Charters Towers Gold Mines NL, Re [1999] QMW 119

10230MLA.CHT 1 IN THE WARDEN’S COURT OF QUEENSLAND HELD AT BRISBANE IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICATION UNDER PART 7 OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT 1989 FOR A MINING LEASE (NUMBER 10230) IN THE CHARTERS TOWERS DISTRICT BEFORE: MR F W WINDRIDGE, WARDEN APPLICANT: CHARTERS TOWERS GOLD MINES NL 75% CHARTERS TOWERS MINES NL 25% REPORT: The applicants, (hereinafter referred to as the miners or applicant miners) seek a mining lease under the provisions of part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the MRA or the Act) for the purpose of mining for GOLD, SILVER ORE, COPPER ORE, LEAD ORE, SILICA and ZINC ORE. The application is for an area of 1.2705 hectares and does not involve surface area. The lease, if granted, is to be known as “Brilliant Central Extended”. 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 [1999] QMW 119 -- 1 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 17 December 1999 10230MLA.CHT 2 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 19 NOVEMBER 1996. A certificate of application was issued on 2 DECEMBER 1996 (s.252 (1)) setting the last date for receipt of objections as 13 JANUARY 1997 (s.252(2)). No objections were lodged pursuant to section 260(1) of the Act. 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 Applicants are eligible persons 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.238(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(1)). At the time of marking out and lodging the application, the applicant was the holder of EPM 8150 and MDL 116 (s.232(1)). A declaration of posting was lodged on 29 January 1997 (s.252(9)), and service of documents was in accordance with s.399. -- 2 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 17 December 1999 10230MLA.CHT 3 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 valid objection, and (c) the consent of any trustee or other person is not required. I therefore dispense with the hearing 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), and that the proposed lease is an extension of M L 10208. This will allow progressive mine development for the whole project(s.234(1)). 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 the old Charters Towers field and well known for the production of gold over the last century. The applicant is required to satisfy the Court that mineralisation exists. The applicants conduct current operations in the immediate area. 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. (d) Is the area sought an appropriate size and shape? -- 3 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 17 December 1999 10230MLA.CHT 4 There is nothing in the information supplied by the Applicant to suggest that the 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 term of lease applied for is one that will expire with M L 10208. This will allow for progressive development within the overall project. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate and will allow for mining and rehabilitation to be completed. The applicant has the option of renewal under s.286 or surrender at an earlier date under s.309. (f) 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 mining operation. The applicant is currently conducting underground operations in the immediate area of the new application, and already has extensive plant, processing equipment, and personel on site. The applicant has been developing this project for a number of years and in my opinion has the experience necessary to complete the mining 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 Applicant has been unsatisfactory. The local Field Officer and Environmental Officer will be available 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. -- 4 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 17 December 1999 10230MLA.CHT 5 (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 the proposed lease conform with sound land use management? The application area is not surface area and is located under the city of Charters Towers. 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. (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. This lease will become part of Project PJ 10069. 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. There are no other environmental factors of significance that may be adversely affected by the operation that have not been addressed in the EMOS. -- 5 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 17 December 1999 10230MLA.CHT 6 (k) Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? No factors prejudicial to the public right and interest have been identified. (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 recommended for the following reasons: ♦ This underground lease will become part of the overall project. ♦ 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 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- Simnovec, 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 proposed mining operation appears, on the evidence, an appropriate land use, taking into account the current and prospective uses of the land. -- 6 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 17 December 1999 10230MLA.CHT 7 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, any party is at liberty to apply to the Court for a determination or award of damages, and if necessary, injunctive relief under the powers contained in s.363(6). RECOMMENDATION: Upon consideration of all the matters set forth in s.269(4) of the Act, I recommend that the mining lease be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose of mining for SILVER ORE, GOLD, COPPER ORE, LEAD ORE, SILICA and ZINC ORE for a term of which will expire with the term of M L 10208 (s.270(2)). Dated at BRISBANE this 17 th day of December 1999. F.W. WINDRIDGE MINING WARDEN  1999 -- 7 of 7 --