New Found Gold Corp V.NFG

RE:RE:Eldreco

[AlwaysLong683]

eldreco wrote: Lookingforclues,

I am more than sure that every other mining company in Newfoundland is looking at this question (we used to say....like a dog looking at a snake!) - all assays from that lab are possibly in question, but only NFG has moved forward...what does that say?

In fairness to the other companies who have also sent cores to these labs, if I was CEO of one of them, I wouldn't do anything re. an investigation or re-assessment of assays until NFG releases it's findings into possible bias (likely sometime in Janurary). Reason being not even NFG knows whether the labs are at fault re. bias or not.

From NFG's press release dated November 4:

"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. 

In the event that the investigation determines that 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."

If it's the labs fault, then NFG looks good for re-assessing the assays in question in an effort to present more accurate results, and other companies who used these same labs should do their own investigation.

If the bias was introduced during the sampling of the core in the core yard, then it may be the case that it was one or more NFG employees that caused the bias. This would make NFG look bad as investors might take this as a sign that NFG does not properly supervise core yard employees, or perhaps deliberate bias by one or more employees took place....?

NFG may be holding off on releasing new assay results until these bias investigations are complete and old assay results are adjusted if necessary and the revised assay numbers are released first.