Bliss, Re [2003] QLRT 172

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re William Desmond Bliss [2003] QLRT 172 PARTIES: In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 95425 by William Desmond Bliss FILE NO/S: AML00176/2003 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 10 December 2003 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 and Minister for Mines that Mining Lease No. 95425 be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose of mining opal for a term of 10 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 by William Desmond Bliss (hereinafter called the miner) under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for a mining lease over 15.0595ha of land on Lot 278 on OL 363, Parish of Numbalda, County of Vergemont in the Winton Shire for the purpose of mining for opal. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Winton on 25 August 2003. No objection was lodged before the closing date for objections which was 12 November 2003. The underlying tenure is an Occupation Licence. As the application was lodged after 31 March 2003, Part 17 division 4 of the Act (native title provisions for mining leases) does not apply (s. 650(1)). I note the area applied -- 1 of 4 -- for is covered by an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) registered under the Native Title Act 1993(Cth) and that the Applicant has executed a Deed as Grantee Parties to the ILUA. 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 or reserve land in the area the subject of the application. 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 25 November 2003. 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 25 August 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. 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 opal. He has explored the area under the authority of a prospecting permit. There are other leases immediately adjacent to the application area, and the applicant himself holds one of the adjacent leases. The area is generally known for the production of opal, and 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 the area using open cut mining methods. The Applicant has mined opal on an adjoining tenure for 3 years, and has the necessary infrastructure equipment to complete the project. 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. -- 2 of 4 -- 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 and the boundaries of adjoining leases. The Applicant has sought a mining lease over the whole of the surface area. 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 10 years. This term is consistent with the requirements of the ILUA. There is no evidence to suggest that a 10 year term is inappropriate. 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 has sufficient assets, including the mining equipment required, to undertake the proposed operation. The applicant is currently mining on another lease in this area. I am satisfied the Applicant 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 has not been satisfactory. The Applicant states that for all the time he has been opal mining he has not had any “show cause” notices, penalties or convictions. 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 other holders or applicants for exploration tenures who would be affected by the grant. The application area falls within an Exploration Permit (13159) held by Liquid Fire Mining Pty Ltd. The written consent of the holder of the EPM has been obtained and lodged with the Registrar at Winton. 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 low intensity cattle grazing under favourable conditions. The landholders did not lodge any objection to the application. I note a compensation agreement with the landowner has 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 01 September 2003, effective from 01 September 2003. It requires the Applicant to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for -- 3 of 4 -- Mining Lease Projects. The draft authority was 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 no public infrastructure on the area applied for. 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 and the Minister for Mines that the Mining Lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. -- 4 of 4 --