Charters Towers Gold Mines NL, Re [2000] QMW 74

IN THE MATTER OF: BEFORE: APPLICANT: REPORT: APPLICATION UNDERPART 7 OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT 1989 FOR A 1\1INING LEASE (NUMBER 10251) IN THE CHARTERS TOWERS DISTRICT MR F W WINDRIDGE MINING WARDEN CHARTERS TOWERS GOLD MINES NL The applicant (hereinafter referred to as the miner or applicant miner) seeks a mining lease under the provisions section 234 of part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the MRA or the Act) for the purpose of mining for COPPER, GOLD, SILVER ORE, LEAD ORE, ZINC ORE and SILICA. The application is not for surface area but relates to non-surface area of 334.2599 hectares. The lease is located under the city of Charters Towers and the landowners are as indicated on a list attached to and forming part of the application. The lease, if granted, is to be Imown as 'BRILLIANT NORTH". Power to grant such a lease is vested in the Governor-in-Council pursuant to section 234 of the Act after recommendation by the Minister. Except for the reservation in section 8(3), all rnmerals are the property of the Crown. The grant of a lease does not create any 10251MLA.CHT [2000] QMW 74 -- 1 of 7 -- ------------ Warden's Court of Queensland 19May2000 estate or interest in the land (s.10), although there is the power to determine title to land (s.363(5)). The landowner has no right of veto. The use of the land for the purposes nominated is a permitted use under s.319 of the MRA. Any mining tenure is not subject to the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act, being exempt from the provisions of the Local Government Planning and Environment Act 1990 by virtue of s.319 (Part 8) of the MRA. The application was lodged at the Mining Registrar's Office at CHARTERS TOWERS on 29 NOVEMBER 1999. A certificate of application was issued on 30 NOVEMBER 1999 (s.252 (1)) setting 28 DECEMBER 1999 the last date for receipt of objections. (s.252 (2)). Three objections were lodged pursuant to section 260(1) of the Act. Those objections have since been withdrawn. The following matters have been taken into account and considered in making my recommendations. (s.269 (4). (Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden (1975) 132 CLR 473 p.481). (a) Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? The material indicates that the applicant is an eligible person as defined in section 5 of the act and is entitled to make the application under s.232 of the act. The application area is not located on or forming part of any reserve as defined in s.5. I find that the application is therefore not in respect of land over which, pursuant to s.23 8(1) of the MRA, a mining lease shall not be granted without the consent of another person or persons. There is no relevant permanent building or relevant feature on the land as defined in s.5 requiring the consent of any person (s.238 (2)). The applicant is seeking non-surface area only. At the time of marking out and lodging the application, the applicant was the holder of EPM 8563 and MDL 116. (s.232 (1)). ~t~ ·-~\-~._ ( ~(- ~/7 I )I L. ' \ / 10251MI.ACHT 2 -- 2 of 7 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 19May2000 A declaration of posting was lodged on 20 MARCH 2000 (s.252 (9)), and service of documents was in accordance with s.399. I am satisfied, on the material, including the uncontested information in the application form and the declaration of posting and advertising that all the provisions of the act (other than the provisions requiring the hearing) have been complied with or substantially complied with. (s.392). I find that I am satisfied that, (a) the provisions of the act have been complied with, (b) there is no remaining valid objection, and (c) the consent of any trustee or other person is not required. I therefore dispense with the hearing and proceed under the provisions of s.270 (1) of the act. (b) Is the land mineralised or is the other purpose for which the lease is sought appropriate? I am satisfied that the resources sought are minerals (s.5). Access to the lease is through other leases currently operating. I accept the applicant's advice and I am satisfied on the information given that the purpose for which the lease is sought is appropriate. The application area is within an area known historically for the production of gold. The applicant is required to satisfy the Court that mineralisation exists. Exploration drilling has indicated a further reserve of 100,000 ozs of gold with further mineralisation down dip and along a strike zone. The economic viability of the project is a matter for the applicant's commercial assessment, but I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of mineralisation to warrant the grant of a lease. (c) Will there be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the resources within the area applied for? 1025HvllACHT -- 3 of 7 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 19 May 2000 From documentation lodged with the application, I am satisfied the applicant has sufficient resources to progress development to an acceptable level The applicant has operated in Charters Towers since 1994 and has infrastructure constructed on other leases. (d) Is the area sought an appropriate size and shape? There is nothing in the information supplied by the applicant to suggest that the surface area of the land over which the mining lease is sought is not an appropriate size and shape. (e) Is the term sought appropriate? The tenn of lease applied for is 20 years. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate and will allow for mining and rehabilitation to be completed. The term will expire with other leases involved in the project. The applicant has the option of renewal under s.286 or surrender at an earlier date under s.309. (1) Has the applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? From the information supplied, I am satisfied the applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities or access to those resources to carry out the nrining operation. Funds are available through normal company operations. The applicant has mined GOLD for a number of years and in my opinion has the experience necessary to complete the nrining operation. [Carr-v- Simnovec (1980) 26 SASR 263 at 268, and Pacminex - v-Aust. Nephrite Jade Mines (1974) 7 SASR 401 at 415]. (g) Has the past performance of the applicant been satisfactory? There is no material before me to suggest that the past performance of the applic~ t~~ ~ been unsatisfuctory. The local Field Officer and Environmental Officer will be av: lj l) ' • I 10251MLA.CHT -- 4 of 7 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 19 May2000 to monitor performance and rehabilitation and report any breach of conditions. The Inspectorate should monitor the methods adopted for mining, ensuring that industry standards are maintained and that all machinery is operated in a safe and competent manner by licensed persons. (h.) Is there any disadvantage to the holder of or applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? The applicant was the holder of the relevant pre-requisite title under s.232 of the MRA at the time of marking out. It does not appear that the bolder of or applicant for any other exploration permit or mineral development licence has been affected. (i) Will the operations to be carried on under the proposed lease conform with sound land use management? The land appears to be used for low intensity grazing under favourable conditions, and it seems the proposed mining operation will cause no significant disturbance to stock or stock watering or management facilities. The applicant is seeking non-surface area and no surface area will be affected. Information has been supplied as to the Applicant's site management proposals. The evidence leaves me with no reason to believe that the proposed mining operations do not conform with sound land use management. 0) Will there be adverse environmental effects caused by the pr_oposed operation, and if so, the extent thereof? An Environmental Management Overview Strategy (EMOS) has been lodged with the Registrar, accepted under delegation, and will become part of Project PJ 10069, subject to any recommendation of this Court and any further requirement of the Minister. .. --~- ; ~-~: s ,,- '. i1. ~;~~\.).\ \' I •• , ) \ \ -~~ ~ • 10251MLA.CHT .... ,:-: ,.. . -'..A ~... ~~:- ~:, _:,l;.~ ~ -.....::--- -- 5 of 7 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 19May2000 (k) Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? No factors prejudicial to the public right and interest have been identified. It appears there are no endangered flora or fauna within the application area. There are no public utilities on or across the application area. There are no sites of historical interest or aboriginal significance within the area. If any such sites are identified, the EMOS can be amended to put forward specific site protection or site avoidance strategies. (l) Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease? The economic viability of this project is a commercial decision of the applicant. When all other aspects of the application and the matters referred to in s.269 are taken into account, I am satisfied that the objects of s.2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) will be attained if a mining lease is granted for the term recorrnnended for the following reasons: ♦ This lease will become part of the current mining operation. ♦ It is unlikely that the land applied for is of any interest to a large scale miner. ♦ The location of the proposed mining operation and the proposed method of mining is unlikely to cause environmental or public interest concerns about safety. ♦ A realistic security deposit will be imposed to guard against financial failure of the miner to ensure rehabilitation is completed. ♦ The applicant appears to have sufficient experience in the industly to accurately assess the potential of the project. ♦ There is a market for the product and the project will provide employment. In my view, no good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the lease application (Carr -v- Simnovec, Pacminex -v- Aust Nephrite Jade Mines supra). l 025 IMLA.CHT -- 6 of 7 -- - -- - --- - -------- - ----- -------------- - Warden's Court of Queensland 19May2000 (m) Is the proposed mining lease operation an appropriate land use, taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? The applicant is seeking underground area only. A resource has been identified and this lease will become part of the overall operations conducted by the applicants .in this area. Compensation agreements are not required. RECOMMENDATION: Upon consideration of aU the matters set forth in s.269 (4) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, I recommend that the mining lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose of mining for COPPER ORE, GOLD, SILVER ORE, LEAD ORE, ZINC ORE and SILICA for a term of TWENTY YEARS (s.270 (2)). day of May 2000. --::::::: F.W. WIN GR. MINING WARDEN· © 2000 10251MLA.CHT 7 -- 7 of 7 --