I am not even sure how to respond to this comment. I don't mean to sound condescending but you don't really understand how regulators operate and your questions reflect this. My responses in bold below.

Watcher, I find it curious that regulatory organizations would use Geologists to review and approve proper disclosure and not Lawers with expertise in regulatory rules, regulations and laws. 

 Lawyers are not known for their geological knowledge. When an organization is reviewing a news release for accuracy against disclosure requirements why wouldn't they use a geologist? Lawyers are not generally equipped to review these things, just as geologists are not generally equipped to review a prospectus. 

I also find it unusual that you would be familiar with the Curriculum Vitae's of Geologists who work for a number of different regulatory organizations. 

I as well find it unusual that you would be familiar with the disclosure review process of a number of different regulatory organizations that you have probably never worked for.

Regulators do communicate with one another. The junior space is relatively small across the country and people tend to cross paths often. Particularly when there is a very vocal group making all sorts of noise and demands of regulators, we tend to talk. I don't think it is unusual that one would have a high level understanding of the people involved in a case. While I don't know intimate details of a CV, I do not believe it unusual to know that Person X has been working for Organization Y for 15 years. 

If you understand the uniformity of securities laws, you will know that they set the standard for disclosure review. Therefore while processes may be different between organizations, the bottom line is that all reviews are matched against securities laws.