Fazzari, Re [2001] QLRT 63

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Frank Fazzari [2001] QLRT 63 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 60324 - Application by Frank Fazzari for Mining Lease FILE NO: LXX40037/2001 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 21 August 2001 DELIVERED AT: Emerald HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that the mining lease be granted over the entire area sought for the purpose and the term sought by the Applicant. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss. 270, 245, 252(1), 252A, 252C(1)(b), 269(4) COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: N/A [1] KINGHAM DP: This is an application by Frank Fazzari under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 43.1882 ha. area of land 140 kilometres south-east of Quilpie for the purpose of mining opal and for related infrastructure purposes. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Quilpie mining district on 18 May 2001. No objections to the Application were lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 24 July 2001. The Applicant has requested the application be dealt with without an oral hearing, pursuant to s. 270 of the Act and has provided the information required by Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001. -- 1 of 5 -- The Mining Registrar has also provided the Tribunal with a report to which are attached relevant documents. 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. I note that there were no objections to this application. It appears there is neither reserve nor restricted land in the area applied for. 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 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 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 Frank Fazzari sworn on 18 July 2001. 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] On 12 June 2001, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Public Notice.1 The Applicant lodged a Declaration of Compliance with the requirements for notifying the Application, within the time required by the Mining Registrar2. The Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application on 25 May 2001, 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.3 I note that the underlying 1 Section 252A. 2 Section 252C(1)(b) – the Mining Registrar specified a longer period for lodgement of the declaration 3 Section 252(1). -- 2 of 5 -- tenure is freehold and that the native title provisions of the Act do not apply to this 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 and for the related infrastructure of living quarters, camp, stockpile ore, overburden, treatment site, mill site, workshop, machinery and store. That infrastructure is related to the mining activity and is an appropriate purpose for the lease. As for mineralisation, the Applicant has prospected the area personally and observed various opal traces. It appears that this area has previously been mined as there are seven shaft dumps on site. The Applicant located common opal on the dumps of 3 shafts and small traces of opal on the dump of a 4th shaft. He has also investigated 3 shafts on another mining lease (ML 60160) which is surrounded by the area applied for. He found small pieces of precious opal on 2 of the 3 dumps and common opal, formed on ironstone floaters, on the bed of the watercourse that runs through the lease. The area is on the same tablelands 2 kilometres from Duck Creek, a well established opal field, where the applicant has previously mined. I am satisfied that there is evidence of mineralisation of 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? [6] The mine will be operated for 8 – 9 months a year, depending on seasonal conditions. The Applicant proposes to commence mining operations with one person employed to assist him. He intends to take on a second employee within a couple of months and anticipates employing up to 4 people in the longer term. Mining will be open cut using excavators. The Applicant is an opal cutter and has extensive experience in mining and marketing opals. There is no evidence before me to indicate that there will not be a satisfactory 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? [7] The boundaries of the lease exclude another mining lease surrounded by the area applied for. There is a small area in the north-east corner of the lease set aside for -- 3 of 5 -- infrastructure. The remainder of the lease will be tested for opal bearing faults. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) - Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The Applicant has sought a term of 10 years. The Applicant stated that this term is required to allow full exploitation of the resource and rehabilitation of the area. There is no evidence to suggest that the term is inappropriate for the proposed operation. 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 mined opals in Queensland for 10 years employing up to 6 people, for 5 of those years by open cut method. He has also mined opals in Coober Pedy, South Australia for 9 years using a variety of equipment and techniques, including tunnelling machines, blowers and explosives. The Applicant has cut and marketed his opals overseas and states he has sufficient resources to finance his small scale operation. I am satisfied the Applicant has the necessary technical capabilities to carry on the proposed operations and there is no evidence to suggest that he has insufficient financial resources. Section 269(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [10] The Applicant has had some 19 - 20 years mining experience. He has sworn that no enforcement action has been taken against him during that time. The Mining Registrar is unaware of any such action against the Applicant. There is no evidence before me to suggest unsatisfactory past performance by the Applicant. Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permit or mineral development licences or existing Applicant for explo0ration permits or mineral development licences? [11] The only relevant exploration tenure is the Prospecting Permit held by the Applicant. 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 land is currently utilised by the owners for light grazing. The owners have not objected to the application. The draft environmental authority issued in relation to this application, requires compliance with standard environmental conditions, including a specific condition requiring rehabilitation to be undertaken in a specified manner to -- 4 of 5 -- facilitate natural revegetation4. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed 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. [13] A draft environmental authority was issued on 4 June 2001, which requires the Applicant to carry out activities in accordance with the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. I note that there was no objection to the terms of the draft environmental authority. 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 relevant public infrastructure or residence on the lease. As the material will be processed on site, public roads should not be affected by the operations. There is no evidence to indicate the public right and interest would be prejudiced by the grant of the mining lease. It is significant that there was no objection to the Application. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [15] 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? [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 entire area sought for the purpose and the term sought by the Applicant. 4 Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects - Condition 48 -- 5 of 5 --