BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors, Re [2002] QLRT 27

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] QLRT 27 PARTIES: In the matter of Mining Lease No. 1923 – Application by BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors for Additional Surface Area of Land No 8 FILE NO: AML00027/2002 PROCEEDING: Application for additional surface area of land DELIVERED ON: 28 May 2002 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Koppenol P ORDER/S: 1. Tribunal constituted by President. (at [2]) 2. Hearing dispensed with. (at [3]) 3. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that Additional Surface Area No. 8, comprising 43.04ha, applied for by the Applicants for the mining of coal and gaseous hydrocarbons, be included in Mining Lease No. 1923, with the term to be concurrent with ML 1923 to expire on 31 March 2006. (at [18]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 252(1), 252A, 252C, 269(4), 270, 275, Environmental Protection Act 1994, s. 214 Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, ss. 39, 40 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A -- 1 of 6 -- AGENTS: N/A [1] This is an application by BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd and Others (the Applicants)1 under s. 275 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for an additional surface area (No. 8) to be included in their mining lease for an existing coal mine (Crinum Mine, situated within ML 1923). ML 1923 underlies the surface area now applied for. An additional area of 43.04ha was sought for the underground mining of coal and gaseous hydrocarbons. The land concerned is situated in the Emerald district. The application was lodged with the Mining Registrar on 18 February 2002. No objection to the application was lodged during the public objection period which ended on 15 May 2002. Constitution of Tribunal [2] In the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration form (AISD form)2 which was lodged by the Applicants on 20 May 2002, it was requested that a single Presiding Member of the Tribunal hear the matter. I am agreeable to that course and in accordance with ss. 39 and 40 of the Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, I direct that the Tribunal be constituted for this matter by me. Dispensing with hearing [3] The Applicants also requested in their AISD form that this application be heard by the Tribunal on the papers and without an oral hearing. Under s. 270 of the Act, the Tribunal has a discretion to dispense with a hearing, if 4 specified criteria have been satisfied. Because (for reasons which will appear) I am satisfied that (a) the provisions of Part 7 (Mining Leases) of the Act have been complied with, (b) no objection to the grant of this application has been duly lodged, (c) no reserve land is involved and (d) no restricted land is involved, I regard this as an appropriate case to dispense with a hearing. I order accordingly. 1 The Applicants’ percentage interests are as follows: BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd 41.5%, QCT Resources Ltd 14.14%, QCT Mining Pty Ltd 15.78%, QCT Investments Pty Ltd 12.00%, BHP Queensland Coal Ltd 8.5%, QCT Management Ltd 4.59%, Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd 3.49%. 2 See Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. -- 2 of 6 -- Section 269(4) criteria [4] In respect of the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the Act (which are required to be taken account of and considered in a case such as this), I have relied upon the material lodged by the Applicants with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and provided to this Tribunal by the Mining Registrar, and also upon the AISD form and the Mining Registrar’s Report dated 20 May 2002. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all of the relevant evidence and other material, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. Section 269(4)(a) - Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [5] On 18 February 2002, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application. Pursuant to s. 252(1) of the Act, the Mining Registrar can only do so if satisfied that the Applicants are eligible to make this application and have complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to it. [6] Pursuant to s. 252A, a Certificate of Public Notice was issued by the Mining Registrar on 18 February 2002. The Applicants have lodged with the Mining Registrar statutory declarations certifying compliance with the statutory requirements for notifying the application within the times required.3 I note that the land the subject of this application is freehold land and that therefore there are no native title considerations applicable to this application. I also note that compensation issues have yet to be resolved. There is no reserve or restricted land involved. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. Section 269(4)(b) - Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [7] The Applicants desire to carry out progressive underground mining operations in the application area as part of (and a continuation of) the Applicants’ Crinum Mine. Longwall mining is proposed. Exploration activities previously conducted by the Applicants have concluded that there are mineable reserves within the application area. I am satisfied that the area is mineralised. 3 The declarations were lodged under s. 252C of the Act and s. 214 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. -- 3 of 6 -- 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? [8] The subject area will be an extension of the existing coal mine. The longwall method will be used for mining. Four longwall panels are planned to be developed and mined. No surface mining operations will be carried out. The proposed underground mining has the potential to cause the land surface to subside. As a result, the rail infrastructure which is located within the application area is to be relocated to an adjoining area of land. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. 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 application area is sought to progress current underground mining operations at Crinum Mine. The shape of the land applied for is due to the freehold land boundary underlying the application area and abutting the granted surface rights within ML 1923. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [10] The term sought matches that of the existing (approved) mining lease, which expires on 31 March 2006. The additional land is required to progress the current underground mining operations. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [11] The Applicants are experienced mining operators with large mining activities and appropriate human and other resources. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [12] The Applicants have never received a mining show cause notice, conviction or penalty or had a mining tenure cancelled. There was no material before me to suggest any unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicants. -- 4 of 6 -- 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? [13] The evidence indicates that there are no such underlying tenures. No relevant disadvantage will therefore result. Section 269(4)(i) – Will the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? [14] The existing land use is rail infrastructure. Apart from mining-related activities, it is apparently otherwise capable of being used for grazing. The rail infrastructure is to be relocated prior to the commencement of the underground mining activities. Those activities will be carried out in accordance with the draft environmental authority issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. After mining, the land will be appropriately rehabilitated, such that it may later be useable for grazing. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts caused by the proposed mining operations, and if so, the extent thereof? [15] The additional area sought is intended to be used as part of the existing underground coal mining operations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft environmental authority in relation to this application on 11 April 2002. This requires the Applicants to comply with the numerous conditions set out in that document. They include conditions relating to water management, land management (including rehabilitation) and other issues. There was no objection to the draft environmental authority being issued. I am satisfied that the conditions imposed by the EPA will adequately deal with the environmental impacts of the proposed mining activity. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that there will be such an additional environmental impact caused by the continuance of current mining operations into the area subject to this application as to warrant an unfavourable recommendation in the present application. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [16] There was no evidence before me that indicated that the public right and interest would be prejudiced. The existing rail infrastructure is to be relocated. No public infrastructure traverses the application area, access to which for mining purposes is -- 5 of 6 -- to be gained over freehold land. As noted above, the mining activities must be carried out in accordance with the environmental authority issued by the EPA. It is significant that there was no objection to this application. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease? [17] 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? [18] On the basis of the evidence and material considered in relation to criteria (i), (j), (k) and (l), I consider that the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [19] Taking into account all of the evidence and other material before me and, in particular, that referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that additional surface area No. 8, comprising 43.04ha, applied for by the Applicants for the mining of coal and gaseous hydrocarbons, be included in Mining Lease No. 1923, with the term to be concurrent with ML 1923 to expire on 31 March 2006. -- 6 of 6 --