the negotiations e p a so represented to the defense that that was its plan at the time that was how it intended to go about addressing contamination in the basin that it had no intent to change that at the time and so forth but that does not change the fact one c p a made this decision to expand the remedial action to include areas outside the box and that it became more difficult for them to get credit if you started your argument that we can accept as true all the findings made by the district  evidence show works has some mining and some productivity some profit coming from some place if paid for this not profit producing activity of cleaning up the arts and streets negotiation it's clear if the parties clearly anticipated costs and played a lot about this just discuss the possibility that in fact e p a would take a different approach in the face and then they were tending to take its time  contribution to the original contract there is one company or actually two two related companies quarterly mines that did go into bankruptcy during the  at the time the contract was left as i understand it the companies were told they would coordinate both in the box and out of the box activities using the same equipment scheduling all that set up and the work under the consent decree as crisp as has proceeded as provided by the consent decree there's no question about that as to the areas outside of the box outside of this twenty one square mile area there was in this big basin would not be expanded to include the whole basin and it would be not be subject to unlimited spending unlimited announcers and unlimited  read these briefs and to read the judge's order to be honest because over here we have the companies are asking for a circular release during this whole negotiations and that's for a few so it seems only to the company so they dropped it there was discussion about what's going to happen inside the box and it was clear in the language of this consent decree as i read it that there were no guarantees for outside the box that the government reserved all of its rights to do whatever it was going to do and they refused assertively so in the face of that and then trying to balance out what you just told me so help me out and we'll help you out if you look carefully could have said no i talked to my moyer's the lawyers told me i can't do this but and i think it's important to recognize that that's what the change circumstances were complaining about ifs but the difficulty as it is he's got finding contract superfund particular location is not included in this preservation of writing i am saying that you know i'm also saying that the court is allowed to look at the totality of circumstances the court did and in today hearing there are extensive findings of fact spread across two orders and the court found that in fact in essence if the companies were going to continue and the companies have limited resources clearly and we were talking about something close to limitless liability and judge lodge said i can't put a number on it exactly i just know w survival is here you are a hundred years later and these two companies are stuck with this legacy that at one time was considered a good thing it's now considered a bad thing and they're in a position of trying to find a way to generate funds over time this companies have stepped up the companies are looking everyone is looking for ways to generate funds over time to deal with the issues the real issues  some cleanup and i think judge lodge sees himself in a position where that's what his how do i manage all of this to keep these companies going generating carriage and get done what extraction focus to more of a tourism recreational focus and the corn lane basin unfortunately is sort of caught in the middle of that with no real strong base in either camp at this point in this case so we're not talking above your contract between the government and your points we're talking about a consent decree out is there anything in the record the contract says that nothing in this contract precludes the government from going after you for your support in the environment outside the box and the fact is if you could spoil the environment change e p a had promised us congressman in the world that it was not going to superfund the whole basis and it broke that promise it changed its mind and it can change its mind but there should be consequences if there are in past from their changing their mom and that's what rules six p p five is all about particularly in the context of something like this where you're talking he said this isn't right and the united states could have negotiated a consent decree that didn't include a reference to rule sixty that didn't allow modification but they included it we invoked it the court found what it did and it's just sitting it's supposed to be reviewed at this point where you sent this crash the court agreed with our mine based on restoration project and just as a matter of policy it can give that right away it's in charge of public health and the environment so but to then go and make resources yes hecla has been the best performer on the new york stock exchange that's because its stock has been somewhere around sixty three cents a share and it's not hard on a percentage become the best performer when your stock is that low and actually being threatened to be delisted from the new york stock exchange so without the context without any expert testimony that evidence really the slight pass to include areas outside the box in other words e p a order spends refund money on remedial action outside the box that means the site has to include but the areas outside the box anybody with any reasonable objectivity reclamation restoration project restoration project which always by the way left open the option of releases the grip of remedial action outside the box it wasn't to be taken directly under the current base restoration project but in the framework documents