Equigold NL, Re [1999] QMW 104

1259ASA.ROC 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 ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA FOR MINING LEASE 1259 IN THE ROCKHAMPTON DISTRICT BEFORE: MR A J CHILCOTT, ACTING WARDEN APPLICANT: EQUIGOLD NL REPORT: The applicant seeks an additional surface area for mining lease 1259 under the provisions of section 275 (Part 7) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for the purpose of mining for GOLD, SILVER, LEAD, ZINC, COPPER, ANTIMONY and TIN and associated infrastructure namely TAILINGS DAM and TREATMENT PLANT. The application is for a surface area of 172.03 hectares and is situated on Lot No 38/BON 559 County of Bowen Parish of Grosvenor Lot No 28-29/BON 492 County of Bowen Parish of Grosvenor and Lot 58/BON 153 County of Bowen Parish of Grosvenor. 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. All minerals are the property of the [1999] QMW 104 -- 1 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 2 Crown. The grant of a lease does not create any estate or interest in the land, although there is the power to determine title to land. The application was lodged at the Mining Registrar’s Office at ROCKHAMPTON on 29 September 1999. A certificate of application was issued on the same date (s.252 (1)), setting 28 October 1999 as the last date for the receipt of objections. The following matters have been taken into account and considered in making my recommendations. (s.269(4)). (a) Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? The material indicates that the Applicant is eligible as defined in section 5 of the Act and is entitled to make the application under section 275 of the Act. The application complies with section 275. I accept, on the material before me, that the land applied for is not within a reserve as defined in the Act, and that there are relevant permanent buildings or relevant features namely two dams as defined on the land. (s.238(1)). I find that the application is therefore not in respect of land over which, pursuant to s.238(1) of the Act, a mining lease shall not be granted without the consent of another person or persons. At the time of marking out and lodging the application, the Applicant was the holder of Mining Lease 1259 (s.232(1)). Declarations of posting dated 21 October 1999 and 29 October 1999 have been lodged (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 declarations of posting and advertising that all the provisions of the Act -- 2 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 3 (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? This application relates to additional surface area for ML 1259. I accept the Applicant’s advice and I am satisfied on the detailed information given that the purpose for which the lease is sought is appropriate. There is no mineralisation indicated. The surface area the subject of this application is required for a tailings dam and plant site. (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 develop the project 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 additional surface area of the land in respect of which the mining lease is sought is not an appropriate size and shape. The reason for the size and shape is that the area now applied for covers all that part of the mining lease which does not currently have surface rights. There is no evidence of any conflict with the boundary of any other tenement. -- 3 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 4 (e) Is the term sought appropriate? The term of lease applied for is one that will expire on 31 May 2003 being the term for ML 1259. 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 section 286 of the act, or surrender at an earlier date under section 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. Information has been provided by the Applicant as to its financial and technical resources. In my opinion the Applicant 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. (h) Is there any disadvantage to the holder of or applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? The Applicant was the holder of ML 1259 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. -- 4 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 5 (i) Will the operations to be carried on under the proposed lease conform with sound land use management? The land appears to be capable of 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. 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? This mining lease is included in PJ 850086 for which an Environmental Management Overview Strategy (EMOS) has previously been approved. There is no human habitation within a five kilometre radius of the operation. The nearest habitation is approximately 10 kilometres away. There are no other environmental factors of significance which may be adversely effected by the operation that have not been addressed in the EMOS. (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. -- 5 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 6 (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 section 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 additional surface area in included in the lease for the term recommended for the following reasons: ♦ A large scale operation is planned. ♦ It is unlikely that the land applied for is of any interest to a large scale miner with greater resources. ♦ 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, subject to EMOS discounts if appropriate 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. No person claiming any right or interest under native title has lodged an objection. In my view, no good reason has been shown for a refusal to grant the 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 material indicates that the land is currently capable of use for cattle grazing and fattening purposes and appears, on the evidence, to be suitable for no other use. The -- 6 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 7 proposed mining operation appears, on the evidence, an appropriate land use, taking into account the current and prospective uses of the land. A further compensation agreement is required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act. 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 interruption to the management of any property, any aggrieved 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 application for additional surface area be granted over the whole of the application area for the purpose of mining GOLD, SILVER, LEAD, ZINC, COPPER, ANTIMONY, TIN and for associated infrastructure namely TAILINGS DAM and TREATMENT PLANT for a term to expire on 31 May 2003 (s.270(2)), subject to compensation being settled between the parties or determined by the Court. Dated at BRISBANE this 9 th day of November 1999. A J CHILCOTT ACTING MINING WARDEN -- 7 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 November 1999 1259ASA.ROC 8  1999 -- 8 of 8 --