Eliza Creek Mines Pty Ltd & Anor, Re [2004] QLRT 152

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Eliza Creek Mines Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QLRT 152 PARTIES: Re Application for Mining Lease No. 90157 by Eliza Creek Mines Pty Ltd and Another FILE NO: AML132/04 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 10 December 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBERS: Koppenol P ORDER/S: 1. Tribunal constituted by President. (at [2]) 2. Hearing dispensed with. (at [3]) 3. Recommendation made that the Mining Lease be granted for the purpose, area and term applied for. (at [20]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE APPLICATION – RECOMMENDATION Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, ss 39, 40 Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 245, 252(1), 269(4), 270, Pt 17 Environmental Protection Act 1994 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A AGENT/S: N/A Application [1] This is an application by Eliza Creek Mines Pty Ltd and Another (the applicants)1 under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 181.7ha area of land situated 40km north-east of Cloncurry for the open cut mining 1 The applicants are Eliza Creek Mines Pty Ltd (98%) and Exco Resources NL (2%). -- 1 of 4 -- of gold, copper ore, silver ore, cobalt ore, fluorite/fluorspar, molybdenum ore, iron- magnetite and rare earths, and related purposes (infrastructure). The application was lodged with the mining registrar for the Mt Isa mining district on 31 March 2003. No objections to the application were lodged during the public objection period which ended on 15 June 2004. Constitution of Tribunal [2] The applicants requested that a single presiding member of the Tribunal hear the matter. I am agreeable to that course and in accordance with ss 39 and 44 of the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, I direct that the Tribunal be constituted for this matter by me. Dispensing with hearing [3] The applicants requested in their Additional Information and Statutory Declaration form (AISD form) that this application be heard by the Tribunal on the papers and without an oral hearing. Under s 270 of the Act, the Tribunal has a discretion to dispense with the hearing if 4 specified criteria have been satisfied. Because (for reasons which will appear) I am satisfied that (a) the provisions of part 7 (Mining Leases) of the Act have been complied with, (b) there were no objections to the grant of the application, (c) the owner of the affected restricted land (a dam) has consented, and (d) no reserve land is involved, I regard this an appropriate case to dispense with a hearing. I order accordingly. Tribunal’s statutory function [4] In cases such as this, the Tribunal’s statutory function under s. 269 of the Act is to take into account and consider a number of prescribed factors and then to make a recommendation to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines about whether the application should be granted or rejected. In doing so, I have considered all of the material that was provided to the Tribunal by the applicants and the mining registrar. However these reasons only refer to such of the evidence as is relevant or necessary for my decision. Section 269(4) recommendation [5] Section 269(4) provides as follows: “269 Tribunal’s recommendation on hearing … (4) The tribunal, when making a recommendation to the Minister that an application for a mining lease be granted in whole or in part, shall take into account and consider whether— (a) the provisions of this Act have been complied with; and (b) the area of land applied for is mineralised or the other purposes for which the lease is sought are appropriate; and (c) if the land applied for is mineralised there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for; and (d) the land and the surface area of the land in respect of which the mining lease is sought is of an appropriate size and shape; and (e) the term sought is appropriate; and -- 2 of 4 -- (f) the applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease; and (g) the past performance of the applicant has been satisfactory; and (h) any disadvantage may result to the rights of— (i) holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences; or (ii) existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences; and (i) the operations to be carried on under the authority of the proposed mining lease will conform with sound land use management; and (j) there will be any adverse environmental impact caused by those operations and, if so, the extent thereof; and (k) the public right and interest will be prejudiced; and (l) any good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease; and (m) taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of that land, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. … .” [6] I will deal in turn with the factors set out in section 269(4). [7] Section 269(4)(a): On 4 April 2003, the mining registrar issued a certificate of application. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the mining registrar can only do so if satisfied that the applicants are eligible to apply for the mining lease and have complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the application. The applicants have lodged with the mining registrar statutory declarations certifying compliance with the statutory requirements for notifying the application. I note that the land the subject of this application comprises land (pastoral holding) where native title may exist. A negotiated agreement under Part 17 (Native Title Provisions for Mining Leases) of the Act has been reached for the proposed mining lease. I am satisfied that the provisions of the Act have been complied with. [8] Section 269(4)(b): The applicants’ AISD form said that the applicants knew that the proposed mining lease area was mineralised because of the positive results from exploration drilling. I am satisfied that the area is mineralised and that the other purposes for which the lease is sought are appropriate. [9] Section 269(4)(c): Mining will occur by the open cut/drill and blast methods and the necessary infrastructure (waste and storage pads, ore stockpile, dam, access road, offices etc) constructed. Ore will be trucked to an off-site processing facility. I am satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. [10] Section 269(4)(d): The applicants said that the area and shape applied for was to allow for the proposed mining as well as near-mine exploration potential. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. [11] Section 269(4)(e): A term of 15 years is sought. That term will provide sufficient time to allow for different mining rate options and potential extension of the project depending upon further discoveries. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate. [12] Section 269(4)(f): This is the first mining lease applied for by the applicants. Eliza Creek Mines Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Exco Resources NL (the -- 3 of 4 -- second applicant). Exco has interest in various mining projects in various Australian states.2 Its accountants have certified that the company has sufficient cash available to meet the expenditure requirements of this mining lease. I am satisfied that the applicants have the requisite financial and technical capabilities. [13] Section 269(4)(g): The applicants have never had a mining show cause notice or any mining tenure cancelled, penalty or conviction under the Act. [14] Section 269(4)(h): There are no relevant underlying tenures which are not held by the applicants. [15] Section 269(4)(i): The current land use is for cattle grazing. It is apparently otherwise capable of being used for mining purposes only. The mining activities will be carried out in accordance with the draft environmental authority issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. After mining, the land will be appropriately rehabilitated. I am satisfied that the proposed mining operations conform with sound land use management. [16] Section 269(4)(j): The mining activities will be carried out in accordance with the draft environmental authority (mining activities) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The applicants must comply with the various environmental conditions set out in that document. There were no objections to the issue of that authority. I am not satisfied that there will be such an environmental impact caused by the proposed mining operations as to warrant an unfavourable recommendation in the present application. [17] Section 269(4)(k): There was no evidence before me that indicated that the public right and interest would be prejudiced. [18] Section 269(4)(l): There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this application should be refused. [19] Section 269(4)(m): On the basis of the evidence and other material referred to above, I consider that the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [20] Taking into account all of the evidence and other material before me and in particular that referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that the Mining Lease be granted for the purpose, area and term applied for. 2 See www.excoresources.com.au. -- 4 of 4 --