Laserfiche WebLink
<br />z2~ <br /> 1 through that heap leach, collected at the base of <br /> 2 the facility, and routed back out to the ponds. <br /> <br /> 3 In comparison, we have, with our current <br /> 4 designer for the (inaudible) disposal, the direct <br /> 5 opposite. We have a constraint on the potent;gal <br /> 6 passage of solutions through the facility. We have <br /> 7 an indicated chemistry which would imply we would <br />t 8 have less than full (inaudible) in free cyanide. <br /> 9 We have a pH which is near neutral. And <br /> l0 the chemistry of that solution, in our opinion, is <br />' 11 not even in the same realm as that of the heap <br /> 12 leach. <br /> 13 To provide a double-liner type of <br /> 14 containment for this facility was implied earl::er to <br />' 15 be industry standard. I would disagree with that <br /> 16 completely. It's certainly not industry standard <br />' 7 <br /> 1 to provide double-liner containment systems for <br />' 18 tailings impoundment facilities of that nature, <br /> 19 dealing with this waste. It is not industry <br />' 20 standard. <br /> 21 In terms of what the actual liner <br />r 22 containment system we have, you have two <br />' 23 <br />2 considerations. One, we have a double liner in <br /> 4 terms of the capabilities of the tailings itselr to <br />t 25 provide a 10 to the minus 6 barrier to seepage, to <br />AGREN, BLANDO fi BILLINGS <br /> <br />