Citigold Corporation Limited, Re [2004] QLRT 123

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Citigold Corporation Limited [2004] QLRT 123 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 10285 – Application by Citigold Corporation Limited for Mining Lease FILE NO: AML121/2004 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 15 October 2004 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that the Mining Lease is granted over the entire application area, for the purposes and for the term sought by the Applicant. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 6A, 245, 252, 252A, 252C, 269(4), 270(1), 273 Re Citigold Corporation and Tait [2004] QLRT 92 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Citigold Corporation Limited under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 109ha area of land approximately 10km south-west of Charters Towers in the Dalrymple Shire for the purpose of mining silver ore, gold, copper ore, lead ore, silica/silicon/rock crystal and zinc ore. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Charters Towers mining district on 17 March 2003. The underlying tenure is a freeholding lease. -- 1 of 4 -- 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 [5], I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the Act have been complied with in respect of the Application. It appears there is no reserve or restricted land in the area applied for. Whilst there was an objection lodged to the application, the Tribunal has already determined that it was lodged by a person who was declared to be a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 and that, in the circumstances of this case, the objection was of no force or effect in law.1 Accordingly, there was no duly lodged objection. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my 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. 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 of Alan Thompson on behalf of the Applicant sworn on 16 August 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 7 July 2004, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.2 The Applicant lodged a Declaration of Compliance with the requirements for notifying the Application, within the time required.3 The Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application on 20 March 2003, 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.4 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 mining of mining silver ore, gold, copper ore, lead ore, silica/silicon/rock crystal and zinc ore. The Applicant is the operator of the Charters Towers Gold Project which comprises some 46 mining leases, 15 exploration permits and 5 mineral development licences. The project is a fully operational underground mining operation for which all necessary surface infrastructure has already been constructed. The Applicant has explored the area applied for by drilling and has also considered the information they 1 Re Citigold Corporation and W.P. Tait [2004] QLRT 92. 2 Section 252A. 3 Section 252C. 4 Section 252(1). -- 2 of 4 -- have about the resource on the abutting mining leases. I am satisfied that the area is generally 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? [6] The Applicant proposes to mine this area as part of the Charters Towers Gold Project. That mine is accessed via a 4m x 4.5m decline tunnel. Sub declines and drive development has extended access to the underground targets and has enabled successful delineation of a substantial gold resource. The ore will be transported to and processed at a plant located some 10km south of Charters Towers. Operations are expected to commence within the first year after the grant of the lease. There is no evidence to suggest that there will not be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. 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 lease were determined by the area of resource potential. No surface area is required as the resource will be accessed via an abutting mining lease.5 There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The Applicant seeks a term of 25 years. The combined project life is estimated to be 20 years with production increasing over the first 5 years of the mine. There is no evidence to suggest that the term sought is not appropriate. 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 already constructed a fully operational mining operation and owns all essential mine infrastructure. The Applicant was formed to develop the project and is a public company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The Applicant employs all necessary exploration, mining, environmental and administrative personnel. Specialist consultants and contractors are sourced for project design, management and implementation. The Applicant, formerly known as Charters Towers Gold Mines Limited, has been operating for more than a decade. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant does not have 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 of prior unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicant. 5 Section 273. -- 3 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing Applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [11] There are no other 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 lease area is currently vacant land not used for any purpose. The surface area will not be disturbed by the underground mining. 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 30 June 2004. It contains specific conditions dealing with air, water, noise and vibration and waste impacts and imposes rehabilitation requirements. The draft authority was publicly advertised and other than the objection referred to above which was not valid, 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 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. There was no evidence before me that indicated the public right and interest would be prejudiced. It is significant that there was no valid objection to this Application. 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, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines that the Mining Lease is granted over the entire application area, for the purpose and for the term sought by the Applicant. -- 4 of 4 --