what's what's the matter with that well you know for one thing it i don't think it would create a very stable environment for eternity so you tr that's their theory but but it's our position if they think got to it i mean they're there fieri doesn't recognize the legal realities you disagree with their the facts or whatever the evidence is you disagree with that if that's their theory of the court found there was evidence at least some evidence to support that they would succeed ultimately why doesn't try oil that have standing to protect it well because the fact that they made ultimately pro rate those leases doesn't it i mean if if it would establish a regional likelihood of success on the merits of that part of litigation but it would not give them you know it would not give them the standing of legal rights if they did not get that they asked well i think i think that's a yes you can see the three of us have a question about that issue because it seems to hear everything well i think because yes i mean i think greater you know potential payoff because you've got you know i suppose that i mean i tried i suppose also would have the chance far as a dumping ground for waste the waste of course is the salt water produced from the flow of production or that waste has been disposed of rent free  there has been no benefit to the mineral interest owners of chance there has been no benefit to trot willacy most importantly in most significantly there's been no benefit but an actual harm that has been occasioned to the chance of these itself is left chance in a tenuous situation at best and with a very dim prognosis as to when you should capability to produce oil as the court pointed out there is no dispute that the last production of oil the last time we all came out before missions on chance was june two thousand and one that is rock solid that is something that cannot be controverted and as a practice it is with that premise that we proceed to the next step in the arctic and that is that instead of doing the right thing tried didn't do anything it took a do nothing approach it didn't plug the wells they didn't remove its equipment it didn't vacate the lease and it certainly did nothing and there is no evidence of reasonable diligence to resume production of oil on the chance lease i only within sixty days is required by the one nine hundred eighty lease but frankly for the following nearly ten years those facts are undisputed your honour's this case is really no different than a renter of an apartment in an apartment building or complex whose lease term is up he or she decides to leave the apartment to buy a house whatever reason that renter who is now a homeowner decides they don't want to pay for trash service anymore or at all at the new house so what they do is they take their trash bags they go back to the park complex in the middle of the night they don't they're trash down the but at the end of the day i can't do that infringes upon his property rights and to make that hypothetical aggravated or worse if my neighbor came out in the yard and said hey he was dumping your trash  continued in light of that adverse claim against that claim of my neighbor that i was in pretty good on his rights the law is not a lie it's a trust us this case is no different than those two hypotheticals that  tantamount to this court saying we are going to run against the grain of well established oil and gas law in the state we are going to fight that our policy with regard to oil and gas law is that we are going to encourage  promote a bond lessee somebody who hasn't done anything for years to sit idle intimately and essentially act like with all due respect a child by saying this state and of these courts in the state to say we promote you taking the do nothing approach is for those reasons generally speaking your honour's that trop worth decision was correct who caused the flood of this coal mine argued that the right of action was not the coal lessee who had the right of action it wasn't his or her interest the company's interest but rather it was the owner of the property that leased the coal rights the mineral rights to the the mineral interest lessee and in that case a supreme court was very clear and there's some very good language in that opinion that says to suggest that there's not a separate independent right for the whole that case claimed that they had an adequate remedy all but the court soundly rejected that said no there's reparable harm there's potential for waste and we're going to intervene and enjoying this conflict so the answer to the question is to suggest that the middle interest honors the siegel's have a right of action but try try to will somehow far from the court house to enforce its property interest in its lease rights from irreparable harm and from the very real danger that exists that the chance farms not going to be able to produce any well it's all in the future is something that is the bedrock of how standing evolves and how if you will the footings of the foundation that order it's successful one e g action then maybe at that point we can get to the idea of discussing whether or not a preliminary injunction or a permanent junctions are perfect that just doesn't make sense there is no provision in the code a civil procedure that heavily upon three cases belden vs tristar which i think is the most recent ragsdale case record over says clarke i believe and then the third one is the base versus mansfield's so let's talk fact or terminations and that was considered on it was a nine hundred thirty eight lease that it sat idle for at least seven years even by less period of time than we have here the facts of the court looked at the facts of the case found based upon the well established wall of automatic term a nation that the lease was expired on its own terms automatically terminated and that on remand when they sent the case back to the trial court proceedings courthouse it's simply not the case if you look back still ranks there was a very convoluted set up that was involving i think forty five different parcels that unit ties in a very remote mineral interest owner not oil company under a join all of the necessary indispensable parties in the litigation nothing more nothing less to suggest that there is some leap of logic that you may that says that in no circumstances can a top lessee bring an action  allowed a valid lease for the south different facts on bates the court found that there had to be an expiration expired lease in order to have the top must see the able to bring the cause of action and because she which would have sixty days or ninety days or a year whatever most of the sixty days there were days but once you don't do anything within that sixty days technically on the sixty first day if you haven't exerted reasonable diligence to go out whether or not there's a lightly bit of success on the merits of the face and i agree just samples in that one of the linchpin issues is whether or not this lease has expired so you expire and frankly there was no sale there was nothing and i think that was from the record speaks for itself like september of  so i hope that addressed your question just moving on to the elements if i may regard to exclusive right to explore capture develop produce they can't do that if someone else is the value of the property and disallowing them the chance to do it too if most of the common law and everyone's noetic remedy of law there's absolutely no dispute here there were a number of wells in the plumbing fun it costs money to plug wells they weren't doing it the reason why they weren't doing it is because it's easier to allow a piece of property to become free storage for your deal with it in one fell swoop in front of twelve people in the same county jury trial well i mean it's almost like a personal injury plaintiff who's in a car accident and during the course of the of the case you know heals from his or her injuries