Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd & Ors, Re [2001] QLRT 87

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QLRT 87 PARTIES: In the Matter of Application for Mining Lease No 70237 by Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd & Others. FILE NO: AML00028/01 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 27 November 2001 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 Application for Mining Lease No. 70237, applied for by the Applicants for the mining of coal and associated purposes (road/access/right of way, stockpile ore/overburden, environmental dam) be granted over the whole of the application area (487.1ha), for the term of 21 years. (at [18]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – APPLICATION FOR – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 238, 245, 252(1), 252(9), 269(4), 270, 392, 422 Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, ss. 39, 40 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), s. 24KA, Pt. 2, Div. 3 Subdiv. P Re News Corp Ltd (1993) 11 ACLC 717, followed Re Asset Management Limited (1995) 59 FCR 254, followed -- 1 of 7 -- Re BHP Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QLRT 13, applied COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: McCullough Robertson, for the Applicants [1] This is an application by Coppabella Coal Pty Ltd & Ors1 (the Applicants) under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 487.1ha area of land 12 km north east of Coppabella, for the mining of coal and associated purposes (road/access/right of way, stockpile ore/overburden, environmental dam). This proposed lease would expand the existing Coppabella Coal Mine. The application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Emerald District on 30 June 2000. No objections were lodged by the last day for objections (18 August 2000). Constitution of Tribunal [2] In their Additional Information and Statutory Declaration form (AISD form), the Applicants requested that this application be heard by the Tribunal as constituted by a single Presiding Member. 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 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 may dispense with a hearing of an application for the grant of a mining lease if satisfied of the 4 specified preconditions. Because (for reasons which 1 The others are QCR No. 2 Pty Ltd, CPB Coal Pty Ltd, CITIC Australia Coppabella Pty Ltd, Mapella Pty Ltd, Winview Pty Ltd, KC Resources Pty Ltd and NS Coal Pty Ltd. The Application was originally made by Macarthur Resources Pty Ltd, Macarthur Mining Pty Ltd and the 7 other Applicants, but was subsequently assigned, in accordance with the MRA, to the present Applicants. -- 2 of 7 -- will appear) I am satisfied that (a) the provisions of Part 7 of the Act have been complied with, (b) no objection to the grant of the mining lease was duly lodged, (c) the owners of the relevant reserve land have consented,2 and (d) no restricted land is involved, I regard this an appropriate case to dispense with a hearing. I order accordingly. 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 by the Mining Registrar to this Tribunal, and also upon the additional information and statutory declaration of Denis Lesley Wood, a director of Australian Premium Coal Pty Ltd, the management company for the Applicants, and the affidavit of Michelle Joy Elizabeth Thomsen, a solicitor employed by the Applicants’ solicitors. 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 recommendations. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [5] On 30 June 2000, 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. The Applicants have lodged with the Mining Registrar the s. 252(9) declaration of posting and advertising.3 The application area includes certain “non-exclusive land” under s. 422 of the MRA. An agreement under part 2 division 3 subdivision P (Right to Negotiate) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) has been made between the mining lease applicants, the relevant native title claim group and the State of Queensland in relation to the 2 Contrary to s. 238(1)(b), the subject consents were not lodged with the Mining Registrar before the last objection day ended on 18 August 2000. They were in fact lodged on 24 July 2001, 30 July 2001 and 6 August 2001 respectively. I am satisfied that the Applicants’ failure to strictly comply with s. 238(1) was an oversight and that no prejudice has occurred as a result of the late lodgment. Although matters of degree are doubtless involved (see Re News Corp Ltd (1993) 11 ACLC 717, 718; Re Asset Management Ltd (1995) 59 FCR 254), I am satisfied that despite the delay in lodgment, the Applicants have substantially complied (in terms of s. 392 of the Act) with their obligations under s. 238. -- 3 of 7 -- terms and conditions upon which the subject mining lease application can be granted. The area also includes certain reserve land, namely road reserves, a camping and water reserve and a railway reserve. Consents from the owners of those reserves have been lodged. There is no 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? [6] The subject land has been extensively prospected and numerous coal exploration holes have been drilled. Slim cores have been recovered to assess coal quality. The Environmental Management Overview Strategy (EMOS) indicates that the coal reserves within the land, including those located beneath the existing transport infrastructure corridor (TIC), comprise 28.2 million tonnes of raw coal and 24.5 millions tonnes of product coal. The coal resources have been proven to measured status. The same range of PCI and thermal coals as the current Coppabella mine will be produced. I am satisfied that the area 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 area subject to this application will be mined by a conventional open cut strip mine as provided in the EMOS. The coal resources indicate a mine life for the total deposit of approximately 25 years depending on the rate of production. 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? [8] The mining lease application gives as the reasons for the area and shape applied for: “in order to economically fully recover the coal reserves and meet environmental obligations”. There is no evidence to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. 3 Although that declaration was lodged 3 days late, I am satisfied that in the circumstances and that as no prejudice is demonstrated, the lodgment obligation was substantially complied with under s. 392: see Re BHP Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QLRT 13, fn 3. -- 4 of 7 -- Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [9] The term of 21 years is sought to fully exploit the coal reserves and to complete the mine rehabilitation. 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? [10] The Applicants are experienced mining operators with large mining activities and access to appropriate to 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? [11] The Applicants have never received a show cause notice or been convicted or had a tenure cancelled under the Act. There was no material before me to suggest any unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicants. 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? [12] There are no such underlying tenures which are not held by the Applicants. No relevant disadvantage should therefore result. 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 the subject of this application is currently used for the grazing of cattle on native pasture grasses. It is only suitable for that purpose. Within the land, there is a significant coal resource. The proposed mining operation seeks to optimise the economic recovery of this resource consistent with safe, environmentally sound management practices. The mining activities will be carried out in accordance with the EMOS. Any adverse impact on the land will also be monitored and managed in accordance with the commitments given by the Applicants in the EMOS. After mining, the land will be rehabilitated and is presently proposed to be used as a flora and fauna conservation area and Aboriginal cultural training area. I am satisfied that this criterion has been established. -- 5 of 7 -- Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impact caused by the proposed mining operations, and if so, the extent thereof? [14] The subject land is to be used for open cut coal mining operations and associated purposes. The EMOS covers the management of all environmental impacts expected to occur in relation to the mining operations. The Applicants will comply with all statutory requirements and EMOS commitments. I am not satisfied that there will be such an additional environmental impact caused by the proposed mining operations as to warrant an unfavourable recommendation in the present application. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [15] The area of land subject to this application comprises a pastoral holding, a grazing homestead perpetual lease and various reserves. The proposed mining operations will necessitate the relocation of a 6km section of an existing transport infrastructure corridor (TIC) which contains the Peak Downs highway, the central Queensland railway, an overhead transmission line, the Braeside water supply pipeline and a Testra fibre optic cable. The Department of State Development has decided that the relocation of the TIC can proceed under s. 24KA of the Native Title Act. A compensation agreement has been entered into with the owners of the nearest residential property. It is presently located approximately 600m from the existing Coppabella coal mine and infrastructure and is to be relocated to a site approximately 1.1km away. The EMOS details the way in which all adverse impacts which may be caused by the proposed mining operations will be managed. Heritage, cultural and social issues are addressed in the EMOS. It is significant that there was no objection to the application. There is no evidence before me which indicates that the public right and interest would otherwise be prejudiced. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease? [16] There was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this application should be refused. -- 6 of 7 -- 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 and material considered in relation to criteria (i), (j), (k) and (l), I consider that the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Having regard to the likely increased employment opportunities and royalty payments, it may be expected that the proposed mining operations will be of economic benefit to Queensland. Recommendation [18] 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 Application for Mining Lease No. 70237, applied for by the Applicants for the mining of coal and associated purposes (road/access/right of way, stockpile ore/overburden, environmental dam), be granted over the whole of the application area (487.1ha), for the term of 21 years. -- 7 of 7 --