the trial court in this case and of her decision below with the following language the b l m has clearly decided to prioritize the recovery of trauma over the recovery of oil and gas in the m today in two sections the first section deals was reach a contract or the contract claims the repudiation and the second part of dealing with the taking  suspension it's just mentioned was not during that period right so it was there was nothing inconsistent between the suspension and actually granting the drilling permits right nothing inconsistent  important to point to point to is the more specific application of the i s to the fact to this case now there was no i'm sorry i'm sorry go ahead well they specifically addressed the issue through that language that language that judge amount is talking about is generalized language and is between the general and the specific certainly the specific take hold but briefing we were just in that process beyond those saying while we have not made a decision it is our view that on gas should be prohibited then you have the two thousand and eight final wasn't true i thought the suspension say that during the period of suspension so leases can't expire are you saying that they can they can keep running they just can't expire and i thought they were all how do i make those that's my impression too right right let me mark when the suspension is lifted you have six months to your eyes is ok and that's so that will tell that to the extent that there was any caking to the tech you could argue there was a taking by the improper suspension it wasn't much of a take from me did you ask the district court to separate out those two leases at that point and say that as to those because this is pension had been i'm a state that that there should have been a separate independent taking time as to those we did not own i'd like to just kind of summarize the remaining points on put on repudiation which is we believe that there is no authority for the long term suspensions under the congressional limited delegation discussion out that there was a new tradition handed which was you're going to have to protect the true miners in order to use these places never of a source of the bargain never something that was an invasion the head does apply to drilling in a safe manner of ensuring that nobody on the surface of the drone operations is injured safe drawing operations doesn't extend never has a separate industry where you're required to protect separate industries will separate industry sounds suppose i think the regulations we're talking about here i think are forty three c f i thirty one sixty two you're familiar with one in five they talk about protection and safety of property and persons i mean suppose that you had a drilling technique that you wanted to use let's just say fracking for lack of a better term of a type that of concern i think if you go and then something that had such powerful effects that it would have an effect on it nearby and the nearby towns like rock spring to undermine houses and buildings that that would surely be prohibited all right i don't think so i think that that really they don't see any fine you could just go ahead and drill and that's the problem of the people of rock springs and beyond can do any about and i think the congress has provided for the situation through the multiple mineral development mandate the schedule we decided to do which is to say these multiple mineral conflicts are dealt with by the the multiple mineral conflict language in the leases where the b l m and its multiple mineral mandate lays out a procedure where both mineral states will be utilized one will not be sacrificed to the other for decades long beyond my client being on the earth and so the congress has provided for this and that that after that approach was not taken here cited specific it's going to depend on where they want to drill what method say one is but we're at the environmental impact statement saying there should never be any drilling at all in the entire area how do you ever get to the point where conditions on approved or oppressive developed just like it always can under the regulations and under the lease terms clinton has suggested that these leases were essentially without condition or thout restriction but the leases themselves contain language looked wiring operators to protect other resources is that if we condition it is that you can't you can't mine while they're struggling mining going on and turn mining is going to go on for two thousand years then how isn't that not a an additional condition to the lease that that is inconsistent with the fact that the leases were granted in the first place i mean there's nothing new about trying to mining or about the requirement that were kind of spread out over the area what i didn't see and perhaps it wasn't indicated there was where the trainer mines are that's right now can you enlighten us on that or the trauma mines throughout that area are they mine so that even though as a general matter the a m a shape we don't want mining to to conflict with the drilling nonetheless there would be no significant or even plausible argument that there's a conflict with respect to is administrative leave unavailable for new fluid mineral leasing and so i mean my final resource management plan said we're not going to grant it and they can apply but it says right there that they're not going to be granted what i think is an important distinction to approved with conditions why didn't let him feel i'm just buying out these leases or plots them out for something so in the area i'm not certain why they made that policy decision i suppose they felt that they were able to adequately protect the other resources and safety in the environment using the distinct features that are defined by the leases and by the regulations and i'm was it your understanding that atlanta critchfield was or were the predecessor that the suspensions meant they were never going to be able to develop it is curious that they were reacquired and maybe they were buying the cause of action as possible  distinct and qualified intent to not form  or another to please positive definite unconditional and unequivocal manifestation of an intent to breach of contract i think at the worst what we have here is some ambiguity about how throwing cases are going to be treated we don't have b l m saying we're never going to be able to approve and if you do and that's really what distinguishes this case from oh boy whatever resources is that in the cases the agency had no discretion it was barred from even considering files here the agency hasn't been barred the factual situation is difficult but the agencies still can entertain an application w we responded saying that some of the oil is is quite clear that where rights are created by contract and where the government acts within the framework of that contract explains that you always have to give the agency the opportunity to make a site specific determination on the takings context that's important because we simply don't know whether and to what extent there has been a place and so all these steps are contained within the running of that initial term on the lease so that this case is not one where the agency hasn't had an opportunity to study