You are talking about two separate events and making my point.
Event 1- dan responds to a question from evilrbt about when the NI will be ready and that's when the feb would be too long comment occurred. And thereby setting an expectation that doesn't come to pass.
Point of clarification in your post being that Dan DID explain the reason for the delay in the letter, which is due to the hole locations.
So, the original NI to be authored by rpa is on hold for the additional drilling now needed to the mislocated holes.
And the company announced in the letter both the reason for the delay and that an interim report would be prepared by Chance but did not offer a date for its completion.
It's a matter of cost that they do it this way to have Chance do the interim, rather than have RPA do both.
Event 2- Shareholder asks for the status of the interim NI from Chance and is told by Dan that they need a site visit from the QP. In this one, a date is not given for the completion of the report, only to say a site visit had yet to occur and was needed before the report could be finished.
In event 1, a date was given and not met, leading to condemnation of dan for giving an educated guess to a shareholder about a date not entirely in the company's control to meet.
In the second scenario, no date has been given, only assumed by shareholder posts again offering educated guesses about the timing, resulting in both condemnation of the company for not giving a date and for shareholders offering opinions.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
