I would be tempted to have your actuary friend look at the averaging that PT did with the drill data. However, your friend would probably not find anything amiss, because the math was fine.
However, you simply cannot cherry pick the best interval regardless of thickness from each hole, hundreds or thousands of feet apart, on different geological structures, and come up with a single assay value for the whole "deposit". Unless your actuary friend has some basic geological knowledge, he won't find anything wrong with PT's averaging.
He probably does understand the concept of weighted averaging. But he won't know anything about geology, and how fraudulent that averaging was, from a technical sense.
What exactly did he focus on in his review?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
