My apologies for the late reply to your post to which this replies. I keep it very brief, as I believe we are close to agreement.

I stated my opinion in general terms of what I think should have been stipulated in detail in the ComAg with regards to various things (metrics, etc.). I coupled this with "that's how it's done". And I would know. You advise that there may have been avenues PTSC could have pursued to achieve the same result. How do you think that would have gone? A new negotiation of essentially a contract modification? And with a new negotiation, even if you are successful in getting everything you want (good luck with that), there comes the issue of additional consideration/compensation for the supposed extra effort.

The reason I said "that's how it's done" is because a contract should be written such that there is absolute minimum ambiguity, and no "we can address this later". Nail it down up front, and likely avoid a ton of pitfalls, disappointments and frustration, and ultimately costs and risks.

Where I think we agree is in the thought that there should have been methods of oversight/checks & balances of a multitude of metrics incorporated in the original contract.

And I am intimately aware of ways where it could have been done where the associated cost would be very near zero. Like a robust, properly maintained data base enabling progress monitoring remotely by PTSC. After all, such a data base would support management of operations by TPL and Alliacense. Then the only real cost to TPL/Alliacense would have been to simply accomodate occassional random audits by PTSC towards verifying that the data is reasonable, accurate and current.

FWIW,

SGE