BXJU, As always this is just my opinion & observation. When the QP releases the report to the client & the client then releases the Summary report, the QP should have all the modeling done, the ruff draft, and when a company waits till the end of the 45 days, it is only things like graphics, wording, table edits, etc that are being worked on. In no way should the "Science" (that was for you Cobalt) be being done. In addition, the companies QP (BGM Geo) better be completly on board as to what the report says, if the numbers make sense, and be able to identify any areas that need more analysis ( say bench 3950). I am only speaking for myself, but I think most in industry would really question talking about the upside to the whole property with a total number. I think most are more than glad to talk about the property having upside, where they think they can add more oz's, etc. Seems after several failed Global #'s, companies have pulled back from such claims. I will provide a bit more on this in a later post. So, In my opinion, not only do I think PG jumped the gun, I think the management has to take blame as well. The report should have only been in the edit stage, not re-modeling the deposit in my opinion. For instance, what do you tell the BCSC when the program keeps crashing and you can't get your numbers out? Yea, it happens, especially with large data sets.