Cody, Re [2000] QMW 48

IN THEWARDEN'S HELD AT BRISBAN IN THE MATTER OF: BEFORE: APPLICANT: REPORT: APPLICATION UNDERPART 7 OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT 1989 FOR A MINING LEASE (NUMBER 95294) IN THE WINTON DISTRICT MR F W WINDRIDGE MINlNG WARDEN RONALD CODY The applicant (hereinafter referred to as the miner or applicant miner) seeks a mining lease under the provisions section 234(1) of Part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the MRA or the act) for the purpose of mining for OPAL. The application is for surface area of 1.8969 hectares and is situated on Lot 2 on PLAN RK5 County of ROSEBROOK, Parish of ROSEBROOK, being part of Mayneside Holding. Access is through the same property. The lease if granted is to be known as 'LONE RANGE". 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 minerals are the property of the Crown. The grant of a lease does not create any 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 95294MLA.WIN 1 [2000] QMW 48 -- 1 of 5 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 3 April2000 I am satisfied, on the material, including the uncontested infonnation 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 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 whiclt the lease is sought appropriate? I am satisfied that the resource sought is a mineral (s.234 (I)). 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 ill area generally recognised as opal bearing. The applicant is required to satisfy the Court that mineralisation exists. The area has been prospected and the lease area follows surface trace and old diggings. 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? From documentation lodged with the application, I am satisfied the applicant has sufficient resources to progress development to an acceptable level. The applicant has mined opal in the Winton District for the past 20 years. (d) Is the area sought an appropriate size and shape? 95294MlA.WIN \. \ ~""' ) J-----------------------'I~ ----,-~ ......::,-. ,,__ !~ -- 2 of 5 -- ----- ------- Warden's Court of Queensland 3 April~OOO 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.23:2 of fll.e M_RA at the time of marking out. It does not appear that the holder of or applica1tt for ~y other exploration permit or mineral development licence has been affected. (i) Will the operations to be carried on under the proposed.,~~ ~,o,.,~opn witb -sound Jand '1,Se management? The land appears to be used for low intensity grazing under favo"Qiable qc,mditi,;ms, and it seems the proposed mining operation will cause no significant disturbance to stock or stock watering or management facilities. The general nature of tb.e land is described as "scattered gidyea, spinifex and stunted gums". There is no arable topsoil. ~ainfall is low. Stock fodder is generally of poor quality on the application area with little or no fodder in deficit rainfall years. Information has been supplied as to the al?plicant'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. (j) Will there be adverse environmental effects caused by the proposed operation, and if so, the extent thereof? An Environmental Management Overview Strategy (EMOS) has been lodged with the Registrar and accepted under delegation, subject to any recommendation of this Court and any further requirement of the Minister. -- / •- • • /I •.• ! • ,. I I I l :. _9_5_29_4_ML_A_.WIN ________________________\""°<-...:...,----5 /~ \ -- 3 of 5 -- Warden's Comt ofQueensland 3 April 2000 The proposed mining activity is in an isolated area away from ~uman habitation. The mining will not have any deleterious effect on any river or creek system. Chemicals will not be used in the mining process. Due to low rainfall and the method of mining, erosion will not be a problem provided the usual controls are in place. There are rio otjl~r environmental factors of significance that may be adversely effected by the oper~tton. It is observable from other operations that the disturbed crust retains more ~f t;h.e natural rainfall, thereby encouraging the regeneration of native flora. The applicant will be required to backfill where possible as mi.rung progresses, keeping out-standing rehabilitation to a bare minimum where possible. (k) Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? No factors prejudicial to the public right and interest have been identified. There ~pp_ears to be no endangered flora or fauna withi.i) the appl~ation area. There are _no public utilities on or across the application area. There ~e no sites of histor;ical interest .or aboriginal significance within the area. If any such sites are identified, the EMOS ~an be amended to put forward specific site protection or s:ite avoidance strategies. (I) Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease? The economic viability oftbis project is a cotmner.cial decision of the applicant. When all other aspects of the application and the matters .r~ferred to in s.269 are taken into account, I am satisfied that the objects of section 2(a), (b), .(c), (d), (e) and (g) will be attained if a mining lease is granted for.the term recommended-for the following reasons: ♦ A small scale/low impact operation.is pl~d. ♦ It is unlikely that the land applied for.is.ofany 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-irq.posed to guard against financial fail~e of the miner to ensure rehabilitation is completed. 95294MI.AWIN 6 -- 4 of 5 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 3 April 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Upon consideration of all 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 ofmining for OPAL for a term of20 YEARS (s.270 (2). Dated at BRISB~E__this 3 rd day of April 2000. ~...- ' --- , ·~ .. ~ -, -· ~ '.~ -~ [ :;, ·_:·'\, • 1t> •",r_.- .;~ '-\ F.w.m ; ; /) MININGW~~ ©2000 95294MLA.WIN 8 -- 5 of 5 --