New Found Gold Corp V.NFG

Max 5-10% error

[goldanalyst]

They should have done whole core analysis from the beginning but this isn't that big a deal although it hurts credibility which is why we are selling off today. Whole core is more expensive obviously which is why imost juniors avoid it. By looking at the scatter plot you can see more dots below the mean than above it. Looks like an error of 5-10% max to the downside. Doesn't really change anything because in the end before a resource is calculated a third independent lab would have to put everything together. Short term pain here. Nothing really changes longer term. The Chyrsios system is an awesome development and should not be lost on the investing public. It's an awesome and accurate system that doesn't destroy 1/2 the core during testing. Like I said I consider this a huge buying opportunity~

[PulpCutter]

10% off?!  LOL.  Try 'off by a factor of 10'.   The sample that ALS reported as around 225 g/t, Eastern reported as around 35 g/t.  Other samples: ALS about 135 g/t, Eastern about 50 g/t.  ALS about 100 g/t, Eastern about 15 g/t.  EVERY high-grade sample is off.  These are MAJOR differences, and they ALL are to one side.

[Bigshot123]

Bigshot says your post indicates that you are an imbecile. Bigshot feels sorry for you.

[Spikearoo1]

So were they using the exact same core half?  Or one company used side A while the other used side B of the same drill core?  Thats the key.  If they sampled the same side of the core and were off then that's a concern...(don't see how that's possible).  However, not one side of the core is the same as the other.  Thats why its key to crush the whole core and

[Sciencegeek1]

From the NR "RSC, recently submitted 30 half-core samples to Eastern Analytical (“EA”) for assay. The other half of these drill core intervals had previously been assayed by ALS" So it was side A and side B of the same drill core being compared.

[Bigshot123]

BIgshot says this was a well reasoned post. Well done. Bigshot is pleased.

[PulpCutter]

NFG sent Eastern the other half of that section of core, as a QC check.   Note that the reference material samples assayed the same at both labs.

[goldanalyst]

Most of the 30 samples are close to the 1:1  line. The outliers that you are talking about are just that outliers and the ratio between verfiied and original are no where near your 10X. Small sample size as well. No need to panic here IMO. Just sell if you're worried about the QA/QC or stick with the story if you think this is just a bump in the road. Frankly I'm looking forward to

[PulpCutter]

Nonsense.  When EVERY high-grade sample is off - all 6 of the 6 - that's a trend, not an outlier.   Original poster claimed Eastern's QC assays were "only 5-10% off".  225/35 = 6.4, 100/15 = 6.67.  

[goldanalyst]

Disagree. Move along. Sell or hold your call. I know what I'm doing. 

[Sciencegeek1]

I tend to agree with PulpCutter here, the QC material is a good indication of whether both labs are operating using similar or the same approach to get the same result.  That does not mean you cannot have differences that are reflected in differet sample matricies that a reference material cannot account for.  But without knowing more it seems perhaps more plausible that the bias was

[PulpCutter]

ScienceGeek, Wouldn't you think accepted practice would be to enforce randomized selection of which half of the core to send for assay, so that hypothetical example: the core shack kid dosen't just pick the shinier side?    

[goldstd69]

pulp dont you think there would be an average of the two labs for a somewhat acceptable ideo of the assay...assuming splitting of the rock sample?  just wondering your opinion

[Sciencegeek1]

That would be my assumption that yes there is a standard protocol in place for that along with logs with names, dates, etc for traceability info.  I would very surprised if it was not.  But until they share more information who knows.  It is an easy thing for them to clarify.  At this point we are just guessing as to why there is this deviation.