 June 2005. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicant with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines 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 Registrar on 3 March 2005 which can only be done if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the additional surface area under section 275 of the act and has complied with the requirements of the act with respect to the application. 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 inclusion of the additional surface area for purposes associated with the mining of coal in association with its current operation on Mining Lease 1760. 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 land to be included in the lease is to be used for associated purposes to support mining operations. 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 additional surface area have been determined by the area that is required for the associated purposes. The applicant has sought additional surface area of 69.50ha. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The term is to be concurrent with the term of ML 1760 which will expire on 31 December 2008. There is no evidence to suggest that the term is inappropriate. The -- 2 of 4 -- term is required to support mining and rehabilitation conducted by the applicant. The applicant has the option of surrender if mining and rehabilitation is completed before the term expires. 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 applicants are the current holders of Mining Lease 1760. 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 could be suitable for cattle grazing under favourable conditions. The land is held by BHP Coal and Others. The land is within and adjacent to the railway loop at the Blackwater Thermal Coal Plant and within Lot 52 on Plan HT329. 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 12 April 2005. It requires the applicant to comply with the environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. The draft authority was publicly advertised and no objections were lodged in relation to it. 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 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. -- 3 of 4 -- 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. 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 Natural Resources and Mines that the additional surface area sought by the applicant be included in mining lease 1760 for the purposes sought by the applicant. -- 4 of 4 --