BMA Operations Limited, Re [2004] QLRT 35

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re BMA Operations Limited [2004] QLRT 35 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 70316 by BMA Operations Limited FILE NO/S: AML00052/2004 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 20 April 2004 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, Mines and Energy that Mining Lease No. 70316 be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose of mining for gold and silver ore for a term of 15 years. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989 ss 245, 269(4), 270(1), 650(1) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] WINDRIDGE MR: This is an application lodged by BMA Gold Limited under assignment to BMA Operations Limited under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over 731.10ha of land of which 237.70ha is surface area. The application area is located on part of Lot 656 on Survey Plan 138788, County of Bell, Parish of Talki and Twin Hills, and Lot 3235 on CP PH52, County of Bell, Parish of Twin Hills, located approximately 120 kilometres north of Clermont along the Gregory Development Road. Part of the Gregory Development Road passes across the lease application area. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Emerald on 10 July 2003. No objection was lodged -- 1 of 4 -- before the closing date for objections which was 25 February 2004. The applicants and the native title claimants have registered an Indigenous Land Use Agreement to govern their relationships in relation to the lease areas. 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 Act have been complied with in respect of the application. There were no objections to this application. It appears there is no restricted land in the area the subject of the application, although there is an unmade Road Reserve over part of the application area. 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 by the applicant on 2 March 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] A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 10 July 2003 which can only be done if the Registrar is 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. I note that on the 10 July 2003, an assignment to BMA Operations Limited was lodged with the Registrar. This assignment was approved on 24 February 2004. 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 gold and silver ore. The applicant has explored the area under the authority of EPM 8639. The area is generally known for the production of high grades of gold. I am satisfied that there is adequate evidence of mineralisation. Two underground mines are proposed. 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 the area using underground mining methods, and will process the ore on the lease. The applicant company, through its major shareholders, -- 2 of 4 -- has been involved in the mining industry for a number of years. 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 have been determined by the area of potential mineralisation. The applicant has sought a mining lease over surface area of 237.70ha. The balance of the area will be taken up by underground operations. 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 15 years. There is no evidence to suggest that a 15 year term is inappropriate. The term is required for mining and rehabilitation purposes, and 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. 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 applicant held a current Exploration Permit for Minerals at the time of marking out. 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 use is cattle grazing under favourable conditions. The landholders did not lodge any objection to the application. I note compensation agreements have been lodged with the Registrar. 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 13 January 2004. 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 -- 3 of 4 -- 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 is some public infrastructure namely a highway on the area applied for, but this will not be affected by operations. Part of the Gregory Development Road runs adjacent to the surface area boundaries of the lease. 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. 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, Mines and Energy that the mining lease be granted to BMA Operations Limited over the whole of the application area for the purpose and term sought, subject to the Registrar being satisfied that BMA Operations Limited is a fully owned subsidiary of BMA Gold Limited. -- 4 of 4 --