BHP Coal Pty Ltd; Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd; BHP Queensland Coal Limited; Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd; QCT Investment Pty Ltd; QCT Mining Pty Ltd & QCT Management Limited, Re [2002] QLRT 47

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re BHP Coal Pty Ltd; Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd; BHP Queensland Coal Limited; Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd; QCT Investment Pty Ltd; QCT Mining Pty Ltd & QCT Management Limited [2002] QLRT 47 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 70298- Application by BHP Coal Pty Ltd; Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd; BHP Queensland Coal Limited; Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd; QCT Investment Pty Ltd; QCT Mining Pty Ltd & QCT Management Limited for Mining Lease FILE NO: AML00038/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 30 July 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. 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 sought by the Applicants and for a term expiring on 31 December 2010. (at [18] and [9]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 238, 245, 252, 252A, 252C, 269(4), 270 Environmental Protection Act 1994, Chapter 5 Part 12; Chapter 13 Div 4 Re BHP Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QLRT 67 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A -- 1 of 6 -- [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by BHP Coal Pty Ltd; Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd; BHP Queensland Coal Limited; Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd; QCT Investment Pty Ltd; QCT Mining Pty Ltd & QCT Management Limited (the Applicants) under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 47.77ha area of land approximately 10 kilometres north of Dysart for infrastructure purposes (road/ access/ right of way/ mine waste/ spoil dumps/ stock pile ore/ overburden) associated with the Saraji mine. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Emerald mining district on 22 March 2002. No objections to the Application were lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 17 June 2002. The Applicants requested the Application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and have provided the information required by Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. They also filed an Affidavit sworn by John Blanning on 15 July 2002 addressing further issues raised by me. The Mining Registrar provided the Tribunal with a report and relevant documents lodged by the Applicants. 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. The owner of the restricted land within the surface area applied for consented within the time required.1 It appears there is no reserve land on the lease. 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: [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 John Blanning, the Mine Manager of the Saraji mine sworn on 18 June 2002 and his further affidavit referred to 1 s. 238(2). -- 2 of 6 -- above. 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. Section 269(4)(a) - Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [4] On 13 May 2002, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.2 The Applicants 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 22 March 2002, 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.4 The underlying tenure is freehold. 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 infrastructure purposes associated with the Saraji mine. The area applied for would allow the Applicants to stockpile overburden and spoil and to construct a service road. I consider these to be appropriate purposes for a mining lease. [6] The area applied for abutts mining leases on both the eastern and western boundary. On the eastern boundary, lies ML 1782. The boundary between the two leases forms the oxidisation boundary of the coal reserves on ML 1782. Mr Bunning has stated that any coal west of that boundary is located too close to the surface and is oxidised, rendering it worthless. The lease on the western boundary of ML 70294 is an infrastructure only lease (ML 70142). I am satisfied that a mineralised area will not be sterilised by the grant of an infrastructure lease over the area applied for. 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] This lease will form part of the Saraji mine project. Making this area available for infrastructure purposes will facilitate development and utilisation of mineral resources 2 Section 252A. 3 Section 252C(1). 4 Section 252(1). -- 3 of 6 -- on other leases in the project, but not on this lease. It appears that there are no exploitable resources on this lease. 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? [8] The eastern and western boundaries of the lease abut existing mining leases in the project. There is no evidence before me to indicate the area is excessive for the infrastructure involved nor to indicate that the size and shape is otherwise inappropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [9] The Applicants have sought a term of 20 years to ensure that the lease is available to service the Saraji mine for the life of that project. I note that the terms of the both abutting leases (MLs 1782 & 70142) expire on 31 December 2010. Only one lease in the project expires on a different date, ML 1784, which expires on 31 October 2012. No material has been put before me to indicate that the later date is appropriate for this lease. I consider it appropriate that the term of this lease coincide with the terms of MLs 1775; 1782; 2360; 2410 and 70142 so that it expires on 31 December 2010. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicants the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [10] The Applicants are already operating the Saraji mine, which commenced in 1983. The Applicants comprise the joint venture “Central Queensland Coal Associates”(CQCA). As well as the Saraji mine, CQCA owns the Peak Downs, Norwich Park, Goonyella and Blackwater mines which are operated by BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd on its behalf. The Applicants and the mine operator are substantial and well established participants in the coal mining industry in Queensland. I am satisfied they have the technical capacity and financial resources to undertake the proposed operations on this lease. -- 4 of 6 -- Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicants been satisfactory? [11] The Applicants have not been the subject of enforcement action in relation to their mining operations. There is no evidence before me to indicate unsatisfactory past performance that would justify a recommendation against the application made here.5 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? [12] There are no Applicants for or holders of exploration permits or mineral development licences, other than the Applicants, who would be affected by the grant of the 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? [13] 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 owner has not objected to the Application. It appears that negotiations are on foot with the owners regarding a compensation agreement, that includes arrangements to deal with any interference with telephone and water infrastructure. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the operations do not conform with sound land use management. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof. [14] On 2 May 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft environmental authority that includes numerous and detailed special conditions. In my opinion, the most significant of these is that the Applicants must submit an application to amend the environmental authority, which includes a new Environmental Management Overview Strategy (EMOS), by 30 September 2002. This will enable the EPA to review the special conditions which appear to have been derived from a number of other environmental authorities associated with the Saraji mine project issued between 1997 and 1999. This will allow the EPA to set environmental conditions for the Saraji mine as a whole, including this lease, and in the context of the 5 See Re BHP Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QLRT 67 at paras [18] to [22] regarding non-compliance with the requirements of the Act. All but the first 2 of the Applicants in this matter were involved in that matter. Further, in that case I decided that the circumstances relating to that non-compliance were such that the non-compliance was not sufficient ground to recommend against the grant of the applications for additional surface areas there considered. -- 5 of 6 -- new requirements for mines under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.6 The draft environmental authority was publicly advertised and there were no objections to it. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [15] There is telephone and water infrastructure on the lease that services the owners of the land. Negotiations regarding interference with this infrastructure are under way. There were no objections to the application. 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? [16] 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? [17] 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: [18] 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 sought by the Applicants and for a term expiring on 31 December 2010. 6 Chapter 5 Part 12 and Chapter 13 Division 4. -- 6 of 6 --