So it seems to me with this amended response Teuton is basically asking the courts to save them from themselves.
"Look I know we approved the drilling expenses for 2007, and I know we approved the helicopter and accomodation expenses, and I know we didn't raise any objections to who was leading the Treaty program, and I know that paragraph 11 of the option agreement entitled us to appoint a representative to monitor the exploration activities while they were happening, and I know that the option agreement we signed had no stipulations regarding efficiencies or maximum expenditures, and I know we were provided with the locations of all the drill sites and said nothing... but we'd like a mulligan on all of that"
I mean it's not as if an impartial legislative body approved the expenses (BC Mining) and it's not as if one of the largest accounting firms in North America did a complete audit of the expenses (PriceWaterhouseCooper), I guess we should just take the word of the defendant instead that the monies were improperly spent.
And to deride the 2007 program at this point seems a bit contrary to the press release TUO issued in March of 2008. "“Over two-thirds of the 30 holes drilled in 2007 contained significant intercepts, which is excellent for a first year program." D. Cremonese.
Wow, that sure doesn't sound like what Teuton management is claiming now.