Coppabella Coal, QCR No 2, KC Resources, Mapella, NS Coal, Winview, CPB Coal, CITIC Australia Coppabella & Nebo Shire Council, Re [2002] QLRT 68

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re: Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd, QCR No. 2 Pty Ltd, KC Resources Pty Ltd, Mapella Pty Ltd, NS Coal Pty Ltd, Winview Pty Ltd, CPB Coal Pty Ltd & CITIC Australia Coppabella Pty Ltd & Nebo Shire Council [2002] QLRT 68 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 70291 - Application by Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd, QCR No. 2 Pty Ltd, KC Resources Pty Ltd, Mapella Pty Ltd, NS Coal Pty Ltd, Winview Pty Ltd, CPB Coal Pty Ltd & CITIC Australia Coppabella Pty Ltd for Mining Lease; Objection to the grant of the mining lease by Nebo Shire Council. FILE NO/S: AML00055/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease; Objection to the grant of the mining lease. DELIVERED ON: 21 October 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [3]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that the mining lease is granted over the entire area sought for the purpose and the term sought by the Applicants. (at [22]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – OBJECTION WITHDRAWN - RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 238, 245, 252, 269(4), 270. Re New Oakleigh Coal Pty Ltd [2000] QLRT 4 at [8] COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A -- 1 of 6 -- AGENT/S: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd, QCR No. 2 Pty Ltd, KC Resources Pty Ltd, Mapella Pty Ltd, NS Coal Pty Ltd, Winview Pty Ltd, CPB Coal Pty Ltd & CITIC Australia Coppabella Pty Ltd for Mining Lease (the Applicants) under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 366.7ha area of land approximately 13k south of Coppabella in the shire of Nebo for the purpose of mining coal (the Moorvale B lease). It is one of 2 applications in relation to a project known as the Moorvale Coal Project. The Application for the Moorvale B lease was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Emerald mining district on 22 February 2002. The Nebo Shire Council lodged an objection to the Application during the public objection period, which ended on 12 September 2002. [2] The Applicants have requested the Application be considered without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and has provided the information required by Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. The Mining Registrar has also provided the Tribunal with a report and relevant documents lodged by the Applicants. Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270: [3] 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. Whilst there was an objection, it has now been withdrawn and there are no extant objections.1 The owner of the restricted land within the surface area applied for consented within the time required.2 There is no reserve land within the lease area. 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 Applicants 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: [4] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of Denis Leslie Wood, the Director of Australian Premium Coals Pty Ltd (APC), the management company for the Applicants, sworn on 19 September 2002. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the Applicants 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. 1 Re New Oakleigh Coal Pty Ltd [2000] QLRT 4 at [8]. 2 s. 238(2)(a). -- 2 of 6 -- Section 269(4)(a) - Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [5] On 22 February 2002, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application, which he can only do if satisfied that the Applicants are eligible to apply for the mining lease and have complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the Application.3 The Applicants lodged a Declaration of Compliance with notification requirements within the time required.4 The underlying tenure is freehold. There is no evidence to indicate 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? [6] The Application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining coal. The Applicants have undertaken an exploration program, which has proven up a substantial coal resource and which has culminated in applications for 3 mining leases5 to comprise the Moorvale Coal project. The total coal resource for the project is 42.1Mt, of which 32.7Mt is measured, 7.3Mt is indicated and 2.1 is inferred. It appears that some 10.9Mt of the measured coal resource is located on Moorvale B lease. Underground resources downdip from the proposed opencut mine have not yet been identified in detail. I am satisfied that the Moorvale B lease is 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? [7] The Moorvale Coal project is expected to have a 14-year production life at the production rate of 2Mt per annum. Whilst there may be some delay in the application for the third lease, Moorvale C, the Applicants intend to proceed with the Moorvale Coal project regardless of the position with the third lease. The coal resource on Moorvale C is indicated or inferred, but not yet a measured resource. [8] The Applicants, are involved in the nearby Coppabella coal mine, which commenced operations in June 1998 and has a current production rate of 4Mt per annum. APC, the proposed manager of the Moorvale Coal Project, is also the manager of the Coppabella coal mine. I am satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within 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? [9] The western and southern boundaries of the lease abut the eastern boundary of Moorvale A. The eastern boundary abuts the western boundary of the proposed Moorvale C lease. There is 1 mine pit proposed for this lease, although it is possible that pits primarily located on Moorvale A and, if it proceeds, Moorvale C, will also intrude into the western and eastern boundaries of this lease. Infrastructure for the project will be located on Moorvale A. The surface area does include restricted land. The owners of the land have consented to the Application. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. 3 s. 252(1). 4 s. 252C. 5 The third mining lease, ML 70292 (Moorvale C), has been withdrawn to allow native title issues to be properly addressed. -- 3 of 6 -- Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [10] The Applicants have sought a term of 21 years. The description of mining activities in the Environmental Overview Strategy (EMOS) lodged with the application for the environmental authority, describes a 17-year program across the entire project, including an 11 month construction period, a mine life of 14 years (based on an average annual extraction of 2.0Mt per annum), and a 2-year period to finalise rehabilitation. I have considered the term of the lease in the context of the project as a whole. I consider the extra few years applied for will allow for unforseen contingencies that could delay construction, production or rehabilitation. There have already been delays associated with the proposed application for Moorvale C. I consider the term proposed is appropriate for the operation proposed. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicants the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [11] The Applicant companies have a record of successful coal mining in the vicinity of this project. They have engaged APC, the mine manager for Coppabella coal mine, as the mine manager for the Moorvale Coal Project. APC currently has 5 operations staff based at Coppabella and is supported by 5 technical professionals based in the Brisbane corporate office. For the Coppabella coal mine, APC has engaged a range of technical consultants on an as needs basis. The experience and relationships already developed with those consultants will be available to the Applicants for the Moorvale Coal Project. [12] The funding of the project will consist of a combination of debt and equity. I take into account the financial information provided by all the Applicant companies and am satisfied that they have access to the necessary financial and technical resources to undertake the proposed operation. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicants been satisfactory? [13] Each of the Applicant companies, and their parent entities, are experienced in the coal industry, significantly through the Coppabella coal mine. Macarthur Coal Limited, the parent company of one of the Applicant companies, Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd, had a substantial interest, through Queensland Coal Mine Management, in the Jellinbah East coal project. Macarthur Coal Limited’s major shareholder, Ken Talbot, was the chief executive officer of the project manager Advance Queensland Resources & Mining. Macarthur Coal Limited is also an interest holder with other Applicant companies, or their parent entities, in significant coal exploration tenures. AMCI Australia, the parent company of another Applicant company, Queensland Coal Resources Pty Ltd, also has substantial coal interests in Australia and the USA. Mr Woods stated in his statutory declaration that none of the companies referred to above have been subject to any enforcement action in relation to unsatisfactory performance of any statutory or licence requirements. There is no evidence to suggest that the performance of the Applicants would not be satisfactory. -- 4 of 6 -- Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permit or mineral development licences or existing Applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [14] There are no other applicants for or holders of exploration permits or mineral development licences that would be affected by the grant of the Moorvale B lease. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [15] The land is currently utilised by the owners for cattle grazing. Whilst it is clear that the operation will interfere with the current land use, I take into account that the owners have not objected to the Application. The Applicants have entered into a sale agreement with the Applicants, which contains an acknowledgment that the consideration under the agreement also fulfils any compensation requirements under the Act. [16] The draft environmental authority requires the Applicants to progressively rehabilitate grazing pasture to:  generate a self sustaining vegetation;  in a way that complies with technical landform design criteria;  to stable landforms with similar erosion rates to comparable adjacent grazing land; and  with a defined productivity level. There is no evidence before me to suggest that, if these conditions are complied with, the operations will not conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof. [17] This lease forms a major part of a significant coal project and there will be inevitable environmental impacts both short and long term. The Applicants lodged an EMOS with its application for an environmental authority. The draft environmental authority issued on 25 July 2002 has drawn upon the EMOS and includes numerous, comprehensive and specific conditions. Those conditions impose requirements relating to financial assurances, maintenance of equipment, monitoring and complaint procedures, storage of hazardous substances, air and water quality, noise and vibration, management of waste and landform management and rehabilitation. Whilst there was an objection to the draft environmental authority by the Nebo Shire Council, that has since been withdrawn. [18] I am satisfied that the conditions of the draft environmental authority impose appropriate requirements to minimise environmental impacts, in particular impacts on air and water quality and nuisance issues such as noise and vibration from blasting. The Applicants are also required to commence progressive rehabilitation within 2 years of an area becoming available for rehabilitation. The rehabilitation requirement is to return all areas significantly disturbed (excluding voids) to the post mine land use of grazing pasture, its current land use. As for the voids, the Applicants are required to complete an investigation into residual voids within 7 years of the first railing of coal. Those voids that do remain must comply with technical requirements relating to landform design. -- 5 of 6 -- Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [19] There is no public infrastructure on the lease. The nearest residence is approximately 4km west of the pit boundary. There are other residences approximately 9km to the west and 6kms to the north of the pit boundary. There were no objections by any of those residents. The Nebo Shire Council objection raised concerns regarding the impacts on social and physical infrastructure in the Shire. That objection has now been withdrawn and it is reasonable to assume that those concerns have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the Council. There is no evidence before me that indicates the public right and interest would be prejudiced by the grant of the mining lease. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [20] There is 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? [21] 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: [22] 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 entire area sought for the purpose and the term sought by the Applicants. -- 6 of 6 --