Bruggemann, Re [2003] QLRT 84

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re A.L. Bruggemann [2003] QLRT 84 PARTIES: In the Matter of Mining Lease No. 60343 – Application by Aaron Lee Bruggemann for Mining Lease FILE NO/S: AML00073/2003 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease DELIVERED ON: 22 August 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: Heard on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Kingham DP ORDER/S: 1. Hearing dispensed with. (at [2]) 2. Recommendation made that Mining Lease No. 60343 be granted over the entire application area, for the purpose and term sought by the Applicant. (at [17]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 252, 252(C), 269(4), 270, 286, 392, 422 and 657 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITOR/S: N/A AGENT/S: N/A [1] This is an Application by Aaron Lee Bruggemann under s. 245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (the Act) for a mining lease over a 25.8ha area of land approximately 16kms south south east of Lissoy Station, 280kms north of Quilpie for the purpose of mining opal. The Application was lodged with the Mining Registrar for the Quilpie mining district on 9 December 2002. No objection to the Application was lodged during the public objection period, which ended on 21 July 2003. The underlying land tenure is “non-exclusive” land and the native title provisions of the Act applied.1 On 28 April 2003, a Notice of Non-Objection to the Application was 1 Section 422. -- 1 of 4 -- lodged by the Bidjara People, the native title claimants for the area applied for. That ends the additional native title requirements.2 Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270: [2] I may dispense with a hearing if satisfied as to matters specified in s. 270(1). For reasons that follow at paragraph [4], I am satisfied that the provisions of part 7 of the Act have been complied with in respect of the Application. There were no objections to this Application. It appears there is no restricted or reserve land in the area applied for. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my discretion to dispense with a hearing have been fulfilled. The material supplied by the Applicant and the Mining Registrar addresses each of the criteria that I must consider in making my recommendation on this Application. I am satisfied that there is sufficient information before me to enable me to properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this Application be dispensed with. Section 269(4) criteria: [3] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4), I have relied upon the material lodged by the Applicant with the Mining Registrar and provided to this Tribunal, the Statutory Declaration sworn on 11 August 2003 by Janet Coveney, who holds an Enduring Power of Attorney for the Applicant, and the further information provided to the Tribunal by the Mining Registrar. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not to all the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account in making my recommendation. Section 269(4)(a) – Have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [4] On 22 May, 2003, the Mining Registrar issued the Certificate of Public Notice. On 9 December 2002, the Mining Registrar issued a Certificate of Application, which he can only do if satisfied that the Applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the Application.3 The Declaration of Compliance with the notification requirements of the Act was lodged within the time required.4 Section 269(4)(b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [5] The Application seeks the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of mining opal. The Applicant has mined opal in the area applied for under another lease and is the holder of another current mining lease nearby. The area applied for is in a known mineral producing area and has been previously worked. I am satisfied that the area is generally mineralised. 2 Section 657. 3 Section 252. 4 Section 252C – I note that the Mining Registrar exercised his power pursuant to s. 252C(1)(b) to extend time for lodgement of the notice to 23 July 2003. -- 2 of 4 -- Section 269(4)(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? [6] The Applicant proposes to mine by identifying areas with opal trace and then testing and mining areas of economic viability using a dozer and excavator. This is the same method currently used on his other mining lease (ML 95122) which he proposes to work together with this lease as a project. I am satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resource in the area. Section 269(4)(d) – Is the land and the surface area of that land in respect of which the mining lease is sought of an appropriate size and shape? [7] The Applicant determined the boundaries of the lease on his assessment of the area of mineralisation. The Applicant has sought a mining lease over the entire surface area applied for. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(e) – Is the term sought appropriate? [8] The Applicant has sought a term of 5 years. There is no evidence to suggest that the term sought is not appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [9] The Applicant has worked in the industry for 10 years. He currently mines another lease using the same method as is proposed for this lease. There is no evidence to suggest the Applicant does not have the necessary technical resources in relation to the existing mine. He appears to have sufficient personal assets to undertake the proposed mining operation. I am satisfied the Applicant has the necessary financial and technical capabilities to undertake the mining operations proposed. Section 296(4)(g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory? [10] The Applicant previously held a lease covering the area applied for. That lease was cancelled for non-payment of annual rent. An earlier show cause notice for failure to lodge a royalty return some 10 years ago was resolved satisfactorily when the return was subsequently lodged. I am not satisfied that these past performance issues of themselves weigh against the grant of the lease. Section 269(4)(h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permit or mineral development licences or existing applicant for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [11] There are no holders of or applicants for exploration tenures that would be affected by the grant. Section 269(4)(i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? -- 3 of 4 -- [12] The current land use is low intensity cattle grazing. The Applicant is the holder of the underlying pastoral tenure. There is no evidence to suggest that mining is an inappropriate land use. Section 269(4)(j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof: [13] The draft environmental authority was issued on 20 December 2002. It requires the Applicant to comply with the standard environmental conditions contained in the Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects. The draft authority was publicly advertised and no objections were lodged in relation to it. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not be adequately dealt with by compliance with the conditions of the Code. Section 269(4)(k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [14] There was no evidence before me that indicated the public right and interest would be prejudiced. There is no public infrastructure that will be affected by the operation. It is significant that there was no objection to this Application and that the native title claimants lodged a notice of non-objection. Section 269(4)(l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant mining lease? [15] Other than the past performance issues referred to above, there was no evidence before me that indicated any good reason why this Application should be refused. I do not consider the past performance issues justify a recommendation against the grant in the circumstances of this case. Section 269(4)(m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [16] On the basis of the evidence considered in relation to criteria (i), (j), (k) and (l), I consider the proposed activity is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [17] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines that ML 60343 be granted over the entire application area, for the purpose and the term sought by the Applicant. -- 4 of 4 --