Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd, Re [1993] QMW 113

1 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF WARDEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.26 AND 7.27 OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT, 1989. IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SURFACE AREA FOR MINING LEASE NUMBER 1682 IN THE CHARTERS TOWERS MINING DISTRICT. BEFORE: FRANCIS WILLIAM WINDRIDGE, WARDEN. APPLICANT: CARPENTARIA GOLD PTY LTD. REPORT: This application for additional surface area for Mining Lease 1682 under Section 7.32 and Section 7.1 of Part 7 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the act) for the purpose of mining for SILVER, GOLD, BISMUTH, LEAD, ZINC, CAPPER, ANTIMONY and the establishment of a TREATMENT PLANT is for an area of 298.74 hectares on O.L. 382 and O.L. 400, 2 kilometres south east of Ravenswood. Power to grant such a lease is vested in the Governor in Council pursuant to Section 7.3 of the act after recommendation by the Minister pursuant to section 7.28(1)(a). All minerals are the property of the Crown (S.1.9). The grant of a mining lease does not create any estate or interest in the land (S.1.11), although [1993] QMW 113 -- 1 of 12 -- 2 there is the power to determine title to land (s.10.20(5). The Application was lodged at the Mining Registrars Office at Charters Towers on 14 May 1993, and a certificate of application was issued on 2 june 1993 (S.7.18(1)(a), setting the last date for receipt of objections as 30 JUNE 1993 (s.7.18(1)(b) No objections were lodged pursuant to Section 7.20 of the Act. The following matters have been taken into account and considered in making my recommendation pursuant to Section 7.26(3). (A) HAVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BEEN COMPLIED WITH? The material indicates that the Applicant is an eligible person as defined in Section 1.8, and is thus entitled to make the application under Section 7.2 of the Act. I accept, on the material before me, that the land applied for is not within a reserve as defined in the act; that there is no building of the kind mentioned in section 7.6(2)(a)(i) and (ii) on the land, and that there is no feature of the kind mentioned in section 7.6(2)(b) on the land or within 50 metres laterally of the land. I find the application is therefore not in respect of land over which, pursuant to Section 7.6 of the act, a mining lease shall not be granted without the consent of another person or persons. -- 2 of 12 -- 3 At the time of marking out and making the application, the applicant was the holder of EPM 8936 (S.7.1). A declaration of posting was lodged on a date not recorded on the material forwarded to this office, and I am unable to determine if the declaration was lodged within time or out of time. However, the accompanying letter on that declaration was received on 27 July 1993. The declaration appears to be not lodged in accordance with Section 7.18(5) of the Act, and time for lodgement has not been extended notwithstanding the discretion contained in Section 7.18(5). However, it appears that no person has been disadvantaged by the late lodgment as such and I would therefore find substantial compliance on this point. 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.11.6) Service of documents was in accordance with Section 11.14. 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 -- 3 of 12 -- 4 section 7.27 of the act. (B)IS THE LAND APPLIED FOR MINERALISED OR IS THE OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LEASE IS SOUGHT APPROPRIATE? I am satisfied that the resource sought is a mineral as defined in section 1.8 of the act, and the associated purpose is one permitted under the act. I accept the Applicants advice and I am satisfied on the detailed information given by them that the purpose for which the lease is sought is appropriate. The area is well known as a resource of gold. The applicant is only required to satisfy the Court that the mineralisation exists. The economic viability of the project is a matter for his commercial assessment, and not a matter for this Court. (C)WILL THERE BE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT AND UTILISATION OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE AREA APPLIED FOR? I am satisfied the applicant has sufficient resources to develop the land to an acceptable level. The applicant is a company that has operated a number of mining ventures over the years. I am satisfied the applicant company has access to the necessary funds and has the essential machinery for this operation. -- 4 of 12 -- 5 (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 in respect of which the mining lease is sought is not an appropriate size and shape. This area is additional to and will be incorporated into ML 1682. (E)IS THE TERM SOUGHT APPROPRIATE? The term of the lease applied for is one which will expire on 31.10.2002, in all probability this being the date when ML 1682 expires. I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate and will allow for mining and rehabilitation to be completed. If completed earlier, the applicant may surrender the lease (S. 7.64). If mining is not finalised, the applicant has the right to seek renewal (S. 7.43). (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 have no reason not to accept the Applicants advice and I am satisfied that the Applicant has the necessary financial capability and that he has sufficient technical -- 5 of 12 -- 6 expertise to properly carry on the proposed mining operation under the proposed lease. The applicant is currently engaged in mining on other leases in this area, 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 Australian 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 satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The local Field Officer will be available to monitor performance and rehabilitation. The Inspectorate should monitor methods adopted for mining, ensuring that industry standards are maintained and all machinery is operated in a safe and competent manner by licensed persons where necessary. (H)WILL THE OPERATIONS TO BE CARRIED ON UNDER THE PROPOSED MINING LEASE CONFORM WITH SOUND LAND USE MANAGEMENT? The land appears to be used for low intensity grazing 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 Applicants site management -- 6 of 12 -- 7 proposals. The evidence leaves me with no reason to believe that the proposed mining operations do not conform with sound land use management. The area is well known as a producer of gold. (I)WILL THERE BE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED OPERATION, AND IF SO, THE EXTENT THEREOF? The proposed mining activity is in an isolated area away from human habitation. Mineral treatment activities on site appear to be planned in such a way as to be unlikely to have a deleterious effect on any river systems. The applicant has a current plan of operations and further development will to some extent depend on the results of further exploration by drilling. (J)WILL THE PUBLIC RIGHT AND INTEREST BE PREJUDICED? No factors prejudicial to the public right and interest have been identified. From the evidence that is available, it appears that there are no public utilities running on or across the application land. The right of way of any person will not be affected. There is no evidence to suggest that there are endangered flora of fauna on the application area. There is no evidence to suggest that there are any sites of historical interest or aboriginal significance on the application area. If any such sites are -- 7 of 12 -- 8 identified, the E.M.O.S. document can be amended to allow for a site protection or site avoidance strategy. (K)HAS ANY GOOD REASON BEEN SHOWN FOR A REFUSAL TO GRANT THE MINING LEASE? When all other aspects of the application are taken into account and considered, I am satisfied that the objects of Section 1.3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) will be attained if a mining lease is granted for the term recommended, for the following reasons: (1) this area is additional surface area for ML 1682 (2) it is unlikely that the land applied for is of any interest to a large scale miner with greater resources. (3) the location of the proposed mining operation and the method of mining is unlikely to cause environmental concerns or public interest concerns about safety. (4) a realistic security deposit, subject to E.M.O.S. discounts if appropriate, will be imposed to grant against financial failure of the miner to ensure rehabilitation is completed. (5) the applicant appears to have sufficient experience in the industry to accurately assess the potential of the project. (6) there is a market for the produce and the project will provide employment. No person claiming any right or interest under "native title" has lodged any objection under Section 7.20. It appears it would not be possible to notify any such person in the normal way by way of service of a notice. The name of such a person claiming title would be unknown as there is no list or roll of such persons. However, -- 8 of 12 -- 9 such a person is not disadvantaged as the requirement of publication is intended to notify any person of the existence of the application who does not fall within the definition of "owner" as defined in Section 1.8. The application area is situated within a pastoral lease granted over the area by the State of Queensland. It would appear that this grant has extinguished any "native title" that existed and there would appear to be no grounds for any claim of "native title" by any person. (MABO - 1993. High Court of Australia.) Even assuming that native title was not extinguished by prior grant and was able to co-exist with the mining title, any claim for compensation would be restricted under Section 7.38(3) of the Act and in all probability, subject to the evidence admitted, a minimal or nominal award would be the final result. 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 -- 9 of 12 -- 10 purposes and appears, on the evidence and subject to any further evidence that may be tendered in any compensation hearing, to be suitable for no other use. The fact that the land is leased as Occupation Licences indicates the value of the land as grazing land is not great. 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, to be an appropriate land use, taking into account the current and prospective use of the land. A compensation agreement or determination of the Court will compensate the landowner for any conflict or loss over land use ( S.7.36). I note that a compensation agreement has not been filed with the Registrar in accordance with Section 7.36(2). If not filed within three months of the date of this recommendation, the Registrar is required to refer the matter of compensation to the Wardens Court for determination. This recommendation is based on the 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 -- 10 of 12 -- 11 agreement, the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court for a determination or award of compensation and if necessary, injunctive relief under the powers contained in Section 10.20(4). APPENDICES: The following documents are appended: *Copy of declaration dated 24 July 1993. * Questionnaire completed on 26 July 1993. * Photocopy of Certificate of Incorporation. RECOMMENDATION: Having dispensed with the hearing and upon consideration of all the matters set forth in section 7.26(3) of the act, I recommend to the Honourable , the Minister that the mining lease be granted over the whole of the application area for a term to expire on 31.10.2002, subject to a compensation agreement being filed with the Registrar or compensation being determined by the Court. (S.7.26(2)(a). Dated at BRISBANE this 24th day of August, 1993 . F.W. WINDRIDGE -- 11 of 12 -- 12 MINING WARDEN -- 12 of 12 --