RE:RE:RE:RE:Assay resultsUPDATE -- and an endorsement of NFG IR who are easy to work! Should you have questions for our NFG team, I encourage you to ask IR for comment. It is what we pay them to do and they seem quite good at it!
Per the attached, the requested clarification on wording of their original response has been received. It seems logical to me and sounds like the Australia experiment was a beast to deal with.
NFG response from IR
"We do not comment, except in news releases, on the status of individual assay results. Speaking broadly and to explain where hold ups can occur, it is common for an assay lab to send a company back partial assays in which case we have to wait longer for the full analysis before being in a position to report. In addition, in the case where a single hole is part of a closely spaced grid, the company may wait to release an assay until such time as we understand the orientation of the veins and the mineralization and hence release a hole as part of a group of holes. Over the past several weeks, we have made the unusual move of putting out a few holes individually. The reason for this is that we felt that they were material and while we may have preferred to put them out in a batch to better tell the story, we were unable to do so with the current QAQC constraints. To address your question on the Chrysos turn around, in theory, yes the assay process is much faster than traditional labs. Being that we were going to Perth, we had travel time, got stuck at customs, had to go through sample prep, and then the laboratory itself was backed up, etc. In the end, we have not experienced as quick of a turn around as hoped for in the process.
Regarding the QAQC, there should be a comprehensive review and conclusion in the coming days. Once again, I am unable to comment on anything that is not already disclosed in a release. Keep your eyes open for that as it should address all of your questions."