My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990-11-15_REVISION - M1988112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1990-11-15_REVISION - M1988112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 12:51:06 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:52:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/15/1990
Doc Name
REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING VOLUME I APPLICATION OF BATTLE MTN RESOURCES INC IN COSTILLA
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />11 <br /> 1 Were there any objections of the <br /> 2 parties? <br />' 3 N <br />dib <br /> ( <br />O au <br />le response.) <br /> 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't think there were. <br /> 5 Okay. <br />' 6 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: The order we <br /> 7 established at the prehearing conference about <br />' 8 Battle Mountain gives its presentation and then the <br /> 9 objectors proceed with cross-examination periods and <br />' <br /> l0 then the objectors make their presentation followed <br />' it by a cross-examination period is different from what <br /> 12 we put in the outline I just presented to you. <br />' 13 Dean Massey and I spoke about this <br /> 14 briefly a few minutes ago, and what we would ask, if <br />' 15 the Board has <br />o obj <br />ti <br />i <br />th <br />t <br />t <br />h <br /> n <br />ec <br />on, <br />o <br />ave <br />e <br />wo <br />s <br />1 16 presentations, have Battle Mountain's presentation <br /> 17 immediately follow the objectors presentation, and <br />' 18 reserve cross-examination of both parties until <br /> 19 after both initial presentations. <br />' 20 We thought that -- we recommend that for <br />' 21 two reasons: one, because it would shorten the <br /> 22 cross-examination period because a lot of questions <br />' 23 might get answered before we actually have to come <br /> 24 forward; and No. 2, because of the scheduling of <br />' 25 some of the witnesses, we would have to rearrange <br />AGREN, BLANDO b BILLINGS <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.