Re BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd
[2008] QLC 56
•25 February 2008
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] QLC 0056
PARTIES:In the matter of Application for Mining Lease No 1923 Additional Surface Area No. 10 by BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd, BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd, QCT Resources Pty Ltd, QCT Mining Pty Ltd, QCT Investments Pty Ltd and Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd
FILE NO:AML00036/2008
PROCEEDING: Application for additional surface area
DELIVERED ON: 25 February 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
MEMBER:Mr BR O’Connor, Judicial Registrar
ORDER/S:1. Hearing dispensed with.
2. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that Mining Lease No. 1923 Additional Surface Area No. 10 be granted over the whole of the application area for coal mining and gaseous hydrocarbons to BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd (41.50%), BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (8.50%), QCT Resources Pty Ltd (18.73%), QCT Mining Pty Ltd (15.78%), QCT Investments Pty Ltd (12.00%) and Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd (3.49%) to expire on 31 March 2027, concurrent with mining lease 1923.
CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE – RECOMMENDATION
Mineral Resources Act1989 ss 245, 269(4), 270(1)
APPEARANCES Not applicable – Heard on the Papers
This is an application lodged by BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd & Ors under s.245 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the Act”) for additional surface area over 1190.8 ha. The application area is located 50 km north-east of Emerald on land described more particularly in the application. The application was lodged at the office of the Mining Registrar at Emerald on 10 April 2007. No objections were lodged before the closing date which was 31 January 2008.
Request to dispense with a hearing - Section 270
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 are no objections to this application. I am satisfied that the preconditions to exercising my discretion to dispense with the hearing have been fulfilled. The material supplied by the applicant companies 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 properly consider this matter. Accordingly, I order that a hearing of this application be dispensed with.
Section 269(4) criteria
In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s.269 (4), I have relied upon the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration sworn on behalf of the applicant companies on 11 January 2008. I have also relied upon the other material lodged by the applicant companies with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and provided by the Mining Registrar to this Court and the Mining Registrar’s Report in relation to this application. 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?
A Certificate of Application was issued by the Registrar on 12 December 2007 which can only be done if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicants are eligible to apply for the area and have complied with the requirements of Part 7 of the Act with respect to the application.
Section 269(4) (b) – Is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate?
The application seeks the grant of additional area for coal mining and gaseous hydrocarbons. The area is generally known for the production of coal, and this lease is required for coal mining purposes.
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?
The additional area is to be used for coal mining. I am satisfied that the purposes stated in the application reflect an acceptable level of development.
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?
The boundaries have been determined by the area that is required for the mine. The applicant companies have sought surface area of 1190.8 ha. There is no evidence to indicate the size and shape is not appropriate.
Section 269(4) (e) Is the term sought appropriate?
The applicant companies seek a term of to expire on 31 March 2007, concurrent with mining lease 1923. There is no evidence to suggest that this term is inappropriate. The term is required to support mining and rehabilitation conducted by the applicant companies in the area, and the applicant companies have the option of surrender if mining and rehabilitation is completed before the term expires.
Section 269(4) (f) – Has the Applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease?
The applicant companies have sufficient assets through company sources to undertake the proposed operation. I am satisfied the applicant companies have or have access to the necessary financial and technical resources.
Section 269(4) (g) – Has the past performance of the Applicant been satisfactory?
There is no evidence to suggest that the past performance of the applicant companies has not been satisfactory. The applicant companies state there has been no show cause or conviction imposed in respect of mining operations.
Section 269(4) (h) – Will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing Applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences?
The applicant companies held the appropriate tenure at the time of marking out, and where necessary, consents have been given. I am satisfied that no other person is disadvantaged.
Section 269(4) (i) – Do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management?
The current land use is Grazing Lease. While mining will disturb the surface, the extraction of the resource is an alternative appropriate use of the land.
Section 269(4) (j) – Will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof?
The draft environmental authority was issued and is effective from the date of grant of tenure. There is no evidence to suggest that the environmental impacts will not be adequately dealt with by compliance with the conditions set out in the Environmental Authority.
Section 269(4) (k) – Will the public right and interest be prejudiced?
There was no evidence before me that indicated public right and interest would be prejudiced. I take into account that there is no remaining objection to this application on public interest grounds.
Section 269(4) (l) – Has any good reason been shown for a refusal to grant the mining lease?
There was no evidence before me that indicated any grounds which would justify a refusal of the application.
Section 269(4) (m) – Is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land?
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
Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that the application for additional surface area be granted.
BR O’CONNOR
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR
0
0
0