Caml Resources Pty Ltd, Re [1999] QMW 77

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 70171) IN THE EMERALD DISTRICT BEFORE: MR A J CHILCOTT, ACTING WARDEN APPLICANT: CAML RESOURCES PTY LTD REPORT: The applicant (hereinafter referred to as the miner or applicant miner) seeks 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 COAL and associated infrastructure namely TRANSPORT/VEHICULAR. The application is for a surface area of 2493 hectares and is situated on Lot 4 on ROP 188, GHFL 12/2387 County of Roper, Parish of Foxleigh and on Lot 5 ROP 23, GHFL 12/2380 County of Roper Parish of Ternallum.being approximately 12 kilometres south of Middlemount. The lease if granted is to be known as Foxleigh. 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 77 -- 1 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 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 Emerald on 18 January 1999. A certificate of application was issued on 10 February 1999 (s.252 (1)) setting the last date for receipt of objections as 24 March 1999 (s.252(2)). One objection was lodged pursuant to section 260(1) of the Act but has subsequently been withdrawn.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 eligible as defined in section 5 of the Act and is entitled to make the application under s.232 of the Act. The Applicant is a company incorporated in Australia under the Corporations Law. A copy of the Certificate of Registration of the Company has been tendered. 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, however there are relevant features on the land namely a dam and stockyards 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 Prospecting Permits 70984 and 70985 and Exploration Permit 617 (s.232(1)). During the course of marking out the land, Central Queensland received extensive rain and consequently it was not possible for the surveyor to mark out certain corners on the haul -- 2 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 road located in Lot 5 on ROP188. As a result, the applicant sought the consent of the Mining Registrar to dispense with the physical marking out of the corners of the mining lease Application. The Mining Registrar consented to such request. A declaration of posting was lodged on 31 March 1999 (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 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 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 purpose for which the lease is sought is appropriate. The application area is within an established grazing, farming and coal mining region and is wholly within the Broadsound Shire. The applicant is required to satisfy the Court that mineralisation exists. The resource expected to be mined is coal. The coal resource, as a measured status, has been defined as 94.04 million tonnes or 67.17 million cubic metres. 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. -- 3 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 4 (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 projected mine life is 35 to 50 years at production levels currently contemplated. The mine will be worked full time. The mine is expected to employ approximately forty people in the initial phase with an expected build-up to 100 over the life of the mine. (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 term of lease applied for is thirty five (35) years. 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 day to day control of the operation will be in the hands of the contractor, and arrangements for broad management procedures will be agreed between the owner and the contractor prior to project management. It is expected that the contractor will supply the necessary day to day technical input. The applicant will also supply marketing, technical, human and industrial relations and management expertise. The directors of the -- 4 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 5 applicant have been involved in the mining industry for a number of years and in my opinion have 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 the relevant pre-requisite titles under s.232 of the MRA at the time of marking out. From the material provided 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 land appears to be used for low intensity grazing under favourable conditions. The proposed operations will not affect the owner’s use of the land as in this case the land will be owned by the applicant pursuant to a Contract of Sale dated 2 August 1999. The applicant has no present intention ton use the land for grazing and as such there will be no disturbance to stock watering or stock management facilities. The general nature of the land is described as ……. There is no arable top soil. Rainfall is low. Stock -- 5 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 6 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. (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. The nearest human habitation in relation to mining activity and treatment plants is 500 metres. Any effect on the human habitation in relation to mining and treatment operations has been addressed in the EMOS and compensation agreement. 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 which may be adversely affected by the operation that have not been addressed in the EMOS. (k) Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? Apparently the only utility affected by the proposed lease area is a pipeline from the Bungegang Weir. The purpose of extending the mine lease area over the pipeline was to ensure that if access to the Bungegang Pipeline was required that it could be obtained within the lease area. 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 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. -- 6 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 7 (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: ♦ A large scale operation is planned. ♦ It is unlikely that the land applied for is of any interest to any other 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 directors of the applicant appear 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. ♦ Considerable economic benefit will be provided to the State. 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 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 material indicates that the land is currently used for grazing purposes and appears, on the evidence, to be suitable for no other use. Brigalow communities originally covered the large proportion of this area but have been reduced by broad scale clearing for agriculture and grazing. The site has been extensively cleared. In my view, there appears to be no risk of significant conflict between the current land use, or any prospective land -- 7 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 8 use and the proposed mining operation. The proposed post-mining use is grazing with vegetation by pasture species. The potential temporary loss of grazing from the area is acknowledged as an impact to the proposed operation. The proposed mine constitutes the highest and best use of the land from an economic perspective. Further, 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 is not required to be filed with the Registrar in accordance with s.279 of the 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 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 determination or award of damages, and if necessary, injunctive relief under the powers contained in s.363(6). -- 8 of 9 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 9 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 coal and for the establishment of infrastructure namely TRANSPORT/VEHICULAR for a term of THIRTY FIVE (35) YEARS (s.270(2). Dated at BRISBANE this 6 day of August 1999. A.J. CHILCOTT ACTING MINING WARDEN  1999 -- 9 of 9 --