New Found Gold Corp V.NFG

It's not that complicated, I'm no genius.

[Tk11455ok]

Sorry if this is already covered, just don't have time to read the last 3 days of posts.The "discrepency" in the ALS vrs EA results will come down to selection bias, nothing more. There is no reason to dispute either of the companys results. They were sent different samples even though they were split from the same cores. Think about it, you just split a core at NFGs core shack. They are not homogenious and one side seams to have some more, or a lot more shiney yellow stuff in it. Which one are you going to send off? This explains the larger discrepencies of the high grade samples vrs lower grade (less than 20g/t) as you probably can't see any or much gold in the lower grade samples. How can cores split in half vary that much? It easy to envision  core samples that hit a high grade area at an angle. Depending on the angle the split cores could vary considerably, yes even 6 fold! So what to do? If you want some "full" core values, just take the figures from ALS and EA for each point, add them together and divide by 2. It did bother me that they used a logarithmic graph to display the differences, as a linear graph would look a lot worse, ie deviation from the line. The good news is that the ALS half cores, did indead have those high concentrations of gold. GLTAL

TK

[Retiredgeo]

Well said.

[toller1]

I agree, bias happened at core shack with no malice intended!

[likeike]

Bang on TK ...right from square one I saw this as an adherent fault in fireassay and so easy to do. Not many companies use 2 labs like they did ....expediated ones to Vancover and as result exposed this. They put their problem out there and now will take 8 weeks to prove where this bias lies. With QH I am sure they were following Chrysos for sometime. Availabity I believe was  the