New Found Gold Corp V.NFG

RE:sampling bias

[AlwaysLong683]

orophil wrote: perhaps a discussion is in order in regard to the role of sampling bias in reporting of drill results....investors have an expectation that when a core is split that the selection of the half core that is submitted for analysis and the half core that is retained should be done randomly and not based upon visual inspection and favoring of which core may appear to have a higher quantity of gold.....iow we expect unbiased submission of a core sample half.....however in just about every other step of the entire evaluation of the extent of the size of an ore body we eagerly expect and anticipate bias....as an investor we expect management to show us where the gold is and in what quantites not where it is not....we expect assays to be submitted and performed not on random sections of core but on the most highly prospective cores based upon visual inspection and the using all of the tools and talents available to professional geologists....with 9 rigs drilling   it is reasonable to expect that there is no shortage of core and management now in the process of selecting core to be submitted for photon analysis....its reasonable to expect that among the cores now present in the shacks the cores most likely to test with the highest grams/ton will be those that will be submitted.....based upon the the success to date in finding jewlry boxes I am optomistic that good news may be on its way and very soon

orophil, if what you say is true, investors should "eagerly expect and anticipate bias", and the assay process from core yard sampling to the work in the labs conducted to date by NFG was perfectly normal and is standard practice in the industry, then why did NFG feel need to issue a press release dated November 4 after market close (7:33 pm) stating the following, which will cost the company and thus shareholders time and money as well as causing a significant drop in the share price over the past two trading sessions, thus hurting shareholders who already had a stake in NFG:

"Two test programs have been designed by RSC with input from the Company to identify the potential sources of bias.

The first program will test whether there is a bias between the two labs and will involve submitting 167 half-core samples to ALS for crushing and splitting into two equal lots. The two splits are to undergo the standard metallic screening process at the two respective labs, EA, and ALS.

If a statistically significant bias is demonstrated in test program one, test program two will determine which laboratory produced the bias by collecting two sets of 60 half-core samples where one set was originally assayed at ALS and the other by EA and submitting these 120 half-core samples to a third “umpire” laboratory.

If testing program one does not indicate a bias between the labs, then the bias is likely to have been introduced during the sampling of the core in the core yard. 

Both programs will run concurrently to limit further delays and the results are expected in approximately eight weeks’ time. The time line for completion of this work will depend on turnaround times at the assay labs, so there may be some variability in this time line. The Company and RSC are putting all their efforts into getting this program completed as soon as possible.

In the event that the test work determines that a bias was introduced in the sampling process, the remaining half-core samples still held by the Company will be sent for assay and a weighted average of the two half-core samples will then be used to determine an updated assay."