RE:RE:RE:RE:Large Diameter Core Means that…I absolutely said it gives you a more representative sample? It's a larger sample so of course it's going to be more representative. I do not understand what Nozz is trying to say
"The larger diameter of the NFG drills ( 89 mm ) means that relative to intercepts of smaller diameter cores, converted to say a smaller core of 50 mm used by most juniors , NFG intercept lengths such as those below....world class as they are..would be about 3 times longer."
Such as those below...would be about 3 times longer???
All investors in the exploration market should understand TW vs Core length. Most companies report core lengths with notes specifying the estimated true width or a select few companies actually use the true width meterage. NFG doesn't do a very good job with this but it's mostly do to the complexity of the deposit. So let's just take 2 examples from the assays Nozz posted......
105g/t Au over 27.05m...There's a 1 next to the width meaning the calculated true width is 70-90% of the reported width. So the actual width of the intercept is between 18.9 to 24.3m.
430g/t Au over 5.25m... There's a 2 next to the wdith meaning the calculated true width is 40-70% of the reported width. So the actual width of the intercept is between 2.1 and 3.7m.
NFG never attempted true width calculations in 2019-2020 because you need to have a firm understanding of your veins before hand. But I have seen examples of them shifting their TW estimates from 90% for a reported width to 70-90%. This means they're still uncertain and don't fully understand even their most densely drilled areas. This is why I'd typically look at the lower percentile for a true width calculation.
If you want to listen to the pie in the sky ideas that some posters have, please be my guess. I personally don't see this as a 10-100 million ounce deposit at this time. Especially after conversing with 4 geologist from various companies throughout Canada that have done rough resources calculations. 3 couldn't get above 2 million ounces, 1 couldn't get above 1.5 million ounces.
If NFG continues to drill good results, I'm more than happy to admit I was wrong. I simply want the company to prove to shareholders they actually have economical gold in the ground with a MRE.
I've tried posting on CEO in this same manner to ensure shareholders properly understand the assay results. I was met with a lot of hate and saying I don't know anything. If they think that, that's fine. I've been in this industry just over 10 years now and I'll never claim to be an expert but I know more than most on these bullboards. I'm more than willing to converse with anyone that doesn't instantly revert to name calling.