Hate to break it to you Cobalt, but your understanding of the process is flawed. The reason for verifying drill holes is to confirm that the mineralization previously identified actually exists, establishing continuity of mineralization is done at a much earlier stage...especially for a historical deposit like Cow Mountain. In this case, the only reason I can see that Snowden would request twinning certain holes is to confirm that the mineralized zones used by PG in his original estimates are accurate. This is common practice when using dodgy historical data. This verification work likely should have been done by PG prior to him using the data, hence the reason Snowden is doing it now.

As to the audit vs. new report debate, there is no question that Snowden will be producing a new report, most likely with PG as a co-author. The reason being that in order to audit the estimate Snowden basically has to redo it using their own internal methodology. I know of no consultant that will put their name behind somebody elses work without confirming the results with their own eyes. Keep in mind, Snowden will be legally responsible for the resource when all is said and done, and given all the deficiencies with the orginal report, there is no way that Snowden will sign off on it without major changes. So if you really want to know what the final number will be, take PGs original estimate and factor in Snowden addressing all the issues identified by the BCSC. Unfortunately, the end result will not be anywhere close to the original, but likely still in the multi-million ounces range.