Angela Mining Pty Ltd, Re [2004] QLRT 136

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Angela Mining Pty Ltd & R. and L. Philipson [2004] QLRT 136 PARTIES: Re Application for Mining Lease No. 10291 by Angela Mining Pty Ltd FILE NO/S: AML191/03 ENO16/04 MLC14/04 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease and determination of compensation DELIVERED ON: 9 November 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATES: 18-21 May 2004 (Charters Towers, “Cornelia Station”) PRESIDING MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER/S: 1. Recommendation made that Application for Mining Lease No. 10291 be rejected. (at [7]) 2. Unnecessary to determine compensation. (at [7]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE APPLICATION – ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIONS – MINERALISATION – DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION – RECOMMENDATION Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, ss 41, 44 Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 269(4)(b), 269(5) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A AGENT/S: Mr C. Chadwick, director of Angela Mining Pty Ltd for the Applicant Mrs L. Philipson for the Respondents [1] This is an application for the grant of a mining lease over an 80.39ha area of land situated about 111km south-west of Charters Towers. The application and the related environmental authority application were objected to by the respondent -- 1 of 3 -- landowners on principally environmental grounds. The Tribunal has also been requested to determine compensation for the proposed grant. [2] These matters were heard by a Tribunal panel in May this year. Subsequently, 2 of the 3 panel members became (and remain) ill. I recently decided (after hearing the parties’ submissions) that the remaining panel member (a non-presiding member) and I would finish the proceedings.1 However the final decisions are required to be made by me alone.2 [3] Although I did not see or hear the witnesses or view the subject land, for present purposes I have perused and had regard to the transcripts of the earlier hearings and also all exhibits, submissions by the parties and documentary material provided by the mining registrar.3 Having done so, I have concluded that the mining lease application should be recommended for rejection; and that as a result, the question of compensation for the grant does not arise. My reasons, under section 269(5) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA), are as follows. [4] Section 269 (Tribunal’s recommendation on hearing) of the MRA relevantly provides, in subsection (4), that when making a recommendation to the Minister that a mining lease application be granted, the Tribunal must take into account and consider a number of prescribed factors. One of them is “whether … the area of land applied for is mineralised”.4 The mining lease application here was sought to mine gold and silver ore, and for related purposes. [5] The material relied upon by the applicant to establish mineralisation was as follows: • The applicant’s additional information and statutory declaration (AISD) form, signed by Carl Chadwick (a director of the applicant company) on 12 December 2003, which asserted (Question 3) that the applicant knew that the subject area was mineralised because: “it indicates good potential by previous mining leads from the Angela Mining lease (ML 10019) [a small adjoining area] which point to this new area and from fossickers which have had very good success for many years in it.” • An assertion in the applicant’s business plan (April 2004, pages 4-5) for its gold mining lease private placement share offer that as its existing 2ha gold mining lease (ML 10019) had yielded some gold, the applicant “suspect[ed]” that the adjoining 80.3ha area “is the source of the gold” and “therefore a much more viable site”. There were also references in this context to “projecting”, “anticipate”, “estimates”, “variables and unknown circumstances”. • The witness Max Read (the applicant’s mining contractor), who gave evidence that:5 1 See Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999 (LRT Act), s. 44 (Reconstituting tribunal—panel). 2 LRT Act, s. 41(2). 3 That course is authorised by LRT Act, s. 44(4). 4 Section 269(4)(b). 5 Ts 18.05.04 p 66 L50-53; 19.05.04 pp 6, 8-9. -- 2 of 3 -- ◦ he had prospected on this area 20 years ago and thought there was quite a lot of gold on the property. ◦ he had excavated on the adjoining ML 10019 and there were 2 lead (vein) levels that carried ash slurry and gold—one at about 10 feet and another at 20 feet. • Mr Chadwick made oral submissions at the end of the hearing, after all witnesses (including himself) had given evidence, that:6 ◦ the area is mineralised. ◦ fossickers had taken surface gold off the site. ◦ the area has elevated sandy alluvial soil—which is where alluvial gold is found. ◦ the surrounding areas have a long history of mining leases and workings. ◦ Mr Read believes there are 2 leads in this area. ◦ Mr Read has a very high success rate in divining gold underground. ◦ wherever you find gold you’ll also find a small percentage of silver. [6] I regard the assertions of mineralisation in the AISD form and the business plan as worthy of little weight for present purposes. They are mere assertions without any accompanying supporting evidence. The only evidence of mineralisation came from Mr Read—and all he relevantly said was that he had prospected on this land and thought there was gold there. He did not give any supporting facts or circumstances as to why he thought that and there was no evidence that anyone had ever found gold (or silver) on this land. Mr Read’s evidence about gold veins on the adjoining mining lease does not mean that there is gold on the subject area. The path of gold veins is often difficult to predict. The veins may or may not extend into (or be sourced from) this area. On the evidence adduced, it is impossible to say. That may be why the applicant’s share placement business plan could only say that gold mineralisation was suspected. Finally, Mr Chadwick made various submissions as set out above but submissions are not evidence. [7] In the circumstances, the only available conclusion is that there is no evidence of mineralisation in this matter. I therefore recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that Application for Mining Lease No. 10291 be rejected. As a result, it is not necessary for me to consider the landowners’ objections or to determine compensation. 6 Ts 21.05.04 p 185 L36-p 188 L47, p 189 L9-14, p 190 L39-40. -- 3 of 3 --