New Found Gold Corp V.NFG

By QWN Prospect, Estimated Ounces using Volumes drilled

[nozzpack]

A very simple method based on volumes drilled for V Lake 3 pits  and Goldboro 2 pits as provided in their FS, divided by total meters drilled within those pits , giving  the FS drilling rate ( tons per meter drilled ) .

This was applied to the meters drilled for each QWN prospect and converted to ounces based on the average grade ( no cutoff ) of all samples assayed( including dusters ) for  each prosapect ( 2024 TR ) .

This assumes that the drill core size used in  QWN is the same as in V Lake and Goldboro.

As previously posted, the QWN drill was substantially larger than both oif the Proxies , being 89 mm versus less than 60 mm.

This would suggest that the estimated ounces are conservative.

It also assumes that all in assays for QWN are representative of the overall uncut raw grade for each prospect.

On average about 95 % of the meters drilled were assayed , including dusters.

Sample sizes are therefore very large, comprehensive ( includes dusters ) and entirely exploratory rather than strata  targetted definition drilling.

This is also conservative to eventual FS grade , as definition drilling would exclude  a lot of the waste ore zones with their frequent dusters.

However, exploration drilling is the best estimate of quasi random drilled volumes of population grade ( all tonnage drilled ).

Those are entirely the assay populations from which selections are made to define the optimized pits in which definition drilling is determined to occur.
As such, these raw exploration grades are the best available and considered reliable by TR 2024 reviews ,within their assessment that drill sampling methods used  by NFG was considerd to be consistent with normal exploration methodology.

Its dissapointing   that we apparently  have so little analytical talent on this BB or in the utterly wasteful CEO.

I dont understand , when contained ounces drilled is the chief unknown valuation meassure , that most  shareholders seem incapable of  judging
simple analytical estimates.

Surely, you can bounce these estimates of one or two geologists to determine what might be the potential biasses or adjustments  that could improve such estimates.

As always, critical comments especially for improved estimates are welcome.
AIMHO
GLTA

Prospect	Drilled Meters	Drilled Volume Conversion factor	Volume Sampled  mil tons	Uncut grade ( gms/ton )	Contained  Gold   m. ounces
	A	B	C ( A x B )	D	E ( C X D / 31  )
Keats Main	85574	4750 tons / meter	405	0.67	8.7
Keats North	26920	4750 tons / meter	125	0.22	0.9
Keats South	30494	4750 tons / meter	140	0.14	0.7
Keats West	30774	4750 tons / meter	140	0.53	2.4
K2	27741	4750 tons / meter	130	0.36	1.4
Lotto	24238	4750 tons / meter	110	0.36	1.2
Lotto North	26252	4750 tons / meter	125	0.12	0.4
Iceberg	33642	4750 tons / meter	160	0.69	3.6
Iceberg East	21251	4750 tons / meter	100	0.23	0.7
golden Joint	29429	4750 tons / meter	140	0.34	1.5
Total	336,000	4750 tons/ meter	1575	0.42	21.5
xxxxxxxxxxxxx	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx	xxxxxxxxxxxxxx	xxxxxxxxxxxxxx	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
V lake ( 2250 m / 428,000	428,000	5250 tons / meter	pit tonnage= 2250 m tons
Goldboro (520 m/ 122,000	122,000	4250 tons/ meter	pit tonnage = 520 m tons
Average		4750 tons/ meter