Thank you Glorieux, this is indeed great news! 

On a similar note, I was taken aback upon reading the following verbatum in Hawk's NR today: "...which has a very similar geophysical signature to Noront's "known showings" in the area."

If one were semantically inclined, one could postalize that since DE1 and DE2 are NOT mentioned in the NR, that "known showings" need not be inclusive of just DE1 and DE2, and that "known showings" could include more than just DE1 and DE2.

As I am not semantically inclined, I don't mind being forthright in saying that If "known showings" is only representative of DE1 and DE2, wouldn't it have been easier to just say DE1 and DE2? 

Is it just me, or is it as though the NR wording has been finecombed by a lawyer of sorts?  He is a remarkable man.