The way I see it, they're concerned about the possibility of...

The way I see it, they're concerned about the possibility of having to walk back any estimates given based on incomplete analysis upon receipt of full analysis. To be this quiet, I think it's unlikely the results are middling as that'd draw little reaction from the market to be so concerned about.
So I'm assuming the scenario's were currently looking at are:

1
- Current analysis of 3d is looking dire, with potential to improve. Management is desperately hoping that potential is realised and are avoiding making an announcement while they can justify avoiding it (incomplete analysis), avoiding panic selling.

2
- Current analysis is demonstrating enough potential to generate considerable hype and buying activity, with potential for final analysis reduce current estimates. Management are avoiding an announcement to make sure they don't have to retract an estimate that has brought a lot of attention to PCL (and price movement)

Based on previous positive messaging, I favour the second scenario being reality. Posters claiming to have been in contact with Iain have claimed he used the word "foolish" to describe releasing an announcement at this point (where the response to query uses "inappropriate") and to me "foolish" fits scenario 2 better. Counting eggs before they've hatched and what not.

In support of scenario 1, we have Vesna selling some of her holding.

A little bit of googling has satisfied me that there could be the estate of a large holder in the mix of current selling, as Rooey has claimed.

Thought I'd put my current thought process down, maybe I'm a bit positively biased.