Cormin Pty Limited v Curcio [1993] QMW 81

-#- IN THE WARDENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND HELD AT MAREEBA. BEFORE: WILLIAM SAMUEL CHRISTENSEN, ESQUIRE, WARDEN. IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICATION FOR MINING LEASE NUMBER 20160 IN THE MAREEBA MINING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: CORMIN PTY. LIMITED. OBJECTORS: Roslyn Margaret CURCIO. DATE OF HEARING: 25 May 1993. DECISION. This Application for mining lease for the purpose of mining gold, silver and lead (including the construction and operation of a processing plant) is for 54.71 hectares situated at Dulbil about 8 kilometres south-east of Mareeba. The land applied for is substantially covered by the Applicant's existing Mining Lease 3083 which has been surrendered conditionally upon the grant of the proposed Mining Lease. The evidence indicates that the Applicant may, if the necessity arises, establish an accommodation facility on site for a caretaker. I recommend that a Mining Lease for those purposes not be granted until an application is made under section 7.53 of the Mineral Resources Act, and approved. The Application was lodged at the Mining Registrar's Office at Mareeba on 2 April 1993 and a certificate of application was issued on the same day setting the last date for receipt of objections as 7 May 1993. An objection was lodged by Mrs. Curcio, the lessee of Miner's Homestead Perpetual Lease number 724 which is just beyond the boundary of the land applied for. The Objector's grounds of objection state a number of possible effects of mining which may be prejudicial to the use and enjoyment of her home on MHPL 724. The grounds of objection may be summarised as follows: 1. Structural damage from vibrations and/or falling rocks as a result of blasting operations. 2. Damage by blasting vibrations to the aquifer from which the Objector draws water. 3. Pollution of the Objector's water and land from the use of chemicals in the mining operation. 4. Noise and dust disturbances caused by heavy machinery and vehicles operating close to the Objector's residence. [1993] QMW 81 -- 1 of 8 -- The following matters have been taken into account and considered by me in making my recommendation: (A) HAVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT BEEN COMPLIED WITH? The material indicates that the Applicant is an eligible person. I accept, on the material before me, the Application is not in respect of land over which, pursuant to Section 7(6) of the Mineral Resources Act, 1989-1992, a mining lease shall not be granted without the consent of another person or persons. A declaration of posting was lodged on 20 May 1993 and I am satisfied on the material, including the evidence received in the Warden's Court and the uncontested information in the application form and the declaration of posting and advertising that all the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act, 1989-1992 have been substantially complied with. (B) IS THE LAND APPLIED FOR MINERALISED OR IS THE OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LEASE IS SOUGHT APPROPRIATE? A limited field programme was conducted by consultant geologist Mr. P.A. Treasure in 1989. Mr. Treasure's report in evidence as Exhibit 2 indicates that the land is mineralised. There is no evidence to indicate that the land is not suitable for the additional mining purpose of mineral processing proposed for the land. (C) IF THE LAND APPLIED FOR IS MINERALISED WILL THERE BE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT AND UTILISATION OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE AREA APPLIED FOR? The Applicant Company intends to develop a dual mine/quarry operation to utilise overburden for road base and land fill. Mineralised sections uncovered will be processed in a treatment plant on-site. The Applicant has applied for a permit for sale of quarry material (under the Forestry Act) and Notice of the Proposal was given by the Conservator of Forests on 23 April 1993. The Applicant proposes to commence mining immediately upon grant of the Mining Lease. The mine will be worked full-time by an initial work force of 2 to 3 persons. Forty thousand cubic metres of gravel will be extracted annually over an expected mine life of 20 years. The Applicant is -- 2 of 8 -- unable to make predictions of mineral production rates. There is nothing in the material supplied by the Applicant which indicates that the Applicant is unable to conduct a mining operation at the proposed level. In my view there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied for. (D) IS THE LAND AND THE SURFACE AREA OF LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE MINING LEASE IS SOUGHT OF AN APPROPRIATE SIZE AND SHAPE? The Applicant advises that the land applied for covers the extent of known mineralisation and provides further land for a plant and machinery site, water storage and mineral exploration. 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. (E) IS THE TERM SOUGHT APPROPRIATE? The term of lease applied for is 21 years. There is no estimate by the Applicant as to the extent of the workable deposit and the evidence indicates that the extent of mineralisation will not be known until overburden is removed in the Applicant's proposed quarrying operation. The rate of mine development will be governed by the pace of extraction and sale of gravel which, the Applicant expects, will be a long term operation. In view of the long-term nature of the Applicant's associated marketing enterprise and evidence which indicates material will be extracted to meet market demand as it occurs, I am satisfied that the term of lease applied for is appropriate. (F) HAS THE APPLICANT THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES TO CARRY ON MINING OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED MINING LEASE? The financial statements of the Applicant Company were produced by the Applicant following the hearing. Mr. Frank Corsi, one of the Directors of the Company, holds 9,999 of the 10,000 issued shares. The Company has substantial accumulated losses which have been slowly reduced by small profits over the past 2 years. It appears by the accounts that Mr. Corsi has financed the deficit with unsecured advances to the -- 3 of 8 -- Company. Because of the Company's present financial position I recommend that EMOS Performance Category Discounts not be granted if the Applicant is otherwise entitled to received such Discounts during the term of the Mining Lease. Mr. Corsi will be the mine operator. I have no reason to doubt his evidence that he has 14 years mining experience and many years working hire equipment on mines. (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. (H) WILL THE OPERATIONS TO BE CARRIED ON UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPOSED LEASE CONFORM WITH SOUND LAND USE MANAGEMENT? The land takes in part of Town Reserve R157 which appears, on the evidence, to be not currently used for any purpose. The land also covers a small part of Special Lease 36920 on Portion 467 Parish of Tinaroo. There is no evidence of the use to which the Special Lease is put. The evidence suggests that in the operation to be carried on under authority of the proposed Mining Lease the Applicant will remove gravel from the already extensively disturbed area in a long-term earthmoving operation. Mineral ore exposed in that operation will be crushed and then processed through a ball mill and processing plant on site. All information received from the Applicant in support of the Application, including the EMOS, shows an intention to treat ore by wet gravity separation processes. Mr. Corsi, for the Company, describes the proposed treatment activity in evidence as a "flotation process". I recommend that the position be clarified and any necessary EMOS amendments and approvals be completed before the grant of the Mining Lease. The processing plant will be sited in the northern part of the proposed Mining Lease in terrain described by the Applicant as a "slight slope". Wet waste will be bunded and later capped with rock. Dry waste will be removed from site for sale with overburden. The evidence leaves me with no reason to believe that the proposed mining operations will not conform with sound land use management. (I) WILL THERE BE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY -- 4 of 8 -- THE PROPOSE OPERATION, AND IF SO, THE EXTENT THEREOF? The proposed mining operation is in close proximity to places of human habitation. The boundary of the land applied for is within 80 metres of the Objector's home and my inspection when dealing in June, 1991 with Mining Lease Application 20004 indicates that another house on MHPL 545 may be within 100 metres of the boundary. There is also another house on, or in the vicinity of, MHPL 706. Treatment of minerals on site and the proposed excavations appear unlikely to affect any river system. It is claimed by the Objector that there is danger of rocks and earth being dislodged from the hill and deposited on her land. The Applicant does not discount the possibility of materials falling from the hillside but maintains that particular care will be taken not to dislodge material. Although the Applicant claims that there is an adequate buffer zone of flat terrain within the boundaries of the land applied for which should prevent damage to the Objector's land, it has offered to agree to a special condition of Mining Lease to the effect that it be required to construct a bund wall at such time and place, and of such dimensions, as the Minister shall, upon the advice of the appropriate Departmental officers, think fit for the purpose of protecting the Objector's property from damage likely to be caused by the movement of soil, rock, or gravel or other debris resulting from the Applicant's mining operation. I recommend that the Mining Lease, if granted, be subject to such condition. Another ground of objection is the possible damage to the Objector's land and improvements caused by vibrations from blasting. The Objector has not produced evidence of the nature of the improvements at risk or the kind of damage which may be expected to those improvements, except to express a concern that her underground water supply, which she believes comes from the hill which will be mined, may be affected by the mining operation. Mr. Corsi gives evidence for the Applicant that it is not presently intended that explosives be used in the mining operation and it is unlikely, because of the composition of the surface and underlying strata, that explosives will be used in the future. In view of the close proximity of residences to the proposed mining operation and the possibility, although not proven, that blasting may disrupt underground water supplies in the vicinity, I recommend that a condition of lease prohibiting the use of explosives be imposed. The Applicant does not intend to use chemicals in the treatment process and there appears to be no cause for action in relation to that ground of objection. In any event, the -- 5 of 8 -- site of the proposed processing plant is not in a water catchment which will affect the Objector's land. A further ground of objection is the likelihood of dust and noise nuisance generated by the Applicant's mining and haulage operations. I accept the evidence that the prevailing winds are from the north-east in summer and from the south-east in winter and note that the proposed mining site and access road are to the east and north of the Objector's land. The Applicant does not intend to operate outside normal daylight working hours Monday to Friday, and on Saturday mornings. I recommend that suitable conditions be imposed restricting hours of operation accordingly. In view of the likely number of haulage movements to and from the Mining Lease I recommend that a condition of Mining Lease aimed at the reduction or elimination of dust nuisance be imposed. (J) WILL THE PUBLIC RIGHT AND INTEREST BE PREJUDICED? Apart from the issues raised by the Objector mentioned in Part (I) above, no circumstances prejudicial to the public right have been identified. (K) HAS ANY GOOD REASON BEEN SHOWN FOR A REFUSAL TO GRANT THE MINING LEASE? When all aspects of the Application and the matters set out section 7.26(3) are taken into account and considered I am satisfied that the objects of the Mineral Resources Act set out in section 1.3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) will be attained if a Mining Lease is granted for the term and upon the conditions recommended, for the following reasons: (a) The nature of the mineral occurrence is such that it is suitable for a small scale mining operation of the kind intended; (b) It is unlikely that the land applied for is of interest to a large scale miner; (c) The location of the proposed mining operation and the method of mining is unlikely to cause environmental concerns; (d) A realistic security deposit will be imposed to guard against the financial failure of the miner; and (e) As discussed in Part (L) hereunder, upon the evidence to hand, the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use, taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land. In my view, on the balance, no good reason has been -- 6 of 8 -- shown for a refusal to grant the Mining Lease. (L) IS THE PROPOSED MINING OPERATION AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE USES OF THE LAND? The land applied for is situated on Town Reserve R157 and, to a small extent, on Portion 467 Parish of Tinaroo. The evidence indicates that R157 is not currently used for any purpose and is not clear on the use to which Portion 467 is put. The evidence suggests it is suitable only for limited cattle grazing. In my view, there appears to be no risk of significant conflict between any prospective land use and the proposed mining operation. The proposed mining operation appears, on the evidence in these proceedings, an appropriate land use, taking into account the current and prospective uses of the land. RECOMMENDATION I recommend to the Honourable, the Minister that the mining lease be granted subject to the several conditions recommended in Parts (F), (H) and (I) above. Mareeba 2 June 1993 Warden -- 7 of 8 -- -- 8 of 8 --