This (Below) is from the 43-101 report. It would appear he had more than enough time to deal with the drill data from a historical side and then also add new drill data as it came in.
Just so all understand, I didn't go through the 43-101 report to come up with the ratio 100,000 of 125,000 not used. That information was taken from Garth Kirkham's story. I believe it to be true.
"The Author visited the site for two full days, October 13 and 14, 2010, and as well spent two full days in the Vancouver office of the Company (where a library of technical and government reports is stored), October 12 and 15, 2010. The Author revisited the site during the periods March 20 to 24, 2011 and during the period April 23 to 27, 2012 to review additional exploration data that became available since the site visit in March 2011."
I think all would agree that plenty of data to be used, but a very large amount was disregarded. As to why, I will restate why possibly some holes may have not been used.
1. The hole may not lie within the resource area
2. The assay results maybe didn't pass QA/QC with the submittal of blanks and standards. If the was the case, BGM would have had the lab re-run assays, until it met industry standards.
3. I understand quite a few holes were drilled from underground and probably tended to be short in length. There is a good chance this drill data was mined out. I would think they would still model in the data and then back out historical mined numbers.
Understand, when a QP releases the resource that is first reported in the summary, the company and the QP have 45 days in which to submit the final report to SEDAR. Before you release the summary resource, you should have the repot basically done. Much of it is boiler plate, but it does take time to get it all together. I understand that PG / BGM were under the gun because the summary set off all kinds of alarms and they knew they had to try and defend what they had put out. Most would argue, It is the responsibility of the QP and also the company to make sure the numbers made sense. Either other GEO's in the company, or hired consultants should have reviewed the numbers before going public. All my opinion and some hindsight