By: James Plumb, Partner and Kelly Pain, Senior Associate
As we reported in our October 2014 newsletter titled ‘Common Provisions Act – implications for land access and compensation’, the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 (Qld) (MERCPA) received royal assent on 26 September 2014.
By: James Plumb & Johanna Kennerley
The first part of this two part series, ‘Changes to the Water Act – Can you comply with your new obligations?’ focused on entry into Make Good Agreements.
In the second part of our Water Act series, we focus on the changes to the Water Act 2000 (Qld) (Water Act) that are due to commence in December this year. Those changes will bring mining activities conducted pursuant to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld)(MRA) within the ambit of Chapter 3 of the Water Act.
By: James Plumb, Partner and Duncan Lomas, Solicitor
The Supreme Court of Queensland’s recent decision in Armour Energy Limited v AEGP Australia Pty Ltd  QSC 153 considered the appropriate construction of a condition precedent in an exploration farmout agreement. The decision reinforces the need for clear and unambiguous drafting, properly reflecting the parties’ intentions, to avoid disputes.
By: James Plumb, Partner and Johanna Kennerley, Senior Associate
Within the next 6 months, both petroleum and mining tenure holders will be impacted by new obligations under the Water Act 2000 (Qld) (Water Act).
In this two part series, we will firstly examine the obligations on petroleum tenure holders to enter into make good agreements, which is particularly relevant with the draft Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) being finalised shortly. In the second part of our Water Act series, we will focus on the changes to the Water Act and examine the new obligations on holder of mining tenure.
Contact: Andrew Shute, Partner and Johanna Kennerley, Senior Associate; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)
Late last year, the Victorian Supreme Court in the matter of Winky Pop & Anor v Mobil & Anor  VSC 348 was asked to consider the principles of assessment of damages to land, where land owned by a third party was contaminated from a leaking oil pipeline. The plaintiff, Winky Pop, sought opportunity loss damages in the vicinity of $170 million from the defendant, Mobil, for negligently contaminating its land. Mobil, which did not deny causing the contamination but was undertaking remediation, was only required to pay just over $100,000 for the costs of investigation.
- Chains of Responsibility – Queensland Government passes amendments to Environmental Protection Act
- Application for costs successful – Material change of circumstances for mining lease
- Has the Queensland Government overreached in its battle with Clive Palmer?
- Queensland objection rights restored – Mineral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016