BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd, Re [2004] QLRT 137

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd [2004] QLRT 137 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No 4750 -Application by BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd for additional surface area to be included in the mining lease FILE NO: AML164/2004 PROCEEDING: Application for Additional Surface Area DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the Papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that Additional Surface Area No. 3 is included in Mining Lease 4750. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 252, 252A, 252C, 269, 270, 275 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd under s. 275 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for an additional surface area known as ASA 3 to be included in ML 4750. ASA 3 is a 16.05ha area of land at South Walker Creek south west of Nebo in the Nebo Shire for the purpose of open cut mining for coal and gaseous hydrocarbons and associated purposes including creek diversion. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Emerald mining district on 17 February 2004. No objection to the Application was lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 26 October 2004. The underlying tenure is a grazing homestead perpetual lease. -- 1 of 4 -- [2] The Applicant has requested the Application be considered without an oral hearing. 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. I note that there were no objections to this Application. It appears there is neither reserve nor restricted land in the area applied for. I am, therefore, satisfied that the preconditions to my exercising the discretion to dispense with a 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 enable me to properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this Application be dispensed with. [3] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of Neil Reynoldson, the Mine Manager of the South Walker Creek mine sworn on behalf of the Applicant on 18 October 2004. 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] On 14 September 2004, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.1 The Applicant lodged a Declaration of Compliance with the requirements for notifying the Application, within the time required.2 The Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application on 18 February 2004, which he can only do 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.3 There is no evidence to suggest that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. 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 open cut mining for coal and gaseous hydrocarbons and associated purposes including creek diversion. The issue of mineralisation of this area has already been addressed in the initial application for the lease. The Applicant proposes to divert Walker Creek to enable the extension of Northern Mulgrave Pit, which is now within the current surface area No 2 of the lease. The Applicant also proposes to extend that pit into the ASA 3. Drainage works to manage surface and mine water will be constructed on ASA 3 and electricity, access roads and control works will be extended into ASA 3. These purposes are associated with the mining activities and are appropriate purposes for the grant of the surface area. 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252C. 3 Section 252(1). -- 2 of 4 -- 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 South Walker Creek mine commenced operations in 1995. It is a substantial mine with a production capacity of 4.3 million tonnes per annum. ASA 3 has been applied for so its operations can be advanced. There is no evidence to suggest there would not be an acceptable level of utilisation of the mineral resources in 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? [7] The area to the north and east of ASA 3 is surface area 2 within the lease. The Applicant considers ASA 3 is the minimum area required to divert Walker Creek from with the existing surface area of the lease and for expanding the Northern Mulgrave Pit. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [8] When ASA No. 3 is included in ML 4750, the term of that lease, which is due to expire on 31 July 2020, will also apply to ASA 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 has demonstrated its financial and technical capabilities in the development and operation of both the South Walker Creek and Riverside mines. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [10] There is no evidence to suggest the past performance of the Applicant has not been satisfactory. 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 holders of or applicants for exploration tenures that 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 land is currently used for grazing cattle. The Applicant has entered into a compensation agreement with the holder of the underlying land tenure. That agreement allows cattle grazing to continue to the extent that land is not actively used for mining and pursuant to an existing agistment agreement. I also take into account the matters referred to in paragraph [13] about the environmental impacts of the activities. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [13] A draft environmental authority was issued on 6 September 2004, which includes specific conditions dealing with both mining operations and land rehabilitation. 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 appropriately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the environmental authority. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] There is no public infrastructure on the area applied for. The holder of the underlying land tenure did not object to the application. It is significant that there was no other objection to this Application. There is no evidence before me that indicated the public right and interest would be prejudiced. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant 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, the evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Additional Surface Area No. 3 is included in Mining Lease No. 4750. -- 4 of 4 --