Adam, Re [1998] QMW 74

20306MLA.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 20306) IN THE MAREEBA DISTRICT BEFORE: MR F W WINDRIDGE, WARDEN APPLICANT: NOEL ALEXANDER ADAM REPORT: Noel Alexander ADAM (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 OPEN CUT and UNDERGROUND mining for SILVER ORE, GOLD, COPPER ORE, NICKEL ORE, LEAD ORE, ANTIMONY ORE and TUNGSTEN. The application is for surface area of 30.60 hectares and is situated on LOT 285 on OL 122, County of DAGMAR, Parish of TREGORRA, approximately 59 kilometres west of Mt Carbine. The application area is situated on OL 285 and the lease is to be known as “PILLIDGE” 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. 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 [1998] QMW 74 -- 1 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.MAR 2 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 MAREEBA on 29 OCTOBER 1997. A certificate of application was issued on 4 NOVEMBER 1998 (s.252 (1)) setting the last date for receipt of objections as 9 JANUARY 1998 (s.252(2)). No objections were lodged pursuant to s.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 an eligible person 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. 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 20612 and EPM 11326 (s.232(1)). A declaration of posting was lodged on 12 JANUARY 1998 (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 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.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). 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 area that has produced gold and antimony from alluvial and hard rock mining in the past. There are extensive old antimony workings, both underground and open cut. There are a number of other leases in the area. The applicant has conducted rock chip sampling and has examined old drill reports. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of mineralisation to justify 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. The applicant is already operating on other mines in this district. (c) 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 -- 3 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.MAR 4 shape. The lease application area takes in the strike of the mineralised zone, and this lease surrounds two current leases held by the applicant Mr Adam. 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. (d) Is the term sought appropriate? The term of lease applied for is 21 years. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate and will allow for mining and rehabilitation to be completed. A longer term is desirable as the applicant intends to conduct underground operations. The applicant has the option of renewal under section 286 of the act, or surrender at an earlier date under s.309. (e) 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. Part of the mining program will be an open cut operation to extract resources close to the surface. This open cut operation is basically an extractive industry type operation utilising shallow open cuts and does not require extensive plant, processing equipment, or large injections of capital. The applicant has mined gold and other resources 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]. (f) 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 -- 4 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.MAR 5 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. (g) 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 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. This lease surrounds two other leases held by the applicant. The applicant held EPM 11326 in his own right. (h) 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 skeletal surface soils with rocky stony ridges and stony gullies. 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. (i) 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 -- 5 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.MAR 6 and any further requirement of the Minister. This operation has been accepted as part of PJM 20045. The applicant has given the appropriate commitments. 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. Ore from this lease is to be transported to another lease for processing. 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 effected by the operation that have not been addressed in the EMOS. (j) 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. (k) 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 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. -- 6 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.MAR 7 ♦ 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 lease application (Carr –v- Simnovec, Pacminex –v- Aust Nephrite Jade Mines supra). (l) 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. There are a number of other leases in the area. Land is Class VII. 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 -- 7 of 8 -- Warden’s Court of Queensland 3 December 1998 20306MLA.MAR 8 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: Having dispensed with the hearing and 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 OPEN CUT and UNDERGROUND MINING of SILVER ORE, GOLD, COPPER ORE, NICKEL ORE, LEAD ORE, ANTIMONY ORE and TUNGSTEN for a term of 21 YEARS. (s.270(2)). Dated at BRISBANE this 3 rd day of December 1998. F.W. WINDRIDGE MINING WARDEN  1998 -- 8 of 8 --