David Mitchell Limited, Re [1993] QMW 79

-#- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF WARDEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.27 OF THE MINERAL RESOURCES ACT, 1989-1992. IN THE MATTER OF: APPLICATION FOR MINING LEASE NUMBER 10151 IN THE CHARTERS TOWERS MINING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: DAVID MITCHELL LIMITED. OBJECTORS: Nil. REPORT. This Application for mining lease for the purpose of mining limestone and wollastonite is for 50.5147 hectares situated about 8.5 kilometres south-south-west of Woodstock. The Application was lodged at the Mining Registrar's Office at Charters Towers on 5 April 1993 and a certificate of application was issued on the same day setting the last date for receipt of objections as 20 May 1993. An objection was lodged out of time by the Thuringowa City Council. No other objections were lodged. 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. The land applied for is within Restricted Area 20 which requires that the Application be referred to the CSIRO Corporate Property Unit. The file indicates that the Application has been referred to the CSIRO Corporate Property Branch. It also appears from the record that the Applicant is negotiating terms for the grant of the Mining Lease suitable to CSIRO. As this stage the views of the CSIRO have not been received. 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 27 May 1993 and 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 Mineral [1993] QMW 79 -- 1 of 6 -- Resources Act, 1989-1992 (other than the provisions requiring the hearing) have been complied with. The hearing is dispensed with pursuant to 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 accept the Applicant Company's advice that examination by its geologist indicates a deposit of above 85% "carbonates". In view of this advice and the fact that the land is in a well recognised limestone zone I am satisfied that the land applied for is mineralised. (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 land applied for will form an extension of the Applicant's mining operation on current mining leases. Nothing will be extracted from the land in the short term; however, when mining commences on the land it is intended that ore will be extracted at a maximum rate of 70,000 tonnes per annum. The product of mining will be used as feedstock for manufacture of lime products marketed by the Applicant in its long-standing northern Queensland business which is a major supplier of lime products to cane farmers, sugar mills and the mining industry. 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? 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? -- 2 of 6 -- The term of lease applied for is 20 years. The Applicant's estimate of the extent of the workable deposit indicates that term sought will be required to work out the deposit. In view of the long term nature of the Applicant's wider marketing enterprise I am satisfied that the term sought is appropriate. (F) HAS THE APPLICANT THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES TO CARRY ON MINING OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED MINING LEASE? The Applicant is a Company having limestone mining interests in all eastern States. Financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1992 indicate that the Company is in a sound financial state. The Company employs qualified and experienced personnel in its mining operations. I am satisfied that the Applicant has the necessary financial capability and that it has sufficient technical expertise to properly carry on the proposed mining operation under the proposed lease. (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 Applicant has supplied full details on the mining operation it presently conducts on Mining Leases which take in the southern side of the mineralised ridge over which the Mining Lease is sought. The evidence suggests that in the operation to be carried on under authority of the proposed mining lease the Applicant will extend its mining operation through the crest of the ridge and bench out the whole area to expose deeper beds of the limestone formation intruding from levels 9 and 10 of the Applicant's existing mining operation on Mining Lease 6607. The additional land will also allow for disposal of waste material and make provision for a low gradient haul -- 3 of 6 -- road. It is proposed that part of the waste material will be dumped in a gully draining to the north across the western part of the land applied for. When upper quarry levels can be abandoned the Applicant proposes to blast down steep quarry faces so that more gently sloping surfaces of broken rock remain. The broken rock will be covered with soil and fine rock material. Trees of a kind indigenous to the area will be planted on the disturbed surfaces. 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 THE PROPOSE OPERATION, AND IF SO, THE EXTENT THEREOF? The proposed mining activity is in an area away from human habitation. The proposed excavations and waste disposal operations except, perhaps, the Applicant's plan to dump waste in a gully draining the ridge, appear unlikely to affect any river system. Apart from the above possible matter of concern there appear to be no environmental circumstances which should require special conditions of lease to govern the general concept of mining the land as described by the Applicant. Micro environmental concerns may be addressed during the process of approval of Plans of Operation and EMOS created if and when a mining development occurs. (J) WILL THE PUBLIC RIGHT AND INTEREST BE PREJUDICED? No factors 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 mining operation of the kind intended; (b) In view of the nature of the Applicant's current -- 4 of 6 -- mining activity on adjacent land it is unlikely that the land applied for could be of interest to any other miner; (c) The location of the proposed mining operation and the method of mining is unlikely to cause environmental or public interest concerns; (d) A realistic security deposit will be imposed to guard against the financial failure of the miner; and (f) 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 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 material indicates that the land is currently part of a research establishment under the control of the CSIRO. In my view, no evidence has been presented to show significant conflict between the current land use, or any prospective land use, and the proposed mining operation. This view seems to gain support from the fact that the landholder has 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. APPENDICES The following documents are appended: * Copy of Declaration of Posting and Advertising; * Copy of Questionnaire lodged by the Applicant; * * * * -- 5 of 6 -- * RECOMMENDATION I recommend to the Honourable, the Minister that the mining lease be granted. Mareeba June 1993 Warden -- 6 of 6 --