Laserfiche WebLink
12 <br />• • <br /> 1 have been doing, I thin}: it's an interesting point. I •~fould <br /> ? just li}:e to hear some more discussion aLiout it. ~~ <br /> 3 D1P.. IIARR:: I guess I don't understand -- I don't <br /> 4 disagree -- I don't know why you say this is different. ~~ <br /> 5 i^1S. P7ItdTEF,: Well, the amount is considerably <br /> 6 different; cae have not been trying to make a fine that incurs <br /> 7 a greater financial liability- than the reclamation would in the <br /> 8 past. t9ost of these small pits that we have been considcri.ng <br /> 9 have ,sines of 5400, perhaps all of it suspended, some of them <br /> 10 have as much as 4,000 with 2,000 to be paid. That's a consider- <br /> 11 able difference than cahat w.e are talking about right now. <br /> 12 ;1R. I3T.RRY: 'lou arc saying that the fine .is too <br /> 13 high? <br /> 14 P7S. :aIPiTF,R: I'm sa}ping it's higher than what <br /> 15 ,ae have done in the past, but I think that Davis' point is a <br /> 16 very interesting point and would change the way we arrive at a <br /> 17 figure. <br /> 1S ^iR. HOLDEP.: rrankly, I thought we had discussed <br /> 19 that point before. And that is what cae were attempting to do, <br /> 20 to make it unattractive to not go ahead with the permit. <br /> 21 :•15. I^]I^ITEP.: Gle have been talking about in terms <br /> 22 of financial liability, but more in terms of what the operator <br /> 23 would have paid for. annual report fr_es and that hind of thing <br /> 24 than we have i.n terms oL reclamation expense. <br /> 25 biP.. 210LDEP.: I think also the degree of <br /> t;re%.~ cvrrrc~n.r+.c asen~~rarcc. nr <br /> c,~.~~n,d ~r„~.~nn,~d x.~~,,,:,~., <br /> rsna cn~..~ „n.~ >;„n.l <br /> <br /> ro ~.;a-v: v i <br />