Corling & Anor, Re [2000] QMW 37

IN THE WARDEN'S ~ __;.R, :QF QUEENSLAND HELD AT BRISBAN\ .1 s~~.,~~~·':i ·>·,\'. \ ,!· t •.,, ; / , •,, •"Alt-~1'," ! ;,: ~-;_-;- :,;,.,•..,_'. :/ IN THE MATTER OF: BEFORE: APPLICANT: REPORT: APPLICATION UNDERPART 7 OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT 1989 FOR A MINING LEASE (NUMBER 60311) IN THE QUlLPIE DISTRICT MR F W WINDRIDGE, WARDEN Raymond Douglas CORLING 50% Bruce Edward CORLING 50% The applicant (hereinafter referred to as the miners or applicant miners) seek 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 surf~e area of 16.04 hectares and is situated on Lot 5323 on PLAN PHl 738, County of HUMEBURN, Parish of BOOBARA. Access is through the same property. The lease, if granted, is to be known as "GUNNA,.BE". 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 60311MLA.QUI I [2000] QMW 37 -- 1 of 5 -- - - - - -- -- -- -- ------------------------- Warden's Court of Queensland 28 February 2000 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 which the lease is sought appropriate? I am satisfied that the resources sought are mineral (s.5), and that the proposed infrastructure is necessary to assist in the winning of those minerals. (s.234 (1)). I accept the applicant's advice and I am satisfied on the information given that the pmpose for which the lease is sought is appropriate. The application area is within an area generally recognised as opal bearing. The applicant is required to satisfy the Court that mineralisation exists. The applicants have prospected the area and found ironstone with traces of opal. Part of the area has been disturbed by previous mining. 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 applicants have sufficient resources to progress development to an acceptable level. (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 in respect of which the mining lease is sought is not an appropriate size 6031 lMLA.QUI 3 -- 2 of 5 -- Warden's Court of Queensland 28 February 2000 (h) Is there any disadvantage to the holder of or applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? At least one of the applicants 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 holder of or applicant for any other exploration permit or mineral development licence has been affected. (i) Will the operations to be carried on under tbe 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 general nature of the land is described in the Field Officer's report. There is no arable top soil. Rainfall 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 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 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. The proposed mining activity is in an isolated area away from human 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 6031 lMLA.QUI 5 -- 3 of 5 -- - ---- ---- ---- -------------------- Warden's Court of Queensland 28 February 2000 ♦ A small scale/low impact operation is planned. ♦ 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 dep os it will be imposed to guard against financial failure of the miner to ensure rehabilitation is completed. ♦ The applicant appears to have sufficient expenence m the industry 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- Sirnnovec, Pacminex-v- Aust Nephrite Jade Mines supra). (m) Is the proposed mining lease operation an appropriate land use, taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? The material indicates that the land is currently used for grazing purposes and appears, on the evidence, to be suitable for no other use. fu my view, there appears to be no risk of significant conflict between the current land use, or any prospective land use and the proposed mining operation. The land appears to be Class VII, and post mining will return to Class VII. The proposed mining operation appears, on the evidence, an appropriate land use, taking into account the current and prospective uses of the land. A compensation agreement or determination of the Court will compensate the landowner for any conflict or loss over land use (s.281). I note that a compensation agreement has been filed with the Registrar in accordance with s.279 of the Act. 60311MLA.QUI 7 -- 4 of 5 -- t Warden's Court of Queensland 28 February 2000 GENERAL COMMENTS This recommendation is based on an assessment of the information supplied. Should there be any dispute over damage or loss, or should the miner depart from his plan of operations or EMOS and cause loss or damage or intenuption to the management of the property not envisaged or not foreseen in the terms of the compensation agreement, the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court for a detennination or award of compensation, and if necessary, injunctive relief under the powers contained in s.363 (6). Any infrastructure erected on this lease including temporary accommodation must be removed at the cessation of mining and rehabilitation. 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 of mining for OPAL (s234 (1) for a term of FIVE YEARS (s.270 (2)). Dated at BRISBANE this 28th day of February 2000. F.W. WINDRIDGE / · '::. - •• MINING WARDEN ©2000 6031 IMLA.QUI 8 -- 5 of 5 --