Deomi Mining Pty Ltd, Re [1999] QMW 52

20314MLA.MAR 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 20314 IN THE MAREEBA DISTRICT BEFORE: MR A.J. CHILCOTT, ACTING WARDEN APPLICANT: DEOMI MINING 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 GOLD and ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE. The application is for a surface area of 48 hectares and is situated on Lot CF 10 PH/14/5422, County of Chelmsford, Parish of Combar and is located approximately 20 kilometres south east of Maytown. The lease if granted is to be known as DEOMI. 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 Crown save for the reservation contained in S.8(3). 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 nominated is a permitted use under s.319 of the MRA. Any mining tenure is not subject [1999] QMW 52 -- 1 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 28 April 1999 20314MLA.MAR 2 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 Mareeba on 2 November 1998. A certificate of application was issued on 3 November 1998 (s.252 (1)) setting the last date for receipt of objections as 2 December 1998 (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)). (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 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 Prospecting Permit 20633(s.232(1)). A declaration of posting was lodged on 25 January 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 -- 2 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 28 April 1999 20314MLA.MAR 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? 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 Applicant is required to satisfy the Court that mineralisation exists, and I am so satisfied. (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? 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. There is no evidence of any conflict with the boundary of any other tenement and therefore the cost and delay of a survey would appear to be not warranted. -- 3 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 28 April 1999 20314MLA.MAR 4 (e) Is the term sought appropriate? The term of lease applied for is ten (10) 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. Mining for gold is basically an extractive industry utilising shallow open cuts and does not require extensive plant, processing equipment, or large injections of capital. The Applicant has been involved in the mining industry 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. (h) Is there any disadvantage to the holder of or applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? -- 4 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 28 April 1999 20314MLA.MAR 5 The applicant was the holder of the relevant pre-requisite exploration title 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 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 as being of rough terrain. 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. (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 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 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? -- 5 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 28 April 1999 20314MLA.MAR 6 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 some sites of historical interest or aboriginal significance within the area that are mentioned in the Field Officer’s report. (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 small scale 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 deposit, subject to EMOS discounts 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 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? -- 6 of 7 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 28 April 1999 20314MLA.MAR 7 The material indicates that the land is currently used for grazing purposes and appears, on the evidence, to be suitable for no other use. In 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 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. 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). 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 a term of TEN (10) YEARS. (s.270(2)). Dated at BRISBANE this 28 day of April 1999. A.J. CHILCOTT ACTING MINING WARDEN  1999 -- 7 of 7 --