Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />' <br />i 73 <br />' 1 t <br />i <br />l <br />A <br />b <br /> ma <br />er <br />a <br />. <br />s Ro <br />says, that the process itself, <br />' 2 because of the top-out here under this design, we <br /> 3 were able to include PMP, probable maximum <br /> 4 precipitation design criteria into the design for <br /> 5 the tailings disposal area. <br /> 6 Those are two of the major environmental <br /> 7 concerns that are definitely in favor of this. The <br /> i <br /> 8 biggest env <br />ronmental drawback that I see i,s it <br />' 9 disturbs slightly more area than the heap leach did. <br /> to Does that answer your question? <br /> 11 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes. I appreciate <br /> 12 that. <br />' 13 One final question, maybe more for the <br /> 14 operational considerations, but I guess I'm looking <br /> <br /> 15 for what drives the amendment, and why are we going <br />' 16 from the part heap leach and part milling process to <br /> 17 a total --'or different approach, and is that the <br /> 18 nature of the (inaudible) no more informaticen about <br /> 19 the kind of material we are working with that makes <br /> 20 it more appropriate to use in the milling process? <br /> 21 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I might as well <br /> 22 take a shot. My understanding is that Battle <br />' 23 Mountain has -- since the original application was <br /> 24 approved, has undertaken considerably more <br />1 25 metallurgy work with respect to the deposit. <br />t AGREN, BLANDO S BILLINGS <br /> <br />