the same the situation came before you in calcutta signed this case the marathon and unocal participated in how the original parties of the contract envisioned that this contract would be interpreted that is that  the opportunity before any well it was drilled would be given the geophysical there and would be allowed the opportunity before he well was drilled to participate in that prospect so there is no cherry working  honor marathon unocal at that juncture former unit it was within their power to determine what leases went in the unit marathon and unocal then included one of the lease they drill down then we drop whatever they're grown to do well or gas whatever things and it doesn't ever come from any of what is this is i'm not in agreement where marathon unocal drill an oil well and say oh gosh we found oil now do you want to participate this is where they're supposed to say we intend to drill a well and therefore here's the geological data here's the geophysical data and training but you have forty five days to decide whether you want to participate before well is ever drilled which ever drill so you put up your money in advance and then the well is turtle and if the well is productive that's fine if the well is not productive you've lost money so it's not the one where you're saying ok and some other part of this particular unit we're going to drill a well and if we hit that you get to participate in it after a while they all gamble the result he does not go well but they're participating in advance of it so there's no disproportion interest there just like marathon unocal saying we're going to drill well here put up your portion of the money and they put their portion of money in advance so it's not like that getting top a windfall o are risking their money along with verizon and you know prior to the time the well is through there is no right to any ownership of any oil and gas anywhere under the lease within the big square and the well three fourteen we're concerned about here in this case it was in the big circle but it wasn't in the little participating circle in the three except for the fact that the well the walk was drilled was within fifteen hundred and put up your money and see where there's that and that applies within the entire unit so it's not like it is not in this circumstance it is not like things you have to drill while on this particular unit because you can't read that one sentence as a condition preceded to the remainder of the clause in the group just to court said yes you could because the interpretation that your client wanted to put on it on that contradicts that just  to trading day it's we proposed to drill a well part of that drilling block is going to be very close to the handle well it's not exactly on the leaks so far that part of that if we're going to be the transferred to force energy now my in my opposing counsel referenced a few things which i just like to clarify and how how the marathon came to be the owner and operator of  guys i've got this this letter agreement with one of the former lease owners and i'm expecting you're going to argue that it wasn't until the eleventh hour when we were going forward to drill what's known as the abalone well and ron and he referred to it as the three fourteen well just for clarit leases it was a condition precedent that at least might wait a minute now are you arguing that even if this letter could be construed as an obligation on the other we're not contesting the validity of what your argument sounds like rather than talking about whether the interpretation of the district court was correct and i'm sorry if i was unclear and we're not we're not we're not arguing that we're not down to live up to the agreement that paragraph eleven this is completely consistent with alaska lot why why because there was testimony is one was there's at least three fourteen was in the unit and it was geology from there they'll find a participating areas within that and in fact in an electric unit we have three participating areas in those three participating areas or in production producing gas from three participating areas within the unit the three and there is a fairly no evidence to the contrary as to that and they created some ambiguity in the contract as to what it meant and it could well mean that if that would be a reasonable interpretation of the contract and if the courts have that it would not be because of evidence you put on is that right am i wrong in that analysis i guess but i guess getting back to the in there the qualifier and it's important here to go back to the first sentence it says you can participate for up to eight some percent working interest in that sentence later on we're talk stuff you do choose to participate whatever percentage interest you're going to participate in that will be your interest for ever and that's those are but again the construction paragraph eleven that judge basically came up with it's absolutely consistent with the last the law industry practice and it's not  is seeking here and what he can hear is he's getting a percentage of the production from across the unit and that was simply never contemplated in the letter agreements that that were executed with force energy and subsequently only rawest its production is coming from under his lease he's not entitled to participate in that production in any percentage all the way john at the bottom of the unit in some sixty miles long probably about seven or eight miles wide it's a huge of the oil and gas industry and regulation in the state of alaska and what not and it looks like from what you're telling this is that they contemplated that he would be able to participate being a working interest it's not the perfect contract it's certainly not one marathon would have done it's certainly not one that the state would have ever expected as has having any impact on its interest as the mineral owner here now and  this agreement and but at the same time what that would do is probably indicate that there was an ambiguity in this contract looking at the contract and listening to that not meet the reasonable expectations of the parties which apparently seems to be the law of alaska and if that was then you'd still win but you don't want to talk about them well but your honor we  years he's well aware of the last the president on the point that when there is a condition a skin a contract that it will be strictly enforced and if you determine that that first sentence that a condition and that if it had not been that court now has an understanding of that this is an option contract is an option to allow trading day to participate in advance of any well being drilled dissipating areas are not used in the with that and i think that's very clear so i think at the minimum at the absolute minimum the scorcher quar a trial of the interpretation i don't think that the contract is that ambiguous but at least a trial should be had to allow the testimony  developer so then at that juncture the reasonable expectation of the parties can be enforced because if not then this contract has no remedy and the very the very issue